You cannot initiate the confrontation, start getting your ass kicked, and then decide to shoot.....

[Logical]

the person you initiated the confrontation with.

I personally think that Zimmerman started asking Trayvon questions, Trayvon told him to fuck off, and then Zimmermen grabbed him or tried to detain him for the police. Then Trayvon and him wrestled and Zimmerman ended up getting his ass kicked and then shot him. I see no reason for Trayvon to bother Zimmerman unless Zimmerman was trying to detain him.

Unfortunately there is no way this can be proved. So I think Zimmerman will walk. Only one juror has to believe Zimmerman's story.

[maxsolomon]

1. There's another thread today where the exact opposite is said to be justification, and vehemently.

By Green Storm Cloud.

It seems that in Texas you can start it, and if it goes south, defend yourself with deadly force. But only if you're fat and caucasoid.

I have some hope that justice will be served. But he'll get 1st degree manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder.

[dkf]

2. By Florida law you can...

If you reasonably believe you were in danger of death or great bodily harm even if you started the confrontation. Yeah that seems a bit much but it's how the law works there.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

[Kablooie]

5. That's what this whole thing is about, the horrible law that makes murder legal.

You don't have to claim self defense, just fear.
If you were afraid you had a legal right to murder.

[cthulu2016]

9. That's not true

The word "reasonable" has a meaning in law.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. subjective meaning. it is a horrible law. if you don't admit that

then you are guilty of stupidity or wanton bloodlust.

[cthulu2016]

15. Learning some law would help you here

A reasonablility standard in law is NOT a subjective standard.

Not.

[Kablooie]

24. "Reasonable" seems to have different values base on the races involved and court's locality.

The standards for a white man feeling threatened by a black man, and therefore justified in use of force, can be looser than a black man feeling threatened by a white man..
So, yes it has legal meaning but it's not clearly defined.

In a "duty to retreat" case the standards of reasonableness for use of force become much stricter for any defendant.

[LanternWaste]

27. Zimmerman should also have heeded your advice also

" Learning some law would help you here.."

Zimmerman should also have heeded your advice also when he and his wife attempted to commit financial fraud...

[sir pball]

21. If it's a "horrible" law, so is every single other state's law. They *all* say "reasonable".

Here's the three most restrictive (on firearms at least) states' laws on self defense. Every other one I've read is more or less the same, they ALL adhere to the "reasonable" standard. That "subjectivity" cuts both ways, BTW - negligent homicide/manslaughter laws invariably require a "reasonable" belief that one's actions can kill. (emphases added)

New York:

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person..

California:

3.When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed;

Massachusetts:

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

I guess the CA/MA/NY Legislatures are all wantonly bloodthirsty idiots. If you were king, how would you rewrite these statutes? Be specific - it is law after all.

[Kablooie]

28. I concede "horrible" was a poor choice of adjective.

"Controversial" would have been more appropriate.

But the law does allow a much freer interpretation of "reasonableness" and therefore can be used to exonerate someone who would, in many person's eyes, be considered to have used unjustified force.

[sir pball]

37. It does, but I don't think there's a better answer unless

One wants to basically "outlaw" self-defense. The big issue I see is situations like this where there's only one surviving witness - then the "reasonable" hinges solely on their story.

* -

[Kablooie]

38. The traditional definition of civilian self-defense has a "duty to retreat" component.

That requires a defendant to demonstrate having taken reasonable steps to avoid conflict before engaging.
If retreat is not possible or poses a danger then use of force can be considered self-defense.
This makes deadly force a last resort option.

So if the defendant is the aggressor and the conflict results in him killing someone he can't claim self-defense.

When the "duty to retreat" is taken away, as in the "stand your ground" laws, you can instigate the conflict and still claim self defense.
Deadly force does not have to be a last resort option. You can be exonerated even though you chose to kill someone over an option to prevent the conflict.

Also since it was not necessarily a last resort option, if you permanently debilitate instead of kill the guy, he can sue you because it was your choice to use deadly force. In a traditional self-defense case it was a last resort so you didn't really have a choice.

I think that's the essence of the debate.
It encourages deadly force be used to resolve conflicts where it was only a last resort option before.

[sir pball]

39. DTR and "reasonable" are generally unrelated.

New York has Duty To Retreat and their standard for lethal force is still "reasonable man*". SYG isn't actually a particularly new concept; when I got my first CCW in CT in 2001 the classroom instruction covered this - even then, quite a few states didn't codify DTR, and it was generally assumed that if you resorted to lethal force, the "reasonable man*" test already covered it. In other words - shoot if you have to, it's sensible and reasonable. Hell, California has had Castle Doctrine and SYG for forever. PA has SYG in 2003 when I got my permit there.

The problem (as I understand, I haven't taken a class nor studied the law) with Florida particularly is that their self-defense laws say that if the situation prima facie is legal SD, law enforcement is barred from investigating. THAT is stupid and reckless to the nth degree...any "good shoot" should be investigated thoroughly. If I ever had to take a life in defense, be it with a gun, a knife, or my hands, I would both expect and be willing to have a grand jury review my actions.

* - "Reasonable Man Standard" is a very old, established legal construct.

Immediate edit - I realized as I was hitting "post" that there are a LOT of fuckfaces out there who don't think like me, who don't regard force as a last resort. A lot of dickfaces go out looking for fights looking to shoot (like I think Zimmy was), and that should probably be codified in the law. Not like FL, or even PA, which say respectively "You can start a fight but if you reasonably feel in danger of your life you can kill" and "You can start a fight as long as you don't intend on using lethal force" - there should be strong legal language to the effect of "If you carry, you better damned well do your best to avoid ANY fight". God knows, I've let people cut me in line, apologized for bumping into them, even moved my car once, because I was carrying and de-escalating is always foremost in my mind when I am.

[Just Saying]

30. Reasonable

"reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities."

Did Zimmerman have an appropriate, rational belief his life was in danger? Did Trayvon have a rational belief he was going to be harmed?

It's also importent to note that in the law there's a difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt." We can always have a doubt but will the jury find a reasonable doubt?

[Just Saying]

6. This is likely what Trayvon was doing.

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. "

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Since the "reasonable belief" that you were in danger of death or great bodily harm is really

subjective (despite the verbiage of "reasonable belief&quot , if the fight was only witnessed by the two parties fighting, couldn't it be feasible that you start a fight, you start losing and getting your ass kicked, and just kill your victim because it was your "reasonable belief" you were going to die (but you never were in any reasonable danger)? Nobody else but you could insist that was your primary motivation.

And if you're the victim, that leaves you in a very vulnerable situation: let the aggressor beat the shit out of you or fight back and risk death.

[KittyWampus]

18. if no one is around… you don't even have to "start losing". If it's just 2 people you can initiate a

fight and escalate to shooting immediately and claim you were afraid. On purpose.

That is what seems most problematic. To me. But I am not following very closely.

[treestar]

22. This is where it is hard to believe Zimmerman had a reasonable belief of him imminent death

or great bodily harm.

And he could have shot Trayvon in the leg or arm and that would have stopped anything beating or an initial shock that would have given Zimmerman a chance to get away.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. Horrible law.

I support self defense. I support "stand your ground." I do NOT support any law that allows the instigator of a conflict to avoid responsibility for the outcome of that conflict. From what I know about this case, Zimmerman was the instigator. Even if Martin was the one to throw the first blow, the responsibility for what ended up happening is Zimmerman's. If Florida law contradicts that rather basic ethical principle, then Florida law is fucking idiotic.

[hack89]

3. Actually you can. Go read the Florida statutes on self defense. nt

[etherealtruth]

4. "You cannot initiate the confrontation, start getting your ass kicked, and then decide to shoot.."

According to multiple posters here, that is exactly what "you" can do. I have suspicions that this only holds true if the person you kill is a young black teen/man.

There is a greater question of moral responsibility here ... sadly, many find Zimmerman's actions to be correct, according to their moral convictions(or mare accurately, absence of ).

[cthulu2016]

8. Making up laws as you imagine them is a rather silly hobby

[etherealtruth]

14. May I assume your belief is that the law was designed to apply to a situation such as this?

[Logical]

31. Ahhh....some one is grumpy! Nap time for you! Here is picture for you....

[cthulu2016]

12. Based on that post, you seem to be on precisely Zimmerman's moral level

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. no. I don't carry a loaded weapon and walk around looking for trouble

so....you would be wrong. based on your screen name, you have issues.

[uppityperson]

19. FWIW, I see that hidden post as predicting the future, not hoping for someone to die.

Zimmy's future, no matter what, isn't very good.

[treestar]

25. That was a silly hide

The idea is: Florida is going to have a lot of unnecessary deaths if they interpret the law to let you kill somebody in response to a person's own strained interpretation they are in danger. In fact it's almost open season on black men. The "reasonable" element has to be emphasized a whole lot. In which case, Zimmerman had no reasonable fear. Without Trayvon pointing another gun at him, how could his fear of imminent death or serious injury be "reasonable?" This is why Z. should not "walk."

[Lurks Often]

16. So you are advocating for the murder of another human being. You are a real class act. n/t

[premium]

20. Whoops,

I guess the jury didn't agree with him advocating for the murder of GZ.

[premium]

17. So, are you advocating for the murder of Zimmerman?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. He initiated the confrontation by stalking him.

At that point he, in my opinion, ceded any right to use deadly force.

[Gothmog]

26. Zimmerman's story does not hold up

Zimmerman has told four or five different stories trying to justify a self defense claim.

[Vattel]

29. There is certainly reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

[Logical]

32. Yes, only because no one saw him do it. n-t

[Vattel]

33. Okay, but the keep in mind that the prosecution

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's behavior was not justifiable self-defense.

[Logical]

35. I 100% agree with you. It just sucks there was not a witness. n-t

[HooptieWagon]

34. I agree with the OP.

However, SYG says a person can initiate a confrontation, and then when getting ass kicked pullout a gun and shoot. In several recent cases, however, juries haven't followed that. They convicted the confrontation starter/shooter. It toigh to predict how this case will end.

[unblock]

36. stated as such, sure you can. it all depends on the facts

and at least some of the difference of opinion is based on the limited facts in this particular case and different people's filling in of the blanks.


if i go up to someone and innocently ask him the time of day and he starts wailing on me and credibly threatening to kill me, then of course i have the right to use force, deadly if necessary, to save myself.

on the other hand, if i go up to someone and start using force myself, or at least putting the other person in a position where a reasonable person would think i was about to use force or otherwise commit a felony, then that person has the right to fight back, and i can't use his fighting back as an excuse to escalate my own initiation of force.



in the case at hand, the most generous view of the missing facts i can think for zimmerman is that he was trying to perform a citizen's arrest and when treyvon fled, zimmerman felt justified in using force to detain him. treyvon fought back, got the upper hand, and did something that would convince a reasonable man in zimmerman's position that he had to shoot in order to survive or escape serious injury.

if nothing else, this illustrates a grave danger in making a citizen's arrest. lacking a law enforcement uniform or id, the person you are arresting can't be sure you're trying to detain them for the stated purpose or for nefarious purposes.

[NickB79]

40. It depends on what you mean by "initiate"

I know a lot of DU likes to believe that simply following Trayvon was enough to be considered initiation of a confrontation, but the law does not hold to this explanation. Zimmerman was clearly being an idiot and an asshole by ignoring the 911 operator's order to not follow Trayvon, but doing so and following him in a public area was not in itself illegal. Neither was him speaking to Trayvon and accusing him of being somewhere he wasn't supposed to be, implying he was a criminal, etc.

Legally, the point of confrontation being initiated was the moment either one laid hands on the other. Since we don't have a reliable witness for this, we have no way of knowing how it started. It's possible Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon as you claim, or that Trayvon became (understandably) angered enough to throw a punch. THAT is the key point in all of this.

I feel sorry for the jury; this is a horrible case to be a part of.