News Are 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Justified in Cases Like Trayvon Martin's Death?

[Evo]

The above post is about the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida and consists of at least three speculative points: 1. Trayvon was afraid.

He was on the phone with his girlfriend and told her so.

2. Trayvon tried to run. 3. Zimmerman started chasing him.

This is on the 911 call.

Have you read the transcript?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]

NOTE:

[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]
[Read CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin's explanation of why the use of a racial slur is critical in this case.]
911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed

 

[phoenix:\\]

Only if you're afraid she could beat you within an inch of your life or beyond, and believed that she intended to.

Anyone is capable of killing you so you could still be afraid your wife is going to kill you at that specific moment. As for the intentions, if you shoot her, you're more than likely going to say, "she intended to kill". This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it, but as I said before, anyone is capable, so the mere part of attacking would pose a legitimate threat to one's life.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it

I think the problem is that it takes away the use of reasonable force in self defence and replaces it with reasonable judgement. Now rather than a court having to decide if the defence's response was justified they have to decide if the defence's perception of the threat was justified, a far harder thing to do.

 

[turbo]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

 

[Curious3141]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

Yes, the way I read it, it basically says you don't have to run away from anybody. It doesn't say you're allowed to run *after* somebody.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

Yes, the way I read it, it basically says you don't have to run away from anybody. It doesn't say you're allowed to run *after* somebody.

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

 

[Curious3141]

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

The question is: is it reasonable for GZ to have chased TM in the first place? He had no reasonable basis to suppose that a crime had been committed by TM. So what the heck was he chasing him for - how would he be helping the police by finding out where he was going?

The situation would've had a much different complexion if GZ had seen TM taking something illegally (and it had been found on TM's body to corroborate his account). Then at least GZ could've said what you're saying - he'd been sure TM had been committing a crime, and had been chasing him to make sure he could point him out to the police later. TM turned on him because he didn't want to go down for the crime, but GZ stood his ground and defended himself with a gun. That probably would've gone down OK for GZ, because an average jury's sympathies generally tend to go against a person who's committed a crime, and generally for a person who seeks to bring him to justice.

But that's NOT what happened. GZ had no good reason to be chasing TM, and the police had explicitly told him he didn't need to do that. Essentially, even if TM had stopped running and had tackled GZ, it could easily be argued that TM had been standing his ground by not continuing to run away from GZ (the aggressor). Even if GZ's legal counsel tried to argue that GZ was then entitled to stand his own ground and "defend" himself with his firearm, there's the problem that it was GZ that caused the situation in the first place!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

The only difference "Stand Your Ground" laws add to normal self defense claims, so far as I am aware, is to decide whether someone needs to have attempted to flee the source of the threat to their person before defending themselves. In some places the law states that one must need to have attempted "retreat" first, if retreat was possible, in order for a claim of self defense to be valid. This is called "Duty to Retreat". "Stand Your Ground" says that a person need not have attempted to retreat from their attacker for a claim of self defense to be valid.

The Florida law in particular adds that the defense may make a motion for dismissal on the facts and that if the facts support self defense then the case is to be dismissed with prejudice to prevent further legal action. This is separate issue from the particular concept and meaning of "Stand Your Ground". I would assume the reason for that added bit is to prevent juries in civil cases deciding that an apparently "lawful" action resulted in "wrongful death".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anyone is capable of killing you so you could still be afraid your wife is going to kill you at that specific moment. As for the intentions, if you shoot her, you're more than likely going to say, "she intended to kill". This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it, but as I said before, anyone is capable, so the mere part of attacking would pose a legitimate threat to one's life.

Standard self defense law in the US is based on the perception of the defendant. Say some guy tells his buddies that he is going to put the fear of god into me by shoving an unloaded gun in my face. When he does so I pull a knife from my pocket and stab him. According to the law I have acted under the reasonable belief that a person putting a gun in my face was a threat to my life despite the fact that it was not loaded and they had specifically told people they only meant to scare me.

Note that it must be a reasonable belief. If my spouse slaps me I do not necessarily have any reason to believe that they are going to kill me. Whether or not my spouse is capable of killing me does not make for a reasonable belief that they will kill me. There is another somewhat controversial legal defense out there called "battered wife syndrome" which basically says that someone chronically abused by their spouse may be living in constant fear for their life and that fear may be entirely reasonable under the circumstances. In such a case one slap may be enough.

But none of this has anything specifically to do with "Stand Your Ground" laws.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't quite understand why there is any question at all regarding the applicability of the Florida stand your ground statute in this case. The statute has more to do with the use of deadly force than whether someone is following or being followed by another. The test isn't whether someone was chasing or following at all but whether someone reasonably believes it (use of deadly force) is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Forcible felony includes aggravated assault in Florida and someone straddling your chest hitting you in the face, breaking your nose, and pounding your head against the concrete can reasonably be defined as 'aggravated'.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

[chemisttree]

He was on the phone with his girlfriend and told her so.

This is on the 911 call.

Have you read the transcript?

That transcript includes the now debunked and retracted comment added regarding the racial epithet. You should be more careful regarding the heresay you introduce into this discussion.

 

[Evo]

That transcript includes the now debunked and retracted comment added regarding the racial epithet. You should be more careful regarding the heresay you introduce into this discussion.

I wasn't the one that posted the article, so you should be more careful in accusing people. Also, I didn't repost it for what he said, I was pointing out what he was doing.

Also, Trayvon was defending himself. Zimmerman had no marks, bruises, or abrasions on his face. That is clear in pictures of him taken both the night of the incident and in folowing days. It apears he may have fallen backwards and hit his head.

Please post the retraction of the racial slur from CNN's website. I listened to the call, what he said what quite clear.

I checked the CNN site and there is no retraction listed with the original report.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-slur-in-911-tapes/

 

[chemisttree]

I wasn't the one that posted the article, so you should be more careful in accusing people. Also, I didn't repost it for what he said, I was pointing out what he was doing.

You posted the text and linked to it in Post #61. Accusing? No.

Also, Trayvon was defending himself. Zimmerman had no marks, bruises, or abrasions on his face. That is clear in pictures of him taken both the night of the incident and in folowing days. It apears he may have fallen backwards and hit his head.

The police report indicates otherwise unless you think that bleeding from the nose doesn't qualify as a mark on his face.

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

Please post the retraction of the racial slur from CNN's website. I listened to the call, what he said what quite clear.

Ha ha! Good one! You actually believe that CNN posts its retractions on their website!

Here's the rest of the story.

The retraction was the subject of numerous news stories in the days after CNN retracted it.

 

[mheslep]

Also, Trayvon was defending himself.

How do you know who was defending himself? You have already stated that the point at which Zimmerman produced his weapon was unknown.

 

[mheslep]

... the calls indicate Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman...

He was on the phone with his girlfriend and told her so. ...

Per ABC, the lawyer of the girlfriend, says that the girlfriend said:

..."He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T5bksatZ4pk

 

[Evo]

You linked to it in Post #61.

I reposted it from Mheslep's post #33.

Do you have a link to the retraction on CNN's website?

 

[Evo]

Per ABC, the lawyer of the girlfriend, says that the girlfriend said:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T5bksatZ4pk

Like I said, Trayvon was defending himself. IMO, based on this.

 

[mheslep]

Zimmerman had no marks, bruises, or abrasions on his face.

From the police report:

Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. ...

http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf

 

[chemisttree]

I reposted it from Mheslep's post #33.

So your issue was the difference between 'posting' and reposting? You're right Mheslep should be more careful about the link and the heresay introduced into the discussion as well but the offensive heresay was edited out in that post.

Do you have a link to the retraction on CNN's website?

Not that hard to find.

You probably think that isn't a retraction at all, right? Well, in the strictest sense it isn't one... which makes the whole thing that much more reprehensible.

 

[Evo]

So your issue was the difference between 'posting' and reposting? You're right Mheslep should be more careful about the link and the heresay introduced into the discussion as well but the offensive heresay was edited out in that post.

No, because I clicked on the link he posted and copied and pasted straight from it. It happens to be in the article's transcript. Neither of us was discussing the slur, so you were wrong in accusing us.

 

[chemisttree]

No, because I clicked on the link he posted and copied and pasted straight from it. It happens to be in the article's transcript. Neither of us was discussing the slur, so you were wrong in accusing us.

I believe that anything posted, especially if it is copied and pasted on this Forum, that supports someone's argument is a statement of fact unless commented upon otherwise. This case is extremely sensitive vis-a-vis its racial connotations so statements like "(racial slurs by the killer can be heard on the 911 tapes)", Post #10, or the comments added to the transcripts you linked to in Post #61 while an understandable mistake back on March 26 should certainly be interpreted as false on April 22 given CNN's backpedaling on April 4. I think we should be more mindful of the links we post including the text we copy verbatim especially if that information is of an inflammatory content. That would include the flawed 'analysis' of the 911 call by CNN or the doctored 911 call reported by NBC.

As to whether I'm accusing anyone of anything, I refer you to the P&WA guidelines referring to "counter-arguments to statements already made". I don't consider what I posted to be an accusation at all. Consider it a request to be more careful not to introduce inflammatory, false heresay into our discussion.

 

[Evo]

I believe that anything posted, especially if it is copied and pasted on this Forum, that supports someone's argument is a statement of fact unless commented upon otherwise. This case is extremely sensitive vis-a-vis its racial connotations so statements like "(racial slurs by the killer can be heard on the 911 tapes)", Post #10, or the comments added to the transcripts you linked to in Post #61 while an understandable mistake back on March 26 should certainly be interpreted as false on April 22 given CNN's backpedaling on April 4. I think we should be more mindful of the links we post including the text we copy verbatim especially if that information is of an inflammatory content. That would include the flawed 'analysis' of the 911 call by CNN or the doctored 911 call reported by NBC.

As to whether I'm accusing anyone of anything, I refer you to the P&WA guidelines referring to "counter-arguments to statements already made". I don't consider what I posted to be an accusation at all. Consider it a request to be more careful not to introduce inflammatory, false heresay into our discussion.

Again, I was only pointing out zimmerman's physical pursuit from the 911 call. Nothing else was mentioned by me. Everytime I refer to an article posted, it would be absolutely ludicrous for me, or anyone else, to go searching every line of the article to see if something they are not even referring to may have changed. In the future, please pay attention to what is being referred to so that you do not become confused. It is fine if while reading the part referred to that if you find something else NOT referred to that you believe is wrong, point it out.

Enough derailing the thread over your misunderstanding of what was being referred to.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Zimmerman had no marks, bruises, or abrasions on his face.

From the police report:

Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. ...

http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf

There are claims that Zimmerman was hit in the face. Zimmerman and/or his lawyer even claimed that his nose had been broken. A bloody nose by itself is rather scant evidence of such. One would generally expect bruising at the least unless it was only a single weak jab to the nose. One's nose may bleed from a head trauma. Considering the seemingly minor injuries sustained by Zimmerman it would seem quite possible that he was shoved, fell back, and hit his head on the ground. Maybe Martin even took a swing, only just connected with Zimmerman's nose, and Zimmerman fell and hit his head while attempting to pull back from the swing. Either way the evidence that we have seen of Zimmerman's injuries do not appear to support the idea that someone was on top of him beating him about the face and smashing his head into the ground.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but the BBC has made available the affidavit of two investigators. It's not a complete accounting of the events but something that I found interesting and hadn't heard before is that the screams for help heard on the recordings of neighbours calls to the police (if you haven't listened to them they were available from various places online) have been identified by Mrs Martin as the voice of her son.

 

[ThinkToday]

The question is: is it reasonable for GZ to have chased TM in the first place? He had no reasonable basis to suppose that a crime had been committed by TM. So what the heck was he chasing him for - how would he be helping the police by finding out where he was going?

The situation would've had a much different complexion if GZ had seen TM taking something illegally (and it had been found on TM's body to corroborate his account). Then at least GZ could've said what you're saying - he'd been sure TM had been committing a crime, and had been chasing him to make sure he could point him out to the police later. TM turned on him because he didn't want to go down for the crime, but GZ stood his ground and defended himself with a gun. That probably would've gone down OK for GZ, because an average jury's sympathies generally tend to go against a person who's committed a crime, and generally for a person who seeks to bring him to justice.

But that's NOT what happened. GZ had no good reason to be chasing TM, and the police had explicitly told him he didn't need to do that. Essentially, even if TM had stopped running and had tackled GZ, it could easily be argued that TM had been standing his ground by not continuing to run away from GZ (the aggressor). Even if GZ's legal counsel tried to argue that GZ was then entitled to stand his own ground and "defend" himself with his firearm, there's the problem that it was GZ that caused the situation in the first place!

I believe in the stand your ground laws. No one should have to flee and leave their neighbor's safety, or their home, car, etc. possessions to a thief. I do believe there are questions about who was standing their ground. You argue GZ should not have followed TM, and I’d disagree. GZ, whether as part of a neighborhood watch or a concerned citizen, he should be able to watch and alert police to the presence of a hooded stranger at night moving between buildings in his gated community. While TM had every right to be in the gated community, he was a stranger. The community had several break-ins. I don’t see a problem with GZ following (NOT CONFRONTING) the stranger. If “TM” had been a stalker looking to rob, rape, kidnap, or kill someone, the people would be talking about how brave GZ was for watching the villain while police were on the way. Likewise, if “TM” had just raped or killed someone, people would be talking about how lucky GZ was to have had stand your ground laws that allowed him to protect himself.

Generally, IMO, the aggressor is the person that throws the first punch. I think it’s a safe bet that TM didn’t hit GZ, breaking his nose and causing the cuts on the back of GZ’s head, after he was shot. I think it’s unlikely that TM confronted GZ with his gun drawn. I think GZ’s account is the most plausible, which is not to say correct.

In the end, I suspect we’ll find out it went something like GZ followed TM for a good reason. TM misunderstood GZ following him and TM confronted GZ, probably pissed off. I suspect if GZ had said he was part of a neighborhood watch, that would have set TM at ease, or if TM had said we was visiting is family in the gated community, that would have set GZ at ease. Rather than talking, I suspect someone started swinging. I believe the 3” taller TM caused sufficient injuries to 20 lb heavier ZG that ZG felt endangered and he shot TM. I’ve had my noise broken before, and if you’ve had your noise broken before, you know your vision temporarily goes to crap, eyes water, etc. I can see where being unable to see and still getting pummeled would make him fearful for his life. Perhaps the real lesson is for people to learn to talk.

 

[Evo]

I believe in the stand your ground laws. No one should have to flee and leave their neighbor's safety, or their home, car, etc. possessions to a thief. I do believe there are questions about who was standing their ground. You argue GZ should not have followed TM, and I’d disagree. GZ, whether as part of a neighborhood watch or a concerned citizen, he should be able to watch and alert police to the presence of a hooded stranger at night moving between buildings in his gated community. While TM had every right to be in the gated community, he was a stranger. The community had several break-ins. I don’t see a problem with GZ following (NOT CONFRONTING) the stranger. If “TM” had been a stalker looking to rob, rape, kidnap, or kill someone, the people would be talking about how brave GZ was for watching the villain while police were on the way. Likewise, if “TM” had just raped or killed someone, people would be talking about how lucky GZ was to have had stand your ground laws that allowed him to protect himself.

But none of these things happened. Zimmerman appears to be a highly paranoid self appointed vigilante. First following, then chasing Trayvon was wrong. This was something for the police to handle. Zimmerman wasn't even officially part of the neighborhood watch IIRC. Zimmerman provoked an altercation with Trayvon, that much we do know. IMO.

 

[chemisttree]

Another caffeine-related shooting. I tell you, a teenager hopped up on skittles and caffeine is a recipe for disaster!

 

[Oltz]

But none of these things happened. Zimmerman appears to be a highly paranoid self appointed vigilante. First following, then chasing Trayvon was wrong. This was something for the police to handle. Zimmerman wasn't even officially part of the neighborhood watch IIRC. Zimmerman provoked an altercation with Trayvon, that much we do know. IMO.

At what point does following become chasing?

Last evening I was coming home from work and got cut off at an intersection by somebody changing lanes and turning from the wrong lane. No worries I am a low stress person. It turns out that we are heading in the same direction and make several turns the same all with me following the other car. We end up turning onto a residential street and driving along the car infront of me slams on its breaks and pulls over. I also stop and after a few seconds pull over and get out of my car and walk up to her car. She has her phone in one hand and pepper spray in the other.

I say ma'am you are blocking my drive way I am sorry if you were scarred but I would like to pull into my home.

It turns out she lives 5 or 6 houses up from me and thought I had been chasing her the entire way to her home.

I find it interesting that in this thread the people who are neutral to protective of GZ say followed/ing and we will see what happens in court. The people protective of Trayvon say chased/hunted and are certain GZ is guilty of murder.

Mis understandings are easy and can be dangerous the best way to avoid them is to be upfront with people. Being followed never gives you the right to attack anyone as far as I know. Getting assaulted does give you the right to fight back and I am pretty sure the assault happened before the gun shots. I do not know what was said before the confrontation started.

I do know that a middle aged slighlty over weight man is unlikley to be able to "chase down" a 17 year old who is fit and running scared. At some point Trayvon made the choice to stop fleeing and confront the man following/chasing him and decided to make it physical for reasons we do not know.

The part of this case that annoys me is the need for the media and parts of our government to attempt to make this political and use it to gain an advantage. No matter what happens a young man is dead and another man needs to live with his actions for the rest of his life this is not a political game.

 

[ThinkToday]

But none of these things happened. Zimmerman appears to be a highly paranoid self appointed vigilante. First following, then chasing Trayvon was wrong. This was something for the police to handle. Zimmerman wasn't even officially part of the neighborhood watch IIRC. Zimmerman provoked an altercation with Trayvon, that much we do know. IMO.

I find your comment about his personality to be harsh and difficult to substantiate, given news reports such as the one below. Likewise, I find your comment about GZ not being officially part of the neighborhood watch puzzling, given every news account stating he was. For example, from the Orlando Sentinel,"It's unclear how Zimmerman was employed when he encountered Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, but he took his role as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer very seriously. Police say Zimmerman had called to report suspicious people on multiple occasions, just as he did when he saw Trayvon. In the past 15 months, he made 46 calls to Sanford police, according to records."

I don't think being zealous about being part of a neighborhood watch equates to "highly paranoid self appointed vigilante".

“Zimmerman provoked an altercation with Trayvon, that much we do know. “ And we know that how? Just exactly how do we know who threw the first punch?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Zimmerman was officially acting in the capacity of Neighborhood Watchperson. There wasn't an organization because at the homeowner's association meeting he was the only person who volunteered for it, so nobody else was involved. But that's hardly his fault, it was understood and accepted by the general community that he was running a watch organization in an official capacity. This website
http://www.condoandhoalawgroup.com/news/neighborhood-watch-programs-homeowners-associations/
does a good job explaining how they screwed it up but that's different from such a position never existing

I don't find Martin's mother saying that the screams on the phone sound like her son particularly convincing. Identification of this sort is never particularly reliable IMO and do you really think his mother is going to say "No that's definitely Zimmerman screaming, my son must have been beating him up"