In Zimmerman Trial, Prosecution Witnesses Bolster Self-Defense Claims (the New York Times?)

The New York Times ^ | June 30, 2013 | Lizette Alvarez

[toldyou]

How about the POTUS?

[toldyou]

“Trayvon Martin’s Involvement in Local Burglaries?

http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police/

[riverdawg]

“Even if you shove the person, if they respond by hitting you over the head with a brick, you have a right to defend yourself.”

I agree that the hypothetical scenario you responded to bears no relation to the GZ case. However, shoving someone is in many jurisdictions considered a provocative, physical escalation. The self-defense law in Georgia, for example, specifically states that the “aggressor” forfeits a presumptive claim of self defense unless he or she attempts to withdraw from continued combat and communicates this desire to withdraw to the opponent. In the example you gave, I suspect my local DA would prosecute the CCW holder for aggravated assault, at a minimum, and possibly second-degree murder if the “self-defense” resulted in a death.

[GilesB]

HERE is the problem - being followed by someone, in and of itself, is not sufficient evidence of imminent danger to justify a claim of self defense.

[MMaschin]

Jentel testified that TM had reached his fathers house, before the attack took place. If that is true, then what justification does TM have to go back and confront/attack GZ?

Simple - none.

[MrB]

1) Being urged to by Jaentel
2) Having been “dissed”

[PhatHead]

Thanks, yes, I agree I am summarizing in a way that removes nuance. Just trying to make the general point that it is possible to make physical contact without losing one’s right to self-defense.

[infowarrior]

I seem to remember something quite similar myself.

[TigersEye]

That’s right, I forgot about that. Angela Cory is a mean spirited nut case.

[TigersEye]

The self-defense law in Georgia, for example, specifically states that the “aggressor” forfeits a presumptive claim of self defense unless he or she attempts to withdraw from continued combat and communicates this desire to withdraw to the opponent.

When someone is sitting on top of you pummeling you your options for withdrawal are pretty much limited to trying to wriggle your way out from under them which GZ said he tried to do. GZ was also yelling "help" at the top of his lungs which could easily be construed as communicating a desire to withdraw from the fight.

[Scoutmaster]

Zimmerman’s PA has testified that “whatever actions he took to stop the injuries probably saved his life.”

Yes, she did. I was surprised only that O'Mara didn't fist-pump at that answer.

[dead]

Mr. Zimmerman, 29, who is half-Peruvian...

That must be the half that's important to the NY Times. His other half appears to be completely irrelevant and unmentioned by the Times.

[riverdawg]

Yes, I agree that the GZ case bears no relation to the hypothetical scenario to which I was responding in my post. I was just making the point that the presumptive right to self defense is lost in many jurisdictions (even in Georgia which, like Florida, is a “stand your ground” state) by an “aggressor” (which GZ clearly was not under any reasonable interpretation) who does not subsequently attempt to withdraw from continued combat. This feature of the law is intended to prohibit precisely the type of “cowboy” behavior that gun-grabbers emphasize in their blanket opposition to “stand your ground” laws.

[AppyPappy]

Riots sell a lot of newspapers and commercials.

[TigersEye]

I understand. I was just applying the known facts of the GZ-TM case to the legal standard you put forth to demonstrate how it plays out. No argument or criticism intended.

[Friendofgeorge]

no problem

[2ndDivisionVet]

He’s at least one-quarter black. Funny that no media source EVER mentions that. Doesn’t fit the narrative at all. does it?

[boatbums]

Here's a case study pursuant to the Florida Stand your Ground Statute (enacted in 2005) but which occurred in 1980 in Florida:

An military veteran, with multiple tours in Viet Nam, and his wife, along with their young son, are settling in for the night. The wife is in the home's laundry room adjacent to the attached closed garage. The vet was in the garage and happened to be standing between the two parked family cars when suddenly another car crashed through the closed garage door shoving the left car into the freezer and the right car through the laundry room wall. The wife was bombarded with crashing bottles and cans that were on shelving of the wall and both the door to the garage as well as to the kitchen were damaged so that they were unable to be closed. The vet, luckily, was between the two cars because he would have been crushed by the oncoming car. This car then backed up, revved the engine and smashed into the garage again. At that point, the stunned vet yelled to his wife to get their son and run to the back bedroom and hide as well as call the police. She did.

The vet then ran to the master bedroom and got his pistol unsure of either the motive for the attack or how many people were involved in the assault. As he raced to the front entrance of the house, the driver had backed up a third time and was gunning the engine to ram the house a third time. The vet did not know how many people he would be facing nor how many had already entered the house from the now broken open doors to the house from the garage. The vet went out the front door which faced the driveway into the garage and saw the car as the driver was readying to ram the house again. The vet fired five shots from his pistol at the driver of the car to stop him from the third assault as well as to try to prevent any possible explosion that could result. The vet was in fear that he would also be facing additional assailants that had already entered the house. The driver was killed and there were no other assailants with him.

The driver was a nineteen year old kid who was drunk and had been driving through the yards of homes when he came up on the driveway from the side yard of the vet's house. All of this was unknown in the few minutes and seconds between the first crash through the garage and the shot that stopped further crashing.

The vet was charged with second degree murder. The prosecutor wanted to plea-bargain to manslaughter, but the vet insisted he was protecting his and his family's life and would face the murder charge. The jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree.

This was BEFORE the SYG law was enacted in Florida but was conducive to its justification. Thankfully, the judge overruled the jury verdict with a directed verdict of involuntary manslaughter. The vet was fined and placed on five years probation. He saw no jail time as he was an upstanding member of the community and had no record.

Today, I believe, that same kind of incident would not have been prosecuted as it was a clear cut case of using force against force where there was imminent danger of great bodily harm.

Any thoughts on this?

[John Valentine]

You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did attempt to follow.

You conclusion does not flow logically from your premise.

You agree that GZ got out of the car in order to try to find out where TM went, as asked by the dispatcher. Then, later after unsuccessfully trying to see where TM went, GM is walking back to his car when he is accosted and attacked by TM.

So far, so good, but where in all of this is there any "following" by GZ?

By definition, you cannot "follow" someone whose location is unknown to you.

So to correct your statement to make it comprehensible and remove the nonsense: "You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did NOT attempt to follow, he attempted to locate."

[John Valentine]

You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did attempt to follow.

You conclusion does not flow logically from your premise.

You agree that GZ got out of the car in order to try to find out where TM went, as asked by the dispatcher. Then, later after unsuccessfully trying to see where TM went, GM is walking back to his car when he is accosted and attacked by TM.

So far, so good, but where in all of this is there any "following" by GZ?

By definition, you cannot "follow" someone whose location is unknown to you.

So to correct your statement to make it comprehensible and remove the nonsense: "You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did NOT attempt to follow, he attempted to locate."