Evidently Florida law protects defending yourself against a person you attacked.
George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of either murder or manslaughter in the case of his fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin last year.
Full details are available at the CNN link, but the key is this:
To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe that he “intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.” That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.
For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin’s unlawful killing was “done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent” and would be “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
Ultimately, they believed neither. And that means Zimmerman can walk free.
Now, I’m an old-fashioned guy, and I tend to think that pulling the trigger of a gun is intentionally committing an act. And in most states, Zimmerman’s self-defense claim wouldn’t have stood up.
After all, he saw a teenager not bothering anyone, and called the police in his role as a neighborhood watch participant, but then got out of his car with a gun on his hip and chased the kid down. In most places, that is considered escalation and a violation of the “duty to retreat” necessary for a self-defense plea. However, Florida has a much looser definition of self-defense, a definition that has been shown to increase shootings. (PDF link)
Did racism play a role in this verdict? Almost certainly. Perhaps not a conscious hatred of black people; it doesn’t need to be. The defense painted a picture of Martin as a hotheaded, aggressive, violent young black man, and that’s a picture people have been trained in our culture to recognize and believe.
The cultural verdict is one thing, but much of the responsibility for the legal verdict falls on bad law. When we make it legally easier to shoot young black men for being young black men, more people do it. We have the data on this. We need to reform our national conscience, yes, but we also need to reform our laws.
Photo—AP/Orlando Sentinel
You mean “make it legally easier to shoot young black men who are behaving in a highly suspicious manner before attacking you” right?
Sure, race most likely played a role in making GZ think TM was up to no good, skulking around apartment buildings peering in windows, but it seems like right from the start certain people decided this was a case of a violent racist out hunting innocent black kids, no matter what the evidence may show.
So if someone follows me, can I turn around n punch them n claim self-defense?
That depends. There was a park a mile / mile and a half away from where I used to live. It was used by kids from three different neighborhoods, but was situated in a neighborhood that remained predominately white as the city was changing. The neighborhood was also notoriously unwelcoming to outsiders, not just minorities, but they were easier to spot. Once I had gone there by myself. A group of eight guys started taunting me. They didn’t like “chinks” in their neighborhood. My first instinct was to walk away. They started following me yelling things as they went. I… Read more »
Actually, he was already out of the vehicle when the officer told him he didn’t need to follow. He then turned around and they were talking about where he was going to meet. Then the officer asked him if he saw where he was going again. I’m not sure where the story started that he got out of car after being asked not too started, but it’s false. If you listen to the 911 call, you can hear the door open and the wind, prior to that statement.
Still a dumb move and he put himself in a bad position.
Oh I agree, but a dumb move doesn’t negate self defense. GZ could have been yelling and screaming, but TM taking a swing at GZ started the process. There was 40 seconds of a fight with all the physical damage being done to GZ. Only a single scratch on TZ’s left hand. It was only after taking a beating for 40 seconds that he pulled out his gun and shot him. If he had shot him after the initial punch (even though that would be legal under the law) then I think you’d have seen a different verdict. Here’s the… Read more »
It’s odd how people can see the same thing and come away with two different opinions. Many people say that TM had no wounds so it must have been self defense, but IMO that proves that GZ’s intent was to kill TM or at least shoot him as he attempted no other non-lethal form of self defense.
You follow a kid who is doing nothing that should be considered suspicious first in your vehicle and then on foot. Doesn’t sound like self defense to me. Sounds like someone wants to fire his gun. Sounds like hunting.
People always see things differently, which is why it’s important to discuss them. Opens our eyes to different perspectives.
So I ask of you, why do you feel TM would qualify for self defense claim with no wounds? Do you believe that GZ just waited 40 seconds of being hit with the intent to kill?
I just want to hear your view so I understand your thinking on it. Since we do see things differently, I’d love to hear how you reached your perspective.
Thanks 🙂
Let’s assume that GZ is telling the truth. Let’s assume that walking on the grass and looking through windows is suspicious. Wouldn’t someone following YOU first in a car and then on foot when he could no longer follow you in a car be suspicious? What if the person following you had a weapon, a hand gun? Do you think that you should actually wait to get shot before defending yourself?
Well suspicion alone doesn’t allow aggression. Let’s just remember that following isn’t a crime. The law revolves around when the aggression took place. And that means physical aggression. It’s not a crime to yell at someone either. The first illegal activity happened when a physical act of aggression happened which by all accounts “that we know” was TM throwing the first punch that broke GZ’s nose. By all evidence, GZ never was able to throw or land a single punch. Also remember that GZ didn’t know TM was unarmed. And TM didn’t know GZ was armed.
TM could have felt threatened and was “standing his ground” to protect himself from what he thought was a suspicious person following him in GZ. He could have been acting in self-defense (under Florida law), but we will never know that because GZ didn’t try to fight him off in a non-lethal way, instead he went straight for the lethal ending.
Yes, but “could have” isn’t enough to convict in any state in this country. There’s no evidence that GZ attacked TM. There is evidence that TM assaulted GZ for at least 40 seconds. He didn’t used lethal force for 40 seconds… so it’s not like he jumped right to that option.
When you don’t know what happened, it’s mandatory to give a not guilty verdict. That’s what innocent until proven guilty means. We can feel what we want about the case, but feelings aren’t evidence or proof.
It would appear that for some stand your ground is only allowed for certain people and Trayvon Martin was not one of those people. We have no evidence that Trayvon Marton attacked anyone. We only have George Zimmerman’s word for it and George Zimmerman is a liar with a capital L. IT seems that the person with whom you are arguing seems to think that Trayvon Martin is supposed to put up with some creepy dude following him for no reason. George Zimmerman had NO RIGHT to decide that Trayvon didn’t belong in the neighborhood in which he was walking… Read more »
If suspicion doesn’t allow agression then why is it you’re excusing George Zimmerman’s aggression towards Trayvon Martin. It’s ridiculous to read your constant attempts to blame Trayvon for his own murder. Only in America would someone be idiotic enough to think such an argument is logical and worthy of making in the first place. It’s insulting. The truth it race has everything to do with this case. Zimmerman, being the racist piece of crap he is only thought Trayvon suspicious BECAUSE he was black. The police department tested Trayvon for drugs but not Zimmerman. Who tests the victim but not… Read more »
“3 – His story remained consistent. ”
And yet he didn’t testify. Granted he doesn’t have to, but if your using this as a basis for the belief that he is innocent, it should be reevaluated in this light. Consistent testimony wouldn’t just change during a trial unless their was knowledge that the criminal investigators were lenient or sloppy and he wouldn’t do well under cross examination.
I don’t think this was about racism, but more about the other aspect you mentioned—bad law. I also think it has to do with a fool wielding a gun. I don’t believe this was a self-defense case at all because Zimmerman followed him; he put himself in the position where he may have had to defend himself, but it could have been Martin that felt threatened and trying to defend himself. We will never know that because Zimmerman a poor decision to ignore the 911 operator and leave his vehicle. Maybe we just need a law against stupidity.
Actually 24 states have the same law. And for the rest, the duty to retreat is limited to outdoors, not in the home. Except NJ, where we have to retreat even inside our own homes. But that begs the question… when do we lose the ability to defend ourselves? And where is the evidence that Trayvon was attacked? Belief isn’t evidence. Remember there were zero marks on him except the gunshot. And this case has never been racial. Even the DOJ and FBI profiled GZ in order to ask that question and it came back negative. The state was trying… Read more »
“And this case has never been racial. ”
Besides being a black kid in a neighborhood where Zimmerman didn’t think any should be, what did Martin do that was suspicious?
Remove black from the sentence and do you get the same result? As for what he looked suspicious for, he was walking on the grass, between the apartments and looking in windows. Take any of those individually and they’re innocent enough and even together they don’t prove any wrongdoing. But even the dispatcher believe it to be suspicious enough, otherwise they wouldn’t have dispatched officers to the scene. The one thing I noticed from watching the coverage has been the demonizing of profiling. Profiling itself is and will always be an effective and necessary part of society and law enforcement.… Read more »
“The one thing I noticed from watching the coverage has been the demonizing of profiling. ” Funny thing about profiling is that it’s not always what you expect. Did you know that most serial killers are white? Some would suggest that it means that there is a proclivity among white people (men) to be serial killers. Others point out that to be a serial killer, you must be able to avoid police attention for protracted periods of time and suggest that being a serial killer is not so much a white thing as being able to avoid police scrutiny is… Read more »
Oh come on John, Trayvon was chased, and shot in cold blood while armed with only a bag of Skittles. Was George afraid that he would be killed by the sweet fruity flavour? There is no possible way that it was self defense. i hope the protest mobs lynch Zimmerman.