George Zimmerman says he lives in constant fear; has PTSD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.

---

This scenario ignores the fact that Martin was being followed. A police officer might have reasonable suspicion to believe someone looking into cars with a flashlight is about to commit a crime, but would come nowhere near that standard for someone walking around. It's not criminal to follow someone around but it does cause the person to feel unreasonably threatened. It probably does not qualify someone as the first aggressor but it comes a lot closer than someone questioning an individual peering into car windows.

Edit: also see previous post which is my bigger point of contention. Just because there are some factual reconstructions where syg would not matter does not mean there are not also some where it would be a deciding factor. The jury can choose to believe any amalgam of facts presented in testimony they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

A jury could have concluded that Zimmerman could have retreated in safety particularly since Martin was unarmed. Even in a state where there is a duty to retreat you do not have to do so if it would put you in more danger. This usually involves a situation where someone can shoot you in the back or stab you in the back. The jury also would have had the opportunity to decide on such questions of fact as whether Zimmerman was pinned down, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.

Or think of this another way. Let's say the posture of the case were on appeal and the events took place in a duty to retreat state but the Judge had instructed the jury there was no duty to retreat. That would be error. Do you think it would be harmless error, such that it could not have made a difference to a rational trier of fact? I highly doubt it. If it were a duty to retreat state and the Judge instructed the jury that there was no duty to retreat, the verdict would probably be reversed on appeal. That's because there is a possibility that it would matter.

---

That would have required them to discount the testimony that there was an active struggle at the time, but they seem to have accepted that there was. If they believed that he could have escaped in complete safety, in a case where no gun or other dangerous weapon was involved, then that would have negated his whole claim that it was necessary for him to use deadly physical force to terminate the assault because he was pinned down and his head was being smashed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This scenario ignores the fact that Martin was being followed. A police officer might have reasonable suspicion to believe someone looking into cars with a flashlight is about to commit a crime, but would come nowhere near that standard for someone walking around. It's not criminal to follow someone around but it does cause the person to feel unreasonably threatened. It probably does not qualify someone as the first aggressor but it comes a lot closer than someone questioning an individual peering into car windows.

Edit: also see previous post which is my bigger point of contention. Just because there are some factual reconstructions where syg would not matter does not mean there are not also some where it would be a deciding factor. The jury can choose to believe any amalgam of facts presented in testimony they want.

---

As you noted yourself, following someone you think is engaging in criminal activity is not per se illegal. Many, if not all, states even allow civilians to make warrantless arrests in certain circumstances (not saying that was the case with Zimmerman).

Anyway, as usual you wrote an excellent post, but I don't think that you really disagree with my original points, which were that this case mirrored more traditional self defense claims, that the SYG elements never ended up playing any real part, and that the other poster's definition of initial aggressor was pretty broad.

PS- Why isn't this in the politics section?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

but I don't think that you really disagree with my original points, which were that this case mirrored more traditional self defense claims, that the SYG elements never ended up playing any real part, and that the other poster's definition of initial aggressor was pretty broad.

PS- Why isn't this in the politics section?

---

I do agree with your original points. I haven't heard of initial aggressor being construed that broadly. One thing I will point out is that juries might not be very analytical. But they may hear an instruction such as syg or duty to retreat and it may trigger something that has an effect akin to subtly shifting the burden. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with you. Somewhat grudgingly only because the legal arguments seemed to me to betray what happened, which I thought was very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Somewhat grudgingly only because the legal arguments seemed to me to betray what happened, which I thought was very wrong.

---

And I don't mean your legal arguments, I just mean the law of self-defense as an all or nothing justification. It probably leads to a lot of outcomes that don't quite feel right.

If the option for 2nd degree murder had been on the table, or manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc., IMO Zimmerman would have been convicted and be in jail as we speak.

Many jurors said after the fact the felt Zimmerman was guilty of something, just not premeditated 1st degree murder.

It was the same mistake made in the Casey Anthony trial, she was overcharged and got off totally free.

I find it hard to believe that after a long and protracted thread on the Trayvon Martin murder we are still going back over the arguments; it is not as if any new information has been revealed. I also think that the more publicity is given to Mr Zimmerman, the less likely he is to disappear from our pages. The debate on American laws, guns, and so on is important, Mr Zimmerman, contrary to what he may think of himself, is not an important public figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

... Mr Zimmerman... is not an important public figure.

---

There is a wad of nerve cells in the central part of the brain about a half an inch across called the nucleus accumbens. When you eat or have sex or anything your brain associates with survival or breeding, this area of the brain is inundated with dopamine, or PLEASURE.

(from the Washington Post yesterday)

the media is the message.

The daily papers are getting smaller and less profitable because of the internet. The local news is becoming more and more like an entertainment show. I'm probably more guilty than most, if I flip over to Bill Moyers on PBS, I fall asleep, if the electricity in my house goes out, I realize how empty my life is. I have to get my .38 out and clean and oil it.

Hung Angels is exhibit A!!!!

Zimmerman is entertainment. Juicier than some TV fiction cause it's real. The Republican Debates were entertainment. 95% of America watches the Olympics on the couch with a bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp Coke.

Thankfully, Hillary has chemists developing pharmaceuticals that block this dopamine, tricking Americans into thinking Health and Education are good for them. Expect these drugs to be introduced into the water supply around ....um,...2017. USA! USA! USA!

Zimmerman for president!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underdog6

Zimmerman for president!

---

President of the Florida branch of the Trigger-Happy-Coward's-Club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underdog6

Zimmerman for president!

---

I hope he runs. That'll guarantee Hillary or Elizabeth will be elected...and the GOP can start spewing their sexist comments and stop spewing their racist comments.