George Zimmerman in fear for his life

According to some of George Zimmerman’s friends, Zimmerman is in fear of his safety after receiving death threats:

George Zimmerman, who has claimed he shot Trayvon Martin on February 26 in self-defense, is staying at an undisclosed location after widely circulated death threats and word of a $10,000 bounty to find him, said legal adviser Craig Sonner, who said he would represent Zimmerman if charges are filed.

That is not good. While I, like many people, think that Zimmerman should be arrested and charged given the available evidence, no one should threaten his life, let alone take a bounty out on him (although the bounty is only to bring him in to the police, not to harm him). That is not the way justice should work. That would be doing things the way Zimmerman did.

His friends went on to state:

Friends of Zimmerman, who has not spoken to the media, said he was extremely upset about the shooting.

“I mean, he took a man’s life and he has no idea what to do about it. He’s extremely remorseful about it,” said his friend Joe Oliver.

For a “extremely remorseful” man he is rather quiet. He has not released any public statement expressing remorse. He likely has not contacted Trayvon’s parents. If he wanted to show remorse, he could easily turn himself in or at least hand over the gun used to kill Trayvon to the police. That would at least make it look like he is trying to set things right.

“What makes all these people who are threatening George any better than the person they think he is?” he added. “You’ve got all these people wanting to lynch the man, and they don’t know the whole story.

“There are huge gaps that are being filled in and interpreted without evidence,” he said.

There is a slight difference. We know Trayvon was unarmed. We know, by Zimmerman’s own statements, that Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being told not to. We also have a report from a witness who said she saw Zimmerman “straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon’s body, and his hands pressed on his back” and that “Zimmerman never turned him over or tried to help him or CPR or anything.”

Again, I do not condone vigilante violence against anyone. However, what makes those people better than Zimmerman is that they did not chase down a 17-year-old boy walking home in the rain armed with a bag of Skittles and iced tea.

As for the whole story, Zimmerman admitted on the 911 call to following Trayvon just because he looked “suspicious.” Trayvon had no record, was not accused of committing any crimes, and, by Zimmerman’s own admission, was just looking around. The moment Zimmerman went after Trayvon for no legitimate reason after being told not to follow the boy, Trayvon was ironically allowed to defend himself against Zimmerman under the Stand Your Ground law. So if he bashed the man on the back of the head or broke his nose, he had a legal right to. The only way Zimmerman would be the victim is if Trayvon approached Zimmerman before Zimmerman started following him. But again, we know that did not happen based on Zimmerman’s own 911 call.

When you shoot an unarmed boy minding his own business, you do not get to play the victim. If he broke your nose after you followed him, good. If he kicked your ass, good. If he put up such a fight that your only option was to shoot him, I would say you got the least you deserved. I do not have any sympathy for someone who got injured while chasing down and killing a child because the child was the wrong color.

That said, it is true that we do not know all the facts. There are gaps in what happened. However, the information we do have and the information continuing to come out suggests that Zimmerman deliberately went after Trayvon and Trayvon may have stood his ground when Zimmerman approached him. I do not know what the investigators will find, but I suspect that they will not see that Zimmerman was defending himself from an unwarranted attack by Trayvon.

About these ads

17 thoughts on “George Zimmerman in fear for his life

  1. I think you’re right that Zimmerman was not defending himself as he states. I believe the $10,000 bounty poster says dead or alive though.

  2. Fearless, from the articles I have seen the bounty is only for Zimmerman’s capture. It still violates the law and constitutes kidnapping if anyone should act on it. And that is assuming that people would just bring him to the police, not hurt him. As Zimmerman demonstrated, vigilantes are not exactly non-violent.

  3. What about just keeping quiet while the investigation proceeds? Almost all statements made here and in other places about this case end up being purely speculative.

    Hot air. Is. Useless.

  4. Wake: I’m not sure about the uselessness of hot air. It seems like hot air was needed to get the investigation going in the first place. No hot air and this killing would’ve just been buried and no real investigation would’ve found place.

  5. Zimmerman acted like a pervert acting out a chapter from the Pervert’s Playbook. He was not a cop and he chased down, cornered and attempted to abduct a kid. Most kids are taught to run (which he tried) and to fight back when somebody is trying to abduct them. At the very least, somebody should question Zimmerman under various sex offender laws for his sex offenderish actions.

  6. Of course he’s rather quiet. He might be facing charges. Anything he says could be used against him.
    Forsythia, “pervert” doesn’t mean someone who confronts another person.. And what are you talking about in your last sentence? Zimmerman was questioned. The crime, if there was one, wasn’t sexual. He wasn’t a cop but he was the neighborhood watch captain. Sheesh.

  7. Willie, there is a difference here. Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense. If that is true, it makes no sense for him not to at least say he is torn up by having to defend himself in that manner. To say nothing just makes it look bad.

    Granted, I do think his attorney has told him to keep quiet because the evidence that has come out does not match the story he gave to the police, and it appears the police did not bother to check whether he told the truth. The media will spin anything he says, yet he could carefully word his comments to least show some sympathy.

  8. @ TS, is Zimmerson a nickname for this guy or is that a typo after the link in the intro?

    Williemaize24, someone needs to tell Zimmerman’s father to get his son to make ready for the formal legal process, as it’s not going away, will take years anyway and have to be held in a courtroom on the edge of the state for neutrality, as far as that’s possible.

  9. I have a question? Where did you get the impression that Zimmerman chased down or assaulted Martin? Because I haven’t seen a single source say anything other than that Zimmerman merely followed the guy.

    And the accusation that it’s because of skin colour? That’s completely made up too, isn’t it? I mean, sure, he did use a racial slur, and it’s very likely that his race did colour his perceptions, but what you’re really saying here is that it was an attack of racial motivation, and not that Zimmerman merely found Martin, the unfamiliar character inside a gated community, suspicious.

    Oh yeah, and “Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being told not to”. When did that happen? Because the policeman certainly didn’t tell him not to follow, they just said “We don’t need you to do that”.

    And, of course, the whole “This person isn’t acting the way someone who’s telling the truth would” is complete rubbish, and you know it because you’ve complained about that countless times before. Heck, the accusation that he doesn’t feel remorse is, itself, calling a man – that even in the worst case scenario is just dangerously paranoid – a complete psychopath! That’s nonsense!

    This entire post stinks! The ONLY thing we know is that Zimmerman followed Martin when he thought Martin was suspicious, that something happened, and then that Zimmerman shot Martin. And, aside from Zim’s girlfriend that was talking to him at the time saying that Martin pushed him, we know literally nothing else! And following someone is most certainly not a reason an act can’t be out of self-defence!
    Believing you can say whether or not it counts as self-defence is presumptuous as it is, since we literally have no idea what happened. But everything else you’ve said is nonsense, and a clear sign you’ve already decided a verdict before you’ve even heard the evidence!

  10. Plasma, Zimmerman claims that Trayvon attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and that they struggled for a moment before Zimmerman, out of fear for his life, shot and killed Trayvon.

    Zimmerman has a history of talking about black youths and calling the police to report suspicious black youths in the neighborhood. It is possible that only young black men robbed the neighborhood. However, coupled with Zimmerman’s use of what sounds like a racial slur and that all he knew about Trayvon was the boy’s race, it certainly looks racially motivated. What makes it worse is that 20% of the community is black, meaning that it would hardly unlikely that there would be random black boys walking around at 7 or 8 pm.

    I think most people would take “We don’t need you to [follow him]” as “don’t follow him,” and from the context of the phone call it sounds like that is what the dispatcher meant.

    In context to what we know about Zimmerman’s responses after this event, it does not appear that he reached out to Trayvon’s family. He has not made a public statement expressing remorse, sorrow, or regret. Only other people have spoken for him, and outside of his father, none of those people physically saw Zimmerman. I never said that he did not feel remorse. I said that he has not publicly shown it. He may be a psychopath. We do not know because apparently not even his lawyers have seen him face to face. I will not just any conclusion about his mental state. I can only judge him by the information that I have seen, and from that I think he has a racial bias and that may have led to his actions in February.

    As for what we know, we know a lot about the timeline and how the police handled the situation. We have seen video 30 minutes after the shooting with a completely clean and seemingly uninjured Zimmerman walking around a police station. We know that the lead investigator thought this should have been a manslaughter charge. We know that several witnesses gave stories that conflict with Zimmerman’s account. We also know that the audio tapes of the 911 phone calls conflict with Zimmerman’s story. It looks like Zimmerman’s story does not hold up.

    The self-defense argument has a major flaw: Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon. According to Trayvon’s girlfriend, the boy was aware that someone was following him. Even if Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman and attacked him, under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Trayvon was well within his right to beat the living hell out of Zimmerman if he felt threatened.

    What we have here is a case in which an armed person claims he feared for his life after following someone he thought was suspicious because the person was a young black boy, and then claiming self-defense when he shot this boy. That does not sound self-defense to me. A jury might disagree, although I find it difficult to see how they could when by Zimmerman’s own words he followed the boy. I simply do not think a person can claim self-defense after they commit the act that later prompts, according to them, someone to attack them.

  11. “Zimmerman has a history of talking about black youths and calling the police to report suspicious black youths in the neighborhood.”
    What history? I haven’t heard of that before! Even Wikipedia doesn’t mention anything of the sort, and it discussed a lot about any racism involved!
    Even if more than 20% of his reports were about black people, that still wouldn’t even discount that he’s just naturally suspicious about black people – perfectly rational (although not so much reasonable) human nature, and nothing bigoted about it.

    “I think most people would take “We don’t need you to [follow him]” as “don’t follow him,” and from the context of the phone call it sounds like that is what the dispatcher meant.”
    Yes. I’m sure that “most people” would understand that the 911 operator “sounded like” they meant that is totally a reason to believe Zimmerman understood he shouldn’t follow Martin. And is a perfectly good reason to keep saying “he was told not to” despite never being told that.
    Or, to put it a different way, there is a massive difference between a police officer implying something, and an actual order from a policeperson!

    And I don’t even get the whole “he didn’t reach out” argument. So you’re only judging him by what he says… except that he hasn’t said anything? So you’re judging him by that he hasn’t said anything about how he’s sorry, despite that he also hasn’t actually talked to the media about anything else? Because I still stand by that you only brought that up to suggest that he’s eeeevil, and not because you actually think he doesn’t give a damn about the victim’s family.

    “We have seen video 30 minutes after the shooting with a completely clean and seemingly uninjured Zimmerman walking around a police station.”
    I’ll need a source on that one. The only reports I can find say that, yes, he was indeed notably injured. Even ABC, who first said that he was clean, later reported that actually he was rather badly damaged.

    “We know that several witnesses gave stories that conflict with Zimmerman’s account. We also know that the audio tapes of the 911 phone calls conflict with Zimmerman’s story. It looks like Zimmerman’s story does not hold up.”
    Zimmerman’s story being false is the one thing I do believe. It doesn’t match up to anything else. But if you think “he lied to make himself look better”, then everything else does make sense – namely, nearly all witnesses reported that there was a large fight involved, and one witness reported Zimmerman being on the tail end of a severe beating and calling for help.

    “The self-defense argument has a major flaw: Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon. According to Trayvon’s girlfriend, the boy was aware that someone was following him. Even if Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman and attacked him, under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Trayvon was well within his right to beat the living hell out of Zimmerman if he felt threatened.”
    Again, Zimmerman wasn’t told not to, and “it was generally implied” certainly isn’t good enough. And being followed does certainly not count as provoking an assault. The “and attacked him” part would be important, but with one witness saying Martin started the fight and none saying Zimmerman did, it’s an inarguable point.

    “What we have here is a case in which an armed person claims he feared for his life after following someone he thought was suspicious because the person was a young black boy, and then claiming self-defense when he shot this boy. That does not sound self-defense to me.”
    That… is pure weasel words. Here, let me put it in plain English:
    A man followed a boy. That man shot the boy. I say that is not self-defence.
    Notice something missing? Namely, the ENTIRE CONFLICT? It doesn’t matter a damn who followed who!

    And that’s why there’s no actual reason to believe that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin more than any possibility of innocence.

  12. Plasma, if you follow the media coverage of the case, you would have heard about Zimmerman calling the police over 40 times in the last year. Those reports were mostly about young black males he thought were suspicious. If you think being suspicious of black people is “perfectly rational human nature” and not at all bigoted, then I do not believe you understand just what bigotry, prejudice, and racism are.

    Regarding the dispatcher’s comment, he did not imply anything. He told Zimmerman that the police did not need him to follow Trayvon. That was not a suggestion; it was a clear statement that the police did not need Zimmerman’s assistance. Playing semantics with this does not work because it is such a common turn of phrase that few English-speaking people would misunderstand the dispatcher’s intent.

    As for Zimmerman’s lack of comment, silence is just as much a response as any written or spoken statement. It leaves the impression that he either does not care, has something to hide, does not think he did anything wrong, or is worried about saying something that could later be used against him. I am sure his lawyers advised him not to make any statements. Yet Zimmerman’s silence makes him look bad. At the very least he should something about how horrible he feels about what happened, without saying anything about whose fault it was or what specifically happened. That would at least show the public he feels some remorse for killing the boy, whether he felt justified in doing in it or not.

    However, since so much time has passed, it will potentially ring false because it may appear to be something he said just to improve his image, especially if this never results in a trial.

    To my knowledge ABC never reported that Zimmerman was “rather badly damaged.” In a recent article, ABC acknowledged that there may be a wound on the back of Zimmerman’s head, but their medical expert did not see any signs of substantial injuries, let alone the broken nose Zimmerman supposedly suffered.

    There are conflicting witness accounts. However, last week two separate voice analysts concluded that the voice heard screaming for help on the 911 call did not belong to Zimmerman. Even a layman like myself can hear the difference in the sound of Zimmerman’s voice on the 911 call he made and the voice screaming on the other call. There is also the oddity of a person armed with a gun screaming for help after they shot the assailant. Would he not still need help if he had his head bashed against concrete? Would he not still need help if he had a broken nose? Would he not want anyone to come to his aid?

    As for who started the fight, that would be irrelevant under the Stand Your Ground law. All that would matter is who pursued who first, and whether the pursued felt threatened. According to Zimmerman’s own call, he followed Trayvon first. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, a jury could fairly conclude the boy did so because he felt threatened. We also have his girlfriend to support whether he expressed any fear. Under Florida law, if Trayvon approached Zimmerman and beat the daylights out of him,Trayvon was well within his right to do so.

    Those are not weasel words. I am simply following the logic of the Florida law. The conflict is completely irrelevant according to that law:

    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.

    All that matters in Florida is whether a person feels threatened. Logically, this would have to apply to the pursued. If it applies to the pursuer, the law is essentially useless. So it very much matters who followed who first.

    I do not know whether Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon. I suspect that things did not go exactly as Zimmerman thought they would, and I think Zimmerman killed Trayvon either by accident after having stupidly drawn his gun or to perhaps to stop Trayvon from calling for help.

  13. “Those reports were mostly about young black males he thought were suspicious.”
    That’s a great source. Really credible. It was a lot more believable once you added that ‘mostly’!

    “If you think being suspicious of black people is “perfectly rational human nature” and not at all bigoted, then I do not believe you understand just what bigotry, prejudice, and racism are.”
    Of course it’s prejudiced. But it’s a subconscious prejudice. Humans have a natural fear of the unfamiliar, and for some people that means a heightened suspicion of visibly different minorities. I know this because I live in the secluded country of Ireland – I am that kind of person, and I have tried my best to fix that once I realised I did. But there was no point where I sat down and though “Man, black people, they must be up to something”!

    “Regarding the dispatcher’s comment, he did not imply anything. He told Zimmerman that the police did not need him to follow Trayvon. That was not a suggestion; it was a clear statement that the police did not need Zimmerman’s assistance.”
    Yup. But that’s still not an order from the police not to follow him. When it’s not an order,

    “As for Zimmerman’s lack of comment, silence is just as much a response as any written or spoken statement. It leaves the impression that [...] saying something that could later be used against him.”
    Well, I guess there’s no need to even argue against this one. Now why would the media, who’re clearly biased and have even gone so far as to edit the 911 call to make him sound extremely racist, possibly be untrustworthy? Or maybe he’s afraid of showing his face after the numerous death threats he’s received? What a silly notion!
    And besides, you’re intentionally setting yourself up for the same ol’ “Well he sounds sorry, so let’s go easy on him” thing! I shouldn’t need to explain to you what’s wrong with this notion!

    And as for the ABC changing its stance on what the video footage showed:
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-enhanced-video-040212_1_reporter-matt-gutman-abc-news-neighborhood-watch-volunteer-zimmerman
    “Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows ‘what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman’s head.'”

    “As for who started the fight, that would be irrelevant under the Stand Your Ground law. All that would matter is who pursued who first, and whether the pursued felt threatened.”
    Oh, wait, NOW I see the problem here. You think that by following Martin, he provoked the attack. Well, that’s pretty much rubbish.
    BUT there’s not even a point arguing that, because I actually re-read the law (I did read it before, but I didn’t grasp this part) and realised that it doesn’t even matter who provoked whom, becaaaause…
    “776.041 Use of force by aggressor. — The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant”
    So, yup, it can indeed apply to the provoker. As soon as there’s an actual threat of death, it doesn’t matter who did what beforehand.

    Which, on reconsideration, makes a great deal of sense. It’s really the complete lack of a burden of proof that screws up this law.

  14. Plasma, the reports come from the calls Zimmerman made to the police. It makes no sense to question their credibility. Granted, race was only mentioned when Zimmerman was asked to specify it. However, that does not negate that most of people he found suspicious were young black males.

    Twenty percent of Zimmerman’s neighbor is black, so he could hardly claim that he was fearful of black people because they were unfamiliar. It is possible that Zimmerman has an unconscious bias against black people, yet it is also possible that he has a conscious bias against black people.

    I think you are playing semantics with the dispatcher’s comment. It is pretty clear that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. That he did not use those exact words is irrelevant, and honestly would not hold up in a court of law. Even an incompetent lawyer could shred through that defense.

    What does the media have to do with Zimmerman releasing a statement? Just because one media outlet edited the 911 call does not mean all media outlets did the same thing. If Zimmerman were worried about media bias, he could put the statement up on a website, preventing anyone from editing it.

    As for the video footage, even ABC’s enhanced video did not show the severe wounds Zimmerman and his surrogates claim he suffered. At best there are two welts on the back of his head. There is still no sign of abrasions, a broken nose, swelling, or blood, all of which one would expect to see. The two plausible explanations are that the paramedics cleaned Zimmerman up and allowed him to change his clothes or Zimmerman lied about his injuries.

    The portion of the law you cited does state that it matters who instigated the conflict, hence the use of the word “unless.” That portion is an exception clause, and in order for it to apply to Zimmerman, a jury would have to find that Zimmerman a) did not commit a felony, i.e. he did not physically assault Trayvon first, b) that Zimmerman attempted to get away or told Travyon he was finished and wanted to leave, and c) that Trayvon had no valid reason to feel threatened or in danger.

    What all that reveals is how utterly moronic the law is. And it gets even trickier. Should a jury believe Zimmerman’s claim, the very section you cited could apply to Trayvon. The moment Trayvon spotted the gun, under the law he could use deadly force.

  15. “Plasma, the reports come from the calls Zimmerman made to the police. It makes no sense to question their credibility.”
    Ah okay. So… where’s the statement from the police?

    You do know what I mean when I ask you for a source, right? I’m asking you for any sort of proof at all that you aren’t just saying this out of memory. Because when you don’t really know the actual number of reports on black youth but do know that it was “mostly”, I am not going to accept that.

    “Twenty percent of Zimmerman’s neighbor is black, so he could hardly claim that he was fearful of black people because they were unfamiliar. It is possible that Zimmerman has an unconscious bias against black people, yet it is also possible that he has a conscious bias against black people.”
    Sure he can. You know well it’s hard for someone to get rid of prejudices.
    And of course it’s possible it could be a conscious bias. But how many people do you know have actually said how coloured people are always up to no good? Actual racism that severe is very rare, and saying someone’s that racist because (presumably) most of his reports of suspicious people are about black people is something not to be taken lightly.

    “I think you are playing semantics with the dispatcher’s comment. It is pretty clear that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. That he did not use those exact words is irrelevant, and honestly would not hold up in a court of law. Even an incompetent lawyer could shred through that defense.”
    And I think you are, and that it would hold up in a court of law.
    …I think we’re at a stalemate at this point.

    “What does the media have to do with Zimmerman releasing a statement? Just because one media outlet edited the 911 call does not mean all media outlets did the same thing. If Zimmerman were worried about media bias, he could put the statement up on a website, preventing anyone from editing it.”
    Mmmm… yeah, alright, I suppose that’s a point. But I still don’t like it, since anyone would do the same if it meant they’d look good. And also because you’re still saying that his friends aren’t credible enough.

    “There is still no sign of abrasions, a broken nose, swelling, or blood, all of which one would expect to see. The two plausible explanations are that the paramedics cleaned Zimmerman up and allowed him to change his clothes or Zimmerman lied about his injuries.”
    Nonsense! His face is not nearly clear enough in that video to determine that! And besides, we already have proof that he was attacked now (although not necessarily by Martin). There’s no point saying “Well yes, but he doesn’t look attacked enough!”

    “The portion of the law you cited does state that it matters who instigated the conflict, hence the use of the word “unless.” That portion is an exception clause, and in order for it to apply to Zimmerman, a jury would have to find that Zimmerman a) did not commit a felony, i.e. he did not physically assault Trayvon first, b) that Zimmerman attempted to get away or told Travyon he was finished and wanted to leave, and c) that Trayvon had no valid reason to feel threatened or in danger.”
    A) is neeearly right. Except that “the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful”.
    In other words, a jury wouldn’t have to find that he didn’t commit a forcible felony, it would have to find that he DID.
    And with the only evidence being… /someone/ shouting “help”, that’s not nearly enough. Which, I didn’t actually address because I couldn’t listen to it again when you said it, but I can’t agree that that definitely wasn’t Zimmerman.

    B) and C) are just wrong. B) is a different exception clause and is clearly separated from the one we’re discussing by an “or”. C) Simply doesn’t apply at all.

  16. Ah okay. So… where’s the statement from the police?

    All over Google. Honestly, it has been in the news for weeks, so I am surprised you are unfamiliar with the reports.

    Sure he can. You know well it’s hard for someone to get rid of prejudices.

    No, he cannot claim he is unfamiliar with people he is around all the time, especially not when his supporters claim that Zimmerman previously mentored two black kids. If I recall correctly, you are not from the United States, so perhaps your experience of open racism is different than mines. In the States, open racism, people freely saying things like, “black people are always up to no good” is common, as is the underlying implication by using certain words. I agree that charges of racism should not be taken lightly, but we also should not skirt around them because people think open racism is “rare.”

    But I still don’t like it, since anyone would do the same if it meant they’d look good. And also because you’re still saying that his friends aren’t credible enough.

    If anyone would edit the audio to make themselves look good, why has only one media outlet done so? As for Zimmerman’s friends, to my knowledge none of them have seen the man. Joe Oliver, the guy who spent two weeks on a media blitz admitted he had not even spoken to Zimmerman since before the shooting. I think it makes them less credible if they are talking about what Zimmerman did on the day in question if they have not seen or spoken to him in weeks.

    Nonsense! His face is not nearly clear enough in that video to determine that! And besides, we already have proof that he was attacked now (although not necessarily by Martin). There’s no point saying “Well yes, but he doesn’t look attacked enough!”

    His face is pretty clear on the video, and same medical expert that said Zimmerman had welts on his head also said he saw no signs of a broken nose or swelling. As for proof Zimmerman was attacked, we do not have that because we do not know the source of those welts. All we have is Zimmerman’s claim that they came from an attack, yet his credibility is in question.

    A) is neeearly right. Except that “the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful”.

    Which is why I stated, “All that would matter is who pursued who first, and whether the pursued felt threatened.” If Zimmerman followed Trayvon, that would give the boy a valid reason to attack Zimmerman, especially if Zimmerman brandished his gun.

    In other words, a jury wouldn’t have to find that he didn’t commit a forcible felony, it would have to find that he DID.

    No, a jury does not assume that a crime was or was not committed from the outset, which is what your statement implies. They must decide whether Zimmerman did or did not commit a forcible felony. If they find he did, then the self-defense claim is moot. If they find he did not, they would still need to find that he had no other means of escape, that he did not start the altercation, and that if he did start it that he told Trayvon he wanted to back off.

    B) and C) are just wrong. B) is a different exception clause and is clearly separated from the one we’re discussing by an “or”. C) Simply doesn’t apply at all.

    No, B is a condition of the portion of the law you cited, and it is relevant should Zimmerman claim he tried to leave or went back to his vehicle. As for C, that is the crux of the matter. If Trayvon had a legitimate reason to fear for his safety, the Stand Your Ground law would apply to him, and he would be well within his right to beat Zimmerman, as Zimmerman’s brother claims, nearly to death. Those are the things a jury would have to settle in order to rule in Zimmerman’s favor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s