Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, in response to 12th's and saden1's statements that Zimmerman's actions created the reasonable fear in Martin and that it was he, Martin, that had the right to defend himself, I started poking around and found the law in this area not as clear cut as one would hope.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

(1) Absolutely, saden1 and 12th are right in that Zimmerman's actions could be reasonably seen to cause [I]Martin/I] reasonable fear of imminent harm. The question is what was Martin's or anyone's duty at that point.

In Maryland, Virginia and most other States, you have a "duty to retreat" so long as you reasonably and subjectively believe you can do so safely [e.g. If I am walking with my daughter and am stalked and pursued, I could reasonably say "my daughter cannot safely retreat, so I can stay"; also a disabled person is not bound to retreat from a pursuing able bodied person; you need not retreat from someone brandishing a gun as you cannot reasonably be expected to outrun a bullet].

In Florida and Pennsylvania (which also has a "stand your ground" law") there is no duty to retreat from a place you have a right to be.

With that said, based on the conversation that Martin was having with his girlfriend, it seemed to me he acted incredibly prudently for a teenager, more so than I would have at his age. His girlfriend told him to run from the unidentified pursuer and his response was something like "I will walk faster, but I am not gonna run".

(2) No one has the right to escalate a confrontation. In this case, again according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman said "Why are you here?" to which Martin replied "Why are you following me?" [I may have that reveresed]. This brief verbal exchange suggests to me that "pursuit" had stopped and, instead, we now had a momentary aggressive confrontation between aggressive adult pursuer and defensive juvenile pursued (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that Martin was a defenseless elementary school "child" like my daughter and I won't insult yours by saying Zimmerman was just making friendly inquiry).

If, instead of this exchange, Zimmerman simply attacked Martin, again, too bad so sad for Zimmerman if Zimm starts to lose a fight he started without provocation.

Rather than an immediate attack by Zimmerman, however, what we have is a verbal confrontation between two individuals that escalates immediately into a pushing/shoving match according to the girlfriend. It is unclear who pushed who first.

Then we have nothing as g/f's loses contact.

Next thing we have is two witnesses "John", who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Witness X who say that they witnessed Martin attacking Zimmerman. Neither saw the gunshot. (I apologize I can't find the link to Witness X today - he/she was another individual who saw the altercation but not the beginning of it and refused to have even have his/her gender revealed b/c he/she was afraid of the possible reprucussions - this person essentially repeats the testimony of witness "John" and appeared to be as close to the action as "John". If I can find the link, I will post). Then Trayvon is shot.

Regardless of who threw the first punch, I think what we have is the legal doctrine "mutual combat". It is an imperfect defense to murder. At the point of verbal confrontation, either Zimmerman or Martin could have backed down. Neither did. Both, to me, had braced themselves for a physical confrontation and, regardless of who started it, once that happens, Zimmerman can no longer claim self-defense and, instead, is guilty of manslaughter.

Here's language from a Maryland case on the subject:


Based on what I have read and heard, this is what happened. Pursuit, verbal confrontation, fight, death. It was an impermissible killing in the heat of passion.

So, to be clear, I have changed my opinion in this matter in that I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter b/c, regardless of who through the first bunch, and based on the girlfriend's statements, we had an aggressive verbal confrontation that turned violent and someone ended up dead.

It seems reasonable to think that you can't create and participate in a situation that ends with the other party dead and then claim self-defense.