Is this Self Defense or Murder?

A person punches you and you shoot back killing the person. Self Defense or Murder?

Self Defense	8.1%	[ 8 ]
Murder	71.7%	[ 71 ]
Undecided	20.2%	[ 20 ]
Total Votes:			[ 99 ]

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Rebeldoomer

Riviera de la Mancha

As I understand it, the story has some things you either got wrong or left out;

First, according to every source I have seen, it is uncertain if Mr. Martin struggled with Mr. Zimmerman.

Second, even if he did struggle, the "Stand Your Ground" Doctrine in Florida seems to protect his actions, while, oddly enough, possibly protecting Mr. Zimmerman's actions too.

Third, and this one is what doesnt get enough play in my opinion, is that Mr. Zimmerman is quoted as saying something to the effect of, " These guys always get away with everything...".

In my opinion, and this is what makes the Florida version of "Stand Your Ground" so wrong, is that Mr. Zimmerman's actions are possibly legal. In the Florida version, not only are you allowed to use force if you even simply feel threatened, you can also use it to stop someone whom you believe is in the commission of burglary or other crimes. Self-defense no, but "Stand Your Ground", quite possibly.

Thanks for clearing that up. Stand your ground law makes this issue more complicated, it's an excessive version of self defense.

I really only take issue with the Florida version because it allows citizens to be too proactive if you ask me. That, and that it seems to not be based on 'reasonable person' standards.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

uryu ishida

Riviera de la Mancha

As I understand it, the story has some things you either got wrong or left out;

First, according to every source I have seen, it is uncertain if Mr. Martin struggled with Mr. Zimmerman.

Second, even if he did struggle, the "Stand Your Ground" Doctrine in Florida seems to protect his actions, while, oddly enough, possibly protecting Mr. Zimmerman's actions too.

Third, and this one is what doesnt get enough play in my opinion, is that Mr. Zimmerman is quoted as saying something to the effect of, " These guys always get away with everything...".

In my opinion, and this is what makes the Florida version of "Stand Your Ground" so wrong, is that Mr. Zimmerman's actions are possibly legal. In the Florida version, not only are you allowed to use force if you even simply feel threatened, you can also use it to stop someone whom you believe is in the commission of burglary or other crimes. Self-defense no, but "Stand Your Ground", quite possibly.

Actually, Zimmerman would have given up any protections under Stand your Ground since he supposedly FOLLOWED and APPROACHED Martin.

And your understanding of Stand your Ground is completely off the mark and flows with anti-rights bigot's views.

You can't just shoot little 60-year-old Jane Doe and when the cops show up yell "I FELT THREATENED" and they're go "oh well, let's just clean this up then." Stand your Ground is a reversal of Duty to Retreat laws that were previously in place in Florida and other states. It removes the requirement of retreat. It augments self defense and is RELIANT on meeting the same standard--preventing grave bodily harm or death to yourself or others.

That depends. Assuming I heard correct on the radio, the Florida conception of "Stand Your Ground" allows you to use deadly force to prevent what you honestly believe is the commission of burglary or break in. Could be wrong though.

Got the gumption to do some research and, as their law says (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html), my summation is correct. In Florida, you can use the "Stand your Ground" protection against persons whom you believe to be entering a home illegally or illegally trying to remove someone. Its entirely possible then that Mr. Zimmerman believed Mr. Martin was about to break in to a home. At which point, he is free to follow and confront him, as at a minimum one would need to follow someone to stop such a crime. That he followed and approached him doesnt necessarily break the statute.

And indeed, at least in Florida, based on how the police handled it initially, all you need to do is tell them you felt threatened and, so long as there is no reason on the surface to doubt that, you can walk away.

[GunsmithKitten]

I step away from an issue for a week to repair my sanity, and hell breaks loose...aye yi yi.

First off, the police department are class A ******** ups.

When MY self defense incidents happened, I was taken downtown, I was grilled like a cheap steak about the situation, and the only way I avoided prosecution was to have my ducks in a row about the situation, which was corraborated at every point by both witnesses and in one case, security camera footage. And unlike what Zimmerman did, there was no dead body at my scenes, or even traumatic injury. Regardless, the cops did their job in establishing whether or not this was a legit self defense incident, and even after THEY did it, I still had to go to court over it.

Second, I don't know of a single damn law, including "Stand Your Ground", that accomidates you self defense when you actively pursue AND STALK someone with little to no evidence of a wrong doing. It's one thing to pursue someone actively breaking into a home or assaulting someone. Just being around the neighborhood and (sorry Joe and Geraldo) wearing a hoodie does not incite reasonable suspicion of the commission of anything covered under these laws.

And third, I say again, Zimmerman's defense is vague. This tells me a lot, and what it tells me is that Zimmerman knew he was in the wrong after he decided to play Death Wish 2 on some kid he didn't recognize.

[GunsmithKitten]

Requiem in Mortis

The simple facts are:
- Zimmerman was told by police not to follow Martin, and did it anyways
- the neighborhood watch rules state you're not allowed to carry a gun, and Zimmerman took one anyways
- he instigated the confrontation with Martin
- Martin was unarmed

I'll remain a little skeptical, but unless solid proof comes up proving otherwise I'm maintaining my position that this was murder.

I swear, any other CCW permit classes I help teach, I'm using this incident front and center of s**t NOT to do.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

It depends if the person feels they are endangered or not.

Personally I think everyone without a record should have tazers and guns, but that's just me.

[marshmallowcreampie]

Wait, so Martin was punching Zimmerman? Was that attack unprovoked, or was he doing it because Zimmerman was following him? If Zimmerman instigated it, it was murder. If he was attacked unprovoked, self-defense, but assuming that Martin was strong enough to cause real harm and that Zimmerman had no other option. (as in, was not strong enough to push Martin off of him) As the current evidence stands, though, it was an unprovoked murder.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

This is why we need cameras in public areas.

I mean seriously, everyone is already watching you and has freaking mobile phones cameras drilled on you all the time.


Any walmart or 7-11 or basic store is going to have them and they will most likely see into the street.

This will just make those precarious positions a non-issue.


I don't really see a problem with it.

In public, you are watched anyways, this just makes it easier to catch criminals and prove things- and it's not like even if you did commit crimes in your own home they'd be able to go in there or record stuff without a warrant.

[Brass Gogglez]

from listening to the call he made to police, he had no legit reason to follow that kid and the police on the phone even told him not to follow the kid.

if you were walking to the store and someone started harassing you, you would probably run or hit them or both, hearing the poor kid scream broke my heart.

I think it was murder and zimmermans a crazy racist a*****e looking for an excuse.

[Yoshpet]

I would hate for racially motivated vigilantism to become self-defense. Why is the 911 call not released? Is it being saved for trial?

[Less Than Liz]

Riviera de la Mancha

At which point, he is free to follow and confront him, as at a minimum one would need to follow someone to stop such a crime. That he followed and approached him doesnt necessarily break the statute.

Case law in Florida suggests otherwise. A man was found prohibited from invoking the stand your ground statute when he pursued the victim who had previously been in his garage. The cell phone call indicates that Martin was attempting to get away from Zimmerman, who had earlier been explicitly told by 911 not to follow Martin.

The stand your ground immunity was predicated on [the affirmative defense of] self-defense and designed to be an extension of the castle doctrine by eliminating the burden of proving reasonable belief and instead creating a presumption that deadly force was necessary when attacked in one's dwelling. Allowing people to stop crimes, consequently creating the situations in which they feel imminent harm or threat to their lives, then subsequently insulate them from scrutiny, would effectively legalize vigilantism. I can't see courts signing off on that kind of interpretation, particularly because I think that would contrary to legislative intent. The situation would be different if you just happen to catch someone in the middle of burglarizing, say, your house and refusing to retreat, but that is obviously not the case here.

Also note that, in Heckman, unlike Martin's case, there was much more physical and verbal exchange between the two parties. Even believing the friendliest interpretation of both Martin's and Zimmerman's side, there's much less explicit threat there than in the case where the immunity was dismissed. It also took place in Heckman's house, which undoubtedly falls under the scope of the statute and was designed to be afforded such protection, as opposed to Zimmerman's situation where he was patrolling the neighborhood.

Edited for clarification.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Less Than Liz

Riviera de la Mancha

At which point, he is free to follow and confront him, as at a minimum one would need to follow someone to stop such a crime. That he followed and approached him doesnt necessarily break the statute.

Case law in Florida suggests otherwise. A man was found prohibited from invoking the stand your ground statute when he pursued the victim who had previously been in his garage. The cell phone call indicates that Martin was attempting to get away from Zimmerman, who had earlier been explicitly told by 911 not to follow Martin.

The stand your ground immunity was predicated on [the affirmative defense of] self-defense and designed to be an extension of the castle doctrine. Allowing people to stop crimes, consequently creating the situations in which they feel imminent harm or threat to their lives, would effectively legalize vigilantism. I can't see courts signing off on that kind of interpretation, and I doubt that would contrary to legislative intent. The situation would be different if you just happen to catch someone in the middle of burglarizing, say, your house and refusing to retreat, but that is obviously not the case here.

First, thank you for posting case law. So many people dont do that, so I appreciate and like it when I see someone who does.

I have to be getting to bed, so I did not click on the link, but, taking your summation at face value, it seems like the issue was he followed him after the crime was committed. The Florida statute only allows you to proactively stop a crime you believe will occur or is occurring. In this case, Mr. Zimmerman could argue that that is just what he was doing.

I think the Florida statute does legalize vigilantism in a way. Other stand your ground laws I dont agree with, but get and would permit to exist, as most from what I have seen use the 'reasonable person' standard and dont allow you to be proactive.

[Less Than Liz]

Riviera de la Mancha

First, thank you for posting case law. So many people dont do that, so I appreciate and like it when I see someone who does.

That's what I'm here for.

[Prince Rilian]

The man followed the boy, and brought a gun along with him why? The boy was screaming for help. I think the most likely explanation is that what's his butt hated black people and wanted to kill someone. Maybe he instigated a fight before shooting the kid. Either way, it's the shooter's fault.

If someone were to actually just come up to you and start hitting you, and you tried to get away and they wouldn't let you, then shooting them in the leg seems fine. Shooting to kill right away without trying anything else seems excessive to me. Maybe the person has mental problems or something, and so can't really be held responsible for hitting you. But anyway I don't think I would want the shooter to go to jail forever.

But the specific case you mentioned is completely ******** different.

[Rebeldoomer]

I should bring this topic everyday until George Zimmerman gets tried for murder and let the prosecutors gather the evidence if he is a murderer or not.

[Ser McFlufflez]

Black kid in Florida being followed. Basic thoughts, he's gunna turn around and confront your a**, Zimmerman had no business following him.
Zimmerman is cowardice b***h. Had to shoot the kid cuz he couldn't handle getting his a** whooped. It was his evidently clear biased opinion about the boy.
I say we publicly kill him. s**t we haven't done in awhile and is proper. Kill a man without justification, get killed in public. Then others might be less interested in following.

nowadays He's just gunna get 3 good meals a day(BETTER than that our children get at schools) a bed and a roof over his head for the rest of his life. or he's gunna somehow be found innocent of murder and walk away victorious.