Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

If Zimmerman is convicted in order to placate all the potential rioters it may set a precedent that you may not use a weapon against an unarmed attacker no matter what.

If Zimmerman is convicted (which necessarily means that the jury found that he initiated the scuffle) then it will set a precedent that you don't get to start altercations just because you're armed.

[EDGECRUSHER]

It's been awhile since I read up on this case, but wasn't Trayvon trespassing because it was a gated community?

[pondwater]

If Zimmerman is convicted (which necessarily means that the jury found that he initiated the scuffle) then it will set a precedent that you don't get to start altercations just because you're armed.

If, and I say if, the prosecution has a bombshell to drop or something of relevance to turn this trial around then you may have a point. The majority of the evidence up to now should in no way convict Zimmerman. If the trial keeps going the same way it has been going and he is still convicted. It will not be because the jury found that he initiated the scuffle, it will be to placate the rioters. Keep in mind, if these people riot, they are the same ones that said that all they wanted to see Zimmerman have his day in court. But if Zimmerman prevails, mysteriously that won't be good enough. With some people you just can't win

[el diablo]

It's been awhile since I read up on this case, but wasn't Trayvon trespassing because it was a gated community?

If being the son of a resident is trespassing, then yes.

[CF DolFan]

If Zimmerman is convicted (which necessarily means that the jury found that he initiated the scuffle) then it will set a precedent that you don't get to start altercations just because you're armed.

Even though I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence ... I don't even think it even matters any longer who started it. Jonathan Good testified that Trayvon was on top and throwing blows (although legalistically he didn't actually see them connect) and he tried to stop the fight but they wouldn't. That's when he went in to call the police to stop it and he heard the gunshot.

It's my understanding that even if you can use violence when threatened you must stop once you have reached a point of control or else risk battery charges. You can shoot a burglar but you can't just beat him to death even if they did just break into your home. Once Mr. Goodman came out and screamed for them to stop while standing next to them I would think it's rational to believe Travon was safe to stop fighting.

For the record when I was seventeen I probably wouldn't have stopped either. As well ... if I was being followed by some "want-to-be cop" even if I was in the wrong,  I'd have probably fought him too.

We had a security guard at an apartment complex that we used to terrorize ... even rigging a forklift to drive straight at him while he was sleeping in his car. Had he cornered me I would have certainly hit him. In fact "hit first" has always been our motto.  My mindset as a young hoodlum certainly wasn't what it is today but that doesn't mean I wasn't in the wrong. Like many other people I grew up with, I am very fortunate I didn't end up like Trayvon but that doesn't mean Zimmerman is guilty.

[Phishfan]

Correction. When I said "not all were not emergencies", I meant he used the non emergency line.

On a separate note. That's the second time in which you've not wanted me on your "jury". I would say, don't follow an unarmed teen in the dark with a gun, and you've got nothing to worry about. That would be infusing emotion. I would hope you would be willing to have someone see the whole picture. And not just the black & white aspect of who threw the 1st punch. But to each their own. If you accept a reason to fire a weapon, I would hope you would accept a reason to throw a punch. Again, to each their own. There is relevance into reasons of an act. That's why there are degrees of murder. I don't see how GZ was on a mission to kill that night. That's why I wouldn't go for a 1st degree murder charge. It has not been proven that Trayvon acted with malicious intent either. Who threw the 1st punch doesn't prove who the aggressor was either. But somehow profiling & pursuing in the dark, against an innocent person isn't an aggressive act?

Man this post just makes me shake my head. I accept reasons to fire guns. I also accept reasons to throw a punch but to be honest, there is very little reason to throw a first punch. Being followed certainly is not one in my book.

[pondwater]

Man this post just makes me shake my head. I accept reasons to fire guns. I also accept reasons to throw a punch but to be honest, there is very little reason to throw a first punch. Being followed certainly is not one in my book.

Actually, you are correct. There are very few reason to assault someone. If Martin actually initiated contact, he is the responsible party in my opinion.

[Spider-Dan]

Even though I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence ... I don't even think it even matters any longer who started it. Jonathan Good testified that Trayvon was on top and throwing blows (although legalistically he didn't actually see them connect) and he tried to stop the fight but they wouldn't. That's when he went in to call the police to stop it and he heard the gunshot.

It's my understanding that even if you can use violence when threatened you must stop once you have reached a point of control or else risk battery charges.

My understanding is that if you initiate an altercation, self-defense is no longer applicable as a legal defense.  Zimmerman would then have to justify killing Martin on non-self-defense grounds, and I don't know how that would even be possible.

[Pappy13]

My understanding is that if you initiate an altercation, self-defense is no longer applicable as a legal defense.  Zimmerman would then have to justify killing Martin on non-self-defense grounds, and I don't know how that would even be possible.

I think the big question then is what is the definition of "initiate" as used here?

What if Zimmerman was following Martin? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman called out to Martin to stop or something else? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the arm? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman pushed him? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman threw a punch? Is that initiating an altercation?

I would say yes to the #5 and no to numbers 1-3.  #4 is where it starts to get into a gray area and could go either way.

[Phishfan]

My understanding is that if you initiate an altercation, self-defense is no longer applicable as a legal defense.  Zimmerman would then have to justify killing Martin on non-self-defense grounds, and I don't know how that would even be possible.

Like Pappy said, the definition of initiation is a bit gray. Also, your statement here is rather gray as well.  I know you like hypotheticals so here is a scenario to show how gray your position really is.

Let's step away from this specific case but stay with your specific scenario. There are not racial overtones in this hypotehtical. Two guys of the same race are in your typical disagreement which turns into the typical type of tussle. Man 1 throws the first punch in the event (hell for our purposes of refuting your stement let's say it is the only punch). Man 2 responds by reaching into his pocket and pulling a knife and beginning to stab Man 1 repeatedly.  Now Man 1 fearing for his life reached into his pocket and pulls out a legally concealed gun which her uses to kill Man 2.

Now we can all agree Man1 clearly initiated the violence by throwing the first punch. I think we can all agree that under Florida law Man 2 would not have been able to use the self defense justification because the law states there must be a real perception of the fear of death or great bodily harm (also a gray area). I'm sure Man 1 feels a great fear of death after being repeatedly stabbed. Was the use of the gun justified as defense at that point? I say yes. Was he also justified in his first punch, not at all. Would I want to see Man 1 walk free of any conviction, no. Would I want it to be a murder conviction, no.

I can understand if you feel differently but I do not see it as black and white as your statement is.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

My understanding is that if you initiate an altercation, self-defense is no longer applicable as a legal defense.  Zimmerman would then have to justify killing Martin on non-self-defense grounds, and I don't know how that would even be possible.

That is not my understanding. 

My recollection is that even if you started the altercation you can claim self defense if the other party raised the stakes to seriously risk of bodily harm or death.

To wit:

Party A shoves Party B.  Party B pulls a knife and stabs Party A.  Party B claims self defense on the grounds "A started" B does NOT have a valid self defense claim.

Party A shoves Party B.  Party B pulls out a knife and lunges at A.  A pulls out a gun and shoots B.  A DOES have a valid claim of self defense, because B escalated the confrontation

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think the big question then is what is the definition of "initiate" as used here?

What if Zimmerman was following Martin? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman called out to Martin to stop or something else? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the arm? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman pushed him? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman threw a punch? Is that initiating an altercation?

I would say yes to the #5 and no to numbers 1-3.  #4 is where it starts to get into a gray area and could go either way.

While I don't know specifically in Florida, my understanding is that in most states, 1-4 are a no and not grey.  5 is a yes. 

[Landshark]

I think the big question then is what is the definition of "initiate" as used here?

What if Zimmerman was following Martin? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman called out to Martin to stop or something else? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the arm? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman pushed him? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman threw a punch? Is that initiating an altercation?

I would say yes to the #5 and no to numbers 1-3.  #4 is where it starts to get into a gray area and could go either way.

I'd say no to #1 and 2 and yes to the rest.  How about if Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin turned around and said, "Hey man, why the fuck are you following me?"  Is that initiating an altercation?

[Spider-Dan]

What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the arm? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman pushed him? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman threw a punch? Is that initiating an altercation?

All of the above would be defined as assault, and would fall under what I meant by initiating a (physical) altercation.

There is also a specific definition of "fighting words"; words that, when used, are presumed to be reasonable provocation of a fight.

[Pappy13]

I'd say no to #1 and 2 and yes to the rest.  How about if Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin turned around and said, "Hey man, why the fuck are you following me?"  Is that initiating an altercation?

I would say absolutely not. I think Hoodie and others have touched on an important point, it's not just initiating a confrontation, it's initiating an altercation which I think requires some kind of physical harm. Yelling at someone or grabbing them is not causing any physical harm to them. Once you throw a punch or something along those lines, then you have crossed the line into an altercation in my opinion.