Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Pappy13]

All of the above would be defined as assault...

But would you be guilty of assault? We are talking about the legal ramifications here. I would have a very hard time convicting someone of assault who didn't do any physical harm to someone else. You might call it assault and they might be charged with assault, but I don't think I would convict them of assault. Maybe attempted assault?

Edit: Did a little reading and perhaps I'm wrong from a legal standpoint. Apparently assault doesn't require any physical contact, that's battery. Assault only requires that you threaten someone with physical harm. Perhaps you are right Spider.

Still, unless Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with physical harm someway he wouldn't be initiating an altercation in my mind.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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 and bloody their nose or something along those lines, then you have crossed the line into an altercation in my opinion.

Doesn't actually require physical harm.  Pulling out a knife, doesn't actually harm the other, but does give the other a right to self defense.

In general right to use self defense arise when a person "reasonably believes they are at risk of serious bodily harm or death" 

The person's belief must be reasonable, merely fearing for your life or safety is not enough, it must be a situation where most others would feel the same way.

Furthermore the risk needs to be of serious bodily harm or death.  A bruise, scrap, minor cut or even swollen lip is not serious bodily harm.  A broken limb or knife wound is. 

[Pappy13]

Doesn't actually require physical harm.  Pulling out a knife, doesn't actually harm the other, but does give the other a right to self defense.

So it's the threat of physical harm, would you say that's accurate?

So if Zimmerman told Trayvon "I'm gonna kill you" that would harm his case, but if he just said "Hey, I've called the police, you better get out of here", that wouldn't.

Or if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon by the arm to get his attention, that wouldn't hurt his case, but if he grabbed him by the arm and threw him to the ground, that would.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

If one of the parties pulls a weapon, then yes, things have escalated and the situation has changed.  However, such a defense would be difficult to deploy if Man 2 is unarmed.

If you start a fistfight (and it remains an unarmed fistfight) then it seems that if you feel the need to escalate to knifefight or gunfight, the outcome is on you.

[Spider-Dan]

Edit: Did a little reading and perhaps I'm wrong from a legal standpoint. Apparently assault doesn't require any physical contact, that's battery. Assault only requires that you threaten someone with physical harm. Perhaps you are right Spider.

Actually, you're right.  I said "assault" but I meant "battery": an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

So if Zimmerman were to grab Martin's arm (without legal cause to perform a citizen's arrest, which he obviously would not have had seeing as how everyone agrees Martin had committed no crime), that would be battery and Martin would have had a right to defend himself.

Or if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon by the arm to get his attention, that wouldn't hurt his case, but if he grabbed him by the arm and threw him to the ground, that would.

Private citizens cannot grab others by the arm to get their attention.  Martin would have been fully justified in punching Zimmerman in the face for such an action.

[Pappy13]

So if Zimmerman were to grab Martin's arm (without legal cause to perform a citizen's arrest, which he obviously would not have had seeing as how everyone agrees Martin had committed no crime), that would be battery and Martin would have had a right to defend himself.
Private citizens cannot grab others by the arm to get their attention.  Martin would have been fully justified in punching Zimmerman in the face for such an action.

I would have to disagree. Maybe you are within your legal rights, but in my humble opinion you are not fully justified, you're not even a little justified. In my humble opinion the person throwing the punch initiated the altercation in that instance.

[Phishfan]

If one of the parties pulls a weapon, then yes, things have escalated and the situation has changed.  However, such a defense would be difficult to deploy if Man 2 is unarmed.

If you start a fistfight (and it remains an unarmed fistfight) then it seems that if you feel the need to escalate to knifefight or gunfight, the outcome is on you.

OK good to hear we can agree on this then. Now let's consider this scenario. This actually comes back to the Zimmerman/Martin case. I assume you, as have many people, take the position Martin was unarmed based on what he was found with and what testimony they have heard. The defense's opening statement took a completely different stance on that. I'm afraid I have to paraphrase here but the attorney basically said he was tired of hearing people say that Martin was unarmed. The minute he used the sidewalk it became a deadly weapon. Smashing someone's head on the sidewalk is no different than picking up a brick and smashing them with it.

Now you can argue maybe he didn't do that. I would say fine but it does contradict photographic evidence and statements made in police reports though.

The problem with any prosecution of this event is that there has been no testimony so far that proves beyond reasonable doubt that self defense was not reasonable. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution and so far they have not been able to really show anything.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Private citizens cannot grab others by the arm to get their attention.  Martin would have been fully justified in punching Zimmerman in the face for such an action.

You are half correct. 

If party A grabs party B, than party A has committed both the crime and tort of battery.  B would be fully justified in calling the police and filing criminal complaint and/or filing a lawsuit against A.  However if party B is not fully justified in punching party A.  If party B responds in such a manner party B is now guilty of the crime of battery and liable in tort.  Party B would futher lose his right to sue for the tort, however party A is still criminally liable.   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So it's the threat of physical harm, would you say that's accurate?

So if Zimmerman told Trayvon "I'm gonna kill you" that would harm his case, but if he just said "Hey, I've called the police, you better get out of here", that wouldn't.

Or if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon by the arm to get his attention, that wouldn't hurt his case, but if he grabbed him by the arm and threw him to the ground, that would.

That sounds reasonable to me.

It is the threat of serious bodily injury.  The first one I agree completely.  Second one I would say that part a would hurt his case a little, part b would hurt his case signficantly. 

[Phishfan]

I will say this much, the invesitgator who initially suggested in his report to arrest Zimmerman (and was overridden) is on the stand today and has been the strongest witness for the prosecution so far. An interesting topic today has been the fact Zimmerman claims to not have known street names but his entire community only had three street names in it. Being a Neighborhood Watch captain and not knowing the names of three streets seems a bit difficult to believe.

[Spider-Dan]

If party A grabs party B, than party A has committed both the crime and tort of battery.  B would be fully justified in calling the police and filing criminal complaint and/or filing a lawsuit against A.  However if party B is not fully justified in punching party A.

Based on what?

Let's be clear here: we are talking a person with clearly antagonistic intent grabbing your arm.  This is not the same thing as tapping someone on the shoulder because they didn't notice that you were waiting in line when they cut in front of you.  If you are in a hostile shouting match with someone and you grab them for any reason*, they have the right to defend themselves.

If you think grabbing someone (e.g. to detain them) is not justification for punching them in self-defense, then what if they push you (but you don't fall down)?  What if they push you against a wall?  What if they push you and you fall on something soft (e.g. grass)?  What if they punch you in the arm?

If a clearly hostile person grabs my arm, I don't see how punching them would not be justified self-defense.

*notwithstanding the aforementioned "fighting words"

[Pappy13]

If party A grabs party B, than party A has committed both the crime and tort of battery.  B would be fully justified in calling the police and filing criminal complaint and/or filing a lawsuit against A.

This I can agree with. Whether or not they should win that lawsuit is another story. Personally I wouldn't find someone guilty of anything for simply putting their hand on someone's arm to get their attention, but go ahead file the complaint or lawsuit. That's your perogative.

However party B is not fully justified in punching party A.  If party B responds in such a manner party B is now guilty of the crime of battery and liable in tort.  Party B would futher lose his right to sue for the tort, however party A is still criminally liable. 

That makes sense.

I don't believe we have  gotten to the point in our society that brushing up against someone in the elevator is just cause for them to punch you in the face. The party being touched has some liability in assessing the situation and acting appropriately. Maybe a polite "Please don't touch me" would do the trick?

[Spider-Dan]

The defense's opening statement took a completely different stance on that. I'm afraid I have to paraphrase here but the attorney basically said he was tired of hearing people say that Martin was unarmed. The minute he used the sidewalk it became a deadly weapon. Smashing someone's head on the sidewalk is no different than picking up a brick and smashing them with it.

If "the ground" is a weapon, then we must come to the conclusion that every fight in which person A knocks down or slams person B means person A has committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Suffice it to say that I do not accept the claim that the ground is a weapon, in any sense that we normally use the term "weapon."  If you're going to go to those lengths, then you might as well say that headbutting you is no different than hitting you in the face with a bowling ball.

[Pappy13]

Let's be clear here: we are talking a person with clearly antagonistic intent grabbing your arm.

How would Trayvon Martin know that? If Zimmerman was screaming obscenities at him and THEN grabs his arm, I agree, but what if he just calmly walks up to him and grabs his arm and then says "Can I ask you what you are doing?". 2 different scenario's that suggest 2 totally different reactions in my opinion. We don't really know what happened, so I'd have to hear some kind of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was being aggressive prior to grabbing his arm to make that assumption, you can't just assume that from the beginning.

This is not the same thing as tapping someone on the shoulder because they didn't notice that you were waiting in line when they cut in front of you. If you are in a hostile shouting match with someone and you grab them for any reason*, they have the right to defend themselves.

Agreed, but that evidence MUST be supplied to make that assumption. That's kinda where I'm going with this. If the prosecution can show a hostile shouting match before Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon, then they have a case.

If you think grabbing someone (e.g. to detain them)...

How do you know that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin? Is there any evidence to support this? I don't know, I'm asking the question. If I'm on the jury I want to hear the prosecution make a case that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin and if it's a strong case, then I might find Zimmerman guilty, but they have to make a case, I can't just assume it.

...is not justification for punching them in self-defense, then what if they push you (but you don't fall down)?  What if they push you against a wall?  What if they push you and you fall on something soft (e.g. grass)?  What if they punch you in the arm?

All to be taken into consideration. That's where the gray area comes into play in my mind.

If a clearly hostile person grabs my arm, I don't see how punching them would not be justified self-defense.

How do you know the intent? Grabbing your arm is not "clearly" hostile in my opinion. Something more would be required for you to assume hostility. That's what I'm looking for if I'm on the jury.

[Phishfan]

If "the ground" is a weapon, then we must come to the conclusion that every fight in which person A knocks down or slams person B means person A has committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Suffice it to say that I do not accept the claim that the ground is a weapon, in any sense that we normally use the term "weapon."  If you're going to go to those lengths, then you might as well say that headbutting you is no different than hitting you in the face with a bowling ball.

Wow, you really tried hard to stay with your unarmed position here. I don't think anyone with an open mind  considers a sidewalk as the same thing as the ground in this scenario. This is just a laughable position.