General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf an armed man breaks into my home and I attack him, can he shoot me and claim self defense?
Similarly, if I am walking down the street in my own neighborhood, committing no crime, and an armed man chases and confronts me... if I try to fight back, can he shoot me and claim self defense?
There's no dispute that Trayvon Martin was committing no crime.
There's no dispute that Zimmerman chased him - he admitted doing so in the 911 call.
If you commit a crime, you have no right to act in "self defense." If you are armed and you chase an innocent, unarmed minor down the street, I say you also have no right to claim "self defense."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I say that because it was asked of me. Color assumptions runs deep even in academia. I have also heard putative adults in a school setting claim that those who feel dissed have the moral authority to administer a beat down.
We will never know what really happened that night...no witnesses at the right time and the physical evidence seems mixed (much of it is not yet public). It still seems like an uncalled for shooting to me.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)But what is "reasonable" under this f'ed up set of (incomplete) facts? I honestly don't know.
JVS
(61,935 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)In an off campus incident, there was an attempted beat down targeted at her. It was an epic fail. The school attempted to bring the issue under their purview since the trigger happened on campus. Apparently my daughter had "dissed" them by talking to one of her assailants boyfriend. The counselor said it would have been more appropriate to for her to have accepted a beat down for dissing the other girl rather than resisting.
When we said that was about the dumbest thing we had ever heard the counselor replied that as African Americans should understand such things as being part of African American culture.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I hope your daughter was not injured.
Sounds like that G.C. needs to experience what she claims is reality.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)While we are African Americans, my daughters were raised overseas and were really never exposed to the urban African American culture and norms. They did not even know what the term "diss" meant at the time. That said the three African American female students were known for being somewhere between domineering and bullies and could not deal with another black girl who did not understand things as they saw them. When they jumped her off campus (she was walking home) they had no clue of her background and capabilities which included years of martial arts training. She dropped all three of them, inflicting moderate injuries.
There was an off campus relationship between the GC and at least one of the girls' family. She took at face value the claim that my daughter had beat them horribly over what was supposed to be a minor educational "discussion". Her belief is that someone with that kind of "damage potential" and "lack of cultural understanding" was a risk to other students. She fought for suspension or even expulsion but eventually was told to back off by the district.
The GC had some good points about how the three assailants had lost so much face it would be hard for them to function in school and with their peers. Indeed one never returned to school and the others dropped out later. Their injuries were not all that serious (bruises, broken bones, and a lost weave) but clearly triggered some significant changes in their lives.
unless he was able to escape and you followed him to renew the fight.
On the street - different. It is not illegal to chase and confront someone in public. We also do not know if Zimmerman had pulled his gun and Trayvon Martin was aware that Zimmerman was armed. If he had pulled the gun, Martin had the reasonable assumption that his life was in danger and he had the right to assault Zimmerman to defend himself. If Zimmerman did not pull a gun and only verbally accosted Martin then Martin did not have the right to physically assault Zimmerman.
I have no idea which of the above situations actually happened. I think Zimmerman was in the wrong and at a minimum manslaughter charges are appropriate.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)uniform this would have been different but he was a stranger. We teach our children to be weary of stangers. And for a good reason. Trayvon told his friend on the phone that someone was following him but he did not know why. Someone - a stranger.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It usually it requires a pattern of repeated behavior, not a single incident.
Here is the Florida law:
(1)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)?“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c)?“Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d)?“Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2)?Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3)?Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4)?Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5)?Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6)?Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7)?Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8)?The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Dayton vetoed the bill in MN.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not a license to murder. You can say you felt threatened but that does not mean the police, the DA, the judge or a jury has to believe you.
What complicates the Zimmerman case is that there are no witnesses. Couple that with a botched police investigation and there is a real shortage of facts. Not every case will be like this.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)is a very different legal situation than someone "confronting" someone else in a public area.
You have the right to defend yourself and others if an armed person breaks into your house. That person has committed a crime by breaking in, an egregious one if armed.
"Confronting" is a very vague term, as is "following." Self-defense laws use instead a "reasonable person" standard.
Of course if an armed person chased and threatened with harm someone else, the armed person should fail in any claim at self-defense. Self-defense laws usually include some kind of law that precludes an "initial aggressor" from successfully claiming self-defense. Florida law has such a provision.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)And that is not clear based on what we know today. The other is if Martin initiated the physical confrontation.
Based on the limited information made public so far, its not going to be a slam dunk for either side.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Maybe if it can be shown that he did so in a threatening way, but there is no right to not being approached in public.
About the whole armed thing, concealed carry means that you shouldn't know if the person following you is armed. Now, if the person is waving a gun around, that is a crime and you are entitled to self defense. But in this case, there is no evidence that points to Zimmerman walking around with his gun visible, and assuming that he's engaging in one crime in order to demonstrate guilt of another crime is really sloppy thinking.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The fact that Trayvon Martin was unarmed has gotten repeated many times, but it's irrelevant with respect to whether or not Zimmerman can justify the shooting as self-defense. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. IMO that takes him out of the realm of self-defense, UNLESS (and it's a very big unless) the initial confrontation ended, and Trayvon Martin initiated another one.
I think Zimmerman is morally in the wrong for starting the whole episode, but sometimes legal and moral don't exactly match.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)We know Martin was frightened enough to run from Zimmerman. We know Zimmerman chased Martin. Zimmerman described these events himself to the police dispatcher. That is not in dispute. We know that Martin was not committing a crime and that he was unarmed. That is not in dispute either. We know that at some point Zimmerman and Martin came together. Would Martin run away in fear only to later seek out the man chasing him? Or did Zimmerman continue pursuing and stalking Martin?
I don't see how any rational person can argue that having a strange man pursuing you down the street at night for no apparent reason is not threatening. I can tell you that if a strange man chased me down the street, I would feel entirely justified fighting back. And if I saw that he had a gun, I would feel entirely justified trying to take it away from him. Just as I would feel justified in killing a man who broke into my home while my family slept.
You can't claim self defense when you are committing a crime like robbing an occupied home, and I assume that the legal rational for that is that 1) you set those events into motion and 2) any reasonable person would fear for their safety from you. If you walk into a bank brandishing a machine gun, of course the security guard is going to try to shoot you if he gets a chance. You created that situation. Does that mean you get to shoot him first and get off by claiming self defense?
Zimmerman set these events into motion by pursuing Martin, and Martin had every reason to fear for his safety, whether or not he saw that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman should not be allowed to argue self defense any more than the guy walking into the bank with a machine gun should.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)is very different circumstances and much more clear cut than the martin-zimmerman circumstances. As is walking into a bank waving a gun around.
Florida law has a provision for what I think you're asking about:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification [of self-defense] is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Legally, you need to think about it as: (1st) a person claims self-defense, and then (2nd) that justification of self-defense is taken away if person was the initial aggressor.
I think you're trying to think of this situation in terms of "setting in motion" certain events or "creating the situation" but you can't look at it that way. A situation that ends in tragedy may start with circumstances that would never rise to the level of someone being an initial aggressor.
If it's late at night and I see someone I don't know walking down my street, and I follow the person for a bit, maybe a house length or two, intending to ask something like "can I help you?", should I be considered the initial aggressor if the person I followed turned around and used force against me?
What if I were on a public street and was lost and jogged to catch up to someone in front of me to ask them for directions?
I'm NOT saying AT ALL that those examples are analagous to the Zimmerman-Martin situation. I'm just saying you can't think of all this in terms like "setting in motion the events." The question is did Zimmerman "initially provoke the use of force against him" by Martin? And whatever Zimmerman did had to not just reasonably provoke a reaction out of Martin, but provoke use of force.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Zimmerman did not jog up to Martin. He did not merely follow Martin. He chased him, according to his own account. Martin was frightened enough to run away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued him. I wonder what percentage of Zimmerman defenders would feel they had no right to use force if someone like Trayvon Martin chased after them on a street at night for no apparent reason? (Yes, I'm calling the defenders racists.) What if they saw that their pursuer carried a gun? The notion of the pursuer even attempting a self defense claim in such a circumstance is laughable.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)to when you said you "assume that the legal rational for that is that 1) you set those events into motion and 2) any reasonable person would fear for their safety from you.
It sounded like you were asking what the legal basis and rationale would be. I was trying very hard not to comment on the Martin-Zimmerman facts per se since I'm not very familiar with them. It sounded like you might not be familiar with the legal provisions pertinent to the case and were asking about it. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were asking.
Zimmerman will have to prove self-defense, but will also have to get past the initial aggressor provision, which in my opinion is huge issue in this case. If the facts show that he ran after Martin with a visible gun drawn, I would think that would be a text book example of initial aggressor.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the car to contine following. I call that threatening.
johnnie
(23,616 posts)He can claim whatever he wants, but it would be up to the legal system and a jury of 12 to look at the evidence and see if they agree with his claim.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Were it not for the public outcry, Zimmerman would not be having to face a jury. The police/prosecutor were willing to accept his claim of self defense on his word alone without requiring him to support his claim. That's a big problem with the SYG law.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)police force and DA office.
The SYG law still requires evidence of self-defense, not a mere claim by the alledged victim.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)one homeowner in Nebraska shot a theif running out of his home and had to prove it was self defense. There was a big stink about it but at least it was looked into instead of whitewashed.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and he is white, the chances are he would probably get away with it. I doubt the cops would care very much.
provis99
(13,062 posts)Joshua Wagner stabbed a man to death in his own house, claimed self-defense, and got off.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)But someone should be able to walk down the street risk free.
