Did Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself, or not?

[Baitball Blogger]

I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon or he wouldn't have been so determined to follow him. Others have done a wonderful job of pointed that out today. But if that position sticks with the jury, wouldn't the next one be: Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself? If so, Zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant as evidence.

What evidence does matter is that Trayvon was having a conversation with his girlfriend so it's obvious that Trayvon wasn't up to no good. He had every right to be there. Which means, he had every right to defend himself if he thought someone was going to attack him.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, made the first move to confront Trayvon, and he did it without knowing beforehand if Trayvon was armed. That was stupid on all counts, but especially because a fantasy was going on his head which shouldn't give him a pass because he suddenly feared for his life.

I keep thinking about the long term consequences of this case. It's bad enough that we have so many concealed weapon holders in the county. But why allow them full range of the SYG law when they make a conscious decision to confront someone? What does that mean for the rest of us who decide to go out for a walk at night? If Zimmerman prevails the message to this trigger happy community is: Dead men don't tell tales.

[warrior1]

1. yes

[CatWoman]

2. Gee

on another thread, the author of that thread pretty much told me I was full of shit when I brought up the fact that Trayvon was on the phone when accosted by Zimmerman.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. The way I see it, we need to keep driving the main points home so they don't get lost.

Something someone wrote today reminded me of how easily we get "disappeared." We're people with full rights too, which means we have the same right to do the same kind of things that anybody else does, including walking to and from the 7 11 without getting accosted.

It sounds like the poster you were talking to cannot see Trayvon as anything but a kid who was up to no good.

Sounds like he has blinders that need to be removed.

[janx]

3. My brother has concealed carry in Florida.

Too many people are freaking out about the consequences of this case to concealed carry or to the 2nd Amendment. I would not be surprised if the NRA isn't sending out messages already. It doesn't even follow.

It was a real shame when the NRA went political and created the fear that "so-and-so is coming to take your guns away."



The Stand Your Ground law is being revisited as a result of this, from what I've read; but I've also read that the law is fairly specific and might not even come close to protecting Zimmerman.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Janx, if people are looking at the long term consequences,

this case should make it clear that if you have a gun and you make the first move to confront someone you are fully liable for what happens.

[janx]

9. Yes, and I hope the law is written well enough

to accomplish that in this case. Otherwise...good lord.

We'll see how the trial goes.

[otohara]

8. My Neighbors Ex - Shot Their Kid

and himself.

She is so sad - when I see her walking in the neighborhood, her face is blank, she stares at the ground.

They're responsible gun owners, until, they're not!
I fucking hate guns.

$50 million in the aftermath of Virginia Tech.

It affects us all now.

[janx]

10. When I was very young, our female neighbor stabbed her husband with a butcher knife

and killed him.

I fucking hate butcher knives.

[otohara]

13. Can't Kill 17 People w/ A Butcher Knive

at a University.

Guns vs Stabbing statistics - Guns kill more people, any questions?

Guns.................................................... 62.4 62.4 60.2 58.3 59.0 58.7 59.1 59.1 60.6 62.4 64.3 66.3 68.2 69.6 70.0 68.2 67.5 67.7 64.9
Handguns ........................................ 45.8 45.3 43.5 43.9 43.8 43.0 43.9 43.7 45.3 47.6 49.8 53.0 55.4 57.0 57.8 55.8 54.6 53.3 52.1
Cutting or stabbing ........................... 19.3 19.4 20.9 21.8 21.2 21.1 20.5 20.3 19.2 18.2 17.4 15.8 14.5 12.8 12.7 12.6 13.7 13.0 13.3

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used.html

[janx]

22. Take it to the gun forum.

Please.

And learn how to spell the word knife. Thanks.

[ronnie624]

34. It could have been a typo.

The f and v are right next to each other.

At any rate, that doesn't address any kind of 'logic' supporting your post about butcher knives.

[Rex]

40. Yet the poster is correct.

And booze kills even more people a year. What will we do about it?

[LanternWaste]

65. I believe her responses were predicated on your statements.

"Take it to the gun forum..."

I believe her responses were predicated on your statements. Hence, maybe you should take it to the gun forum as well...

(And learn how to avoid fragmented sentences, too)

[The Magistrate]

17. You, Mr. Janx, Win 'Stupidest Post On The Page' Honors, With That Nonsense, Hands Down

[janx]

21. I'm glad I no longer reside here much or use politics as logic.

P.S.: I'm female.

So who is stupid now?

[HangOnKids]

23. How would anyone know your gender?

Nice edit to add the insult.

[The Magistrate]

30. Even This Heroic Effort, Ma'am, Leaves The Previous As 'Stupidest Post On The Page'

"On the internet, nobody can see you're a dog."

[Solomon]

6. No. "A black man has no rights that a white man is

bound to respect".

[Baitball Blogger]

7. That much is true.

However, we must change that "reality."

[Fumesucker]

11. Maybe after he was shot?

Then Zimmerman had commenced a violent act on Martin and he was free to defend himself?

[Zookeeper]

12. Trayvon Martin absolutely had a right to defend himself...

He was a teenage kid being followed by a strange adult man with a gun. I would perceive that to be a situation that required me to defend myself, whether I knew he had a gun or not. If my son, who is the same age, weight and height as Trayvon, were being followed by a strange adult man with a gun, I would see him as being in danger and hope he would be able to defend himself.

The Zimmerman apologists don't seem to consider the fact that Trayvon was a kid, who would have realistically been expected to be frightened. I perceive an underlying racism in the assumption that he wasn't frightened. There is no reason to think Trayvon was a hardened thug, unless one assumes that all teenage black males are thugs.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. It is always tricky when you compare, but...

Trayvon deserves as much, if not more compassion as the two kids from Winter Park High School who were killed execution style. It's alleged that they were killed for a marijuana bill of less than $500.00 and they had a police record that involved Grand larceny. Yet, nobody questions that they're good kids that were well liked. One of the fathers works for the State Attorney's Office.

Trayvon did nothing worse than walk to the convenience store for Skittles. He also was suspended for an empty bag with traces of marijuana and he's made out to be a thug.

It just doesn't make sense.

[dkf]

15. In the eyes of the law he had the right to defend himself.

But giving Zimmerman the impression he was in mortal danger gave Zimmerman the right to shoot Martin.

Both were safe in the eyes of the law if they were defending themselves. Both were in danger from each other.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. If we can frame it in those terms,

I think we'll win because it boils down to the person who started the confrontation. That would be Zimmerman.

[dkf]

18. I'm thinking that may not be provable.

The investigator says they have no evidence that Zimmerman struck first.

[CatWoman]

19. which proves how smart the investigator is

by not divulging information for scum to run with and try to disprove.

[AzWorker]

25. So the investigator lied under oath? thats 'smart'?

Thats not gonna work out like they planned..

[CatWoman]

60. no

and yes.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. He got out of the car!

[Rex]

41. Doesn't matter he killed the kid with a gun.

There will be charges and some jailtime for that.

[WinniSkipper]

33. "I think we'll win because it boils down to..."

Hey Baitball

I have no issue with you saying this. It sounds like you have made up your mind about who is guilty - and that's fine with me even though I think it is a rush to judgment.

Do I think Zimmerman is at fault here? Yes. Murder? Doubtful. Manslaughter? Likely - depending on what comes out at trial.

But I would hope that those of you who have made up your mind will show the same amount of respect to those of us who will wait and see what happens at trial before passing final judgment.

And as I have said before - I think this case is more about power, corruption, and inside influence (and likely institution racism) that it is about Zimmerman's racial issues. By that I mean, if Trayvon Martin were Latin, Asian, White, or Black - we would still be having this conversation. I think Zimemrman went after someone who was dressed a certain way, and he saw an opportunity to be a big guy. Even though it was dinner hour and nobody in their right mind would be breaking in at 7pm.

After the fact - I think he was not charged because either the Sanford PD is racist, his dad swung a lot of influence, or the authorities just saw it as another gang banger dead (Martin is not a gang banger). And I think all three of these are possible.

This concerns me a whole lot more than Zimmerman ever will

[Baitball Blogger]

35. I live in the county,

so a lot of what you're conjecturing are elements that we've dealt with before.

If you think he's probably guilty of manslaughter, we are closer in reasoning, than we are apart.

[WinniSkipper]

47. He's certainly guilty of something

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

and i would speculate the 2nd degree is in hopes of getting a plea. The new prosecutors can not walk away from this empty handed. They have to get jail time for him.

ETA - he is at least guilty ethically IMO for those who are going to question "guilty of something"

[Baitball Blogger]

50. No problem with that assessment.

[sabrina 1]

53. By that logic, if a woman is jogging in the park and notices she is being followed

and calls a friend to tell them that she is worried, then the follower confronts her, or she comes upon the follower and asks him why he is following her, after which her phone goes dead, and two minutes later she is shot, 'BOTH' are responsible for her death???

This moral equivalency argument needs to go in this country. Everything is justified in trying to protect people who initiate problems, by drawing up this moral equivalency argument.

Trayvon did nothing more than go to the store, unarmed, he did not follow Zimmerman, he tried to get away from him. He failed, he died, and I HOPE he got a few shots at his killer before he died. But the fact that he is dead is tragic and clear evidence that the concerns he had that he might in danger, were in fact true.

If you choose to follow someone for no reason, if you are armed, if you confront them or put yourself in a position where they rightfully confront you to ask why you are following them, YOU are the guilty party. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

If there had been no Zimmerman driving to the store that night, we would never have heard of either of them. It's really that simple.

[dkf]

56. If she pulls a gun then possibly.

This isn't really about who is to blame, it's about who can claim self defense.

[sabrina 1]

57. Trayvon didn't have a gun. The woman in my scenario didn't have one either.

And yes, this IS about who is to blame. That is what justice means. We do not blame victims for being shot when someone else is responsible for that. The only way Zimmerman can claim self defense is to lie about it.

ANYTHING Trayvon may have done to try to defend himself was his right. And from what we now know he was dealing with an armed individual ready and willing to kill someone rather than stay in his truck as he was told to do until the police arrived, which took all of about 4 minutes after he hung up from his call. He couldn't wait 4 minutes. I would not want to be his defense attorney. Best thing he can do is make a deal imo.

When you walk under a moving train voluntarily, can you claim it was the train's fault if it runs over you?

[dkf]

62. Oh I'm sure someone would sue the train company.

Heck you could have someone break into your house and sue you for an unsafe balcony.

What is lawful isn't necessarily just.

[spin]

20. Assuming that Trayvon was followed and confronted by an aggressive Zimmerman ...

he had reason to be concerned.

Travyon was doing nothing illegal, just walking down the street. When he realized that he was being followed he might have walked faster and made an attempt to lose his pursuer.

Trayvon Martin Exclusive: Friend on Phone with Teen Before Death Recalls Final Moments
By MATT GUTMAN and SENI TIENABESO | Good Morning America – Tue, Mar 20, 2012 2:32 AM EDT

In the final moments of his life, Trayvon Martin was being hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him, according to the teenage girl whose call logs show she was on the phone with the 17-year-old boy in the moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead.

***snip***

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-killing-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts-063243901--abc-news.html

A reasonable person standing in Trayvon Martin's shoes would have had reason to be concerned when he realized that he was be followed. If Zimmerman did indeed chase Martin down, confront and physically attack him, Martin should have the right to stand his ground and use equivalent force to stop the attack. I have heard that Zimmerman was much heavier than Martin and this disparity in size might have caused Martin more concern than had both individuals been the same size and in the same physical condition.

Obviously it's difficult for a good little fighter to beat a good big fighter, but it is possible that a good little fighter can beat the crap out of a much larger less experienced fighter. It often isn't the size of the dog in the fight but instead the size of the fight in the dog.

If Martin was able to land a solid punch and then took Zimmerman to the ground, he might have started slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. It's unlikely but still possible. In such a situation, Zimmerman who had a concealed weapon might have feared that Martin would manage to discover the firearms and kill him with it. It looks like this may be the argument that Zimmerman uses in court. It's not a "Stand Your Ground" defense as if Zimmerman was on the ground under Martin, retreat was not an option and therefore is irrelevant.

In my opinion, Zimmerman lost any protection under the "Stand Your Ground" law when he refused to break off the pursuit as recommended by the dispatcher. Of course, this will be debated in court.

I fear you may be falling for the media propaganda when you say,

It's bad enough that we have so many concealed weapon holders in the county. But why allow them full range of the SYG law when they make a conscious decision to confront someone? What does that mean for the rest of us who decide to go out for a walk at night? If Zimmerman prevails the message to this trigger happy community is: Dead men don't tell tales.

Let me first point out that since 2005 there have only been 130 cases involving "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida. Many had nothing to do with street crime and involved incidents in which an individual broke into an occupied home.

Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law
By Ben Montgomery and Connie Humburg, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Friday, March 23, 2012

***snip***

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality.

In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.

In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge, and nine cases were dismissed.

In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.

Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1221412.ece

When you consider that currently over 800,000 Floridians have concealed weapons permits and many of the "Stand Your Ground" cases did not involve people with a carry permit, the statistics do not show that Floridians who legally carry consider themselves to be vigilantes or feel that the law allows them to start a fight and then once they provoke violence to simply blow the other guy away. I don't feel that this will change in the future despite the final result of the Zimmerman trial. I actually expect the law to be reworded so as to eliminate any ambiguities and confusion.

I noticed your quote:

Dead men don't tell tales.

You may not be aware of this but this was common wisdom among gun owners prior to the passage of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Under the old law, you could be sued if you injured an attacker even if you were entirely justified in your action. Under the new law, if I do injure or kill an attacker who intends to seriously injure or kill me and I am not prosecuted in criminal court as my actions were justified, I don't have to fear losing my entire life savings in civil court. I remember many times hearing this advice, "If you ever have to shoot someone in self defense make damn sure you kill him." While this might have been wise advise under the old law, I wouldn't shoot to kill but to stop. I honestly hope and pray that I will never have a reason to use a firearm for self defense. I feel that I can and will if absolutely necessary. Hopefully I can stop a very violent attack without having to live with the fact that I killed another person.

edited for typo

[Baitball Blogger]

28. Well thought out response. Thank you.

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:32 PM - Edit history (2)

You address my main concern from the beginning. The girlfriend will provide the evidence we need to hear in court that will establish that Zimmerman was the instigator of that confrontation. Trayvon tried to walk away. When that didn't work, he had to deal with a Zimmerman who was advancing on me. I don't know if he punched him, but I can see him using the one defensive move that would have fit all the variables (i.e. no damage on Trayvon's knuckles and Zimmerman's claim that his head hit the ground.) I bet what happened was that Trayvon tackled him. He probably practiced it in his football and felt it was the one thing he could count on. And though he managed to knock Zimmerman down, George was still one hundred pounds heavier than he was and just got knocked off his feet. He probably shot of a round at this point, and that's when Trayvon realized there was a gun involved and started screaming for his life.

As for the SYG, I think what unnerves me is that in this County, (and this is my opinion), it does things differently than most normal places. The law isn't applied evenly. There is a good ole boy network, there are signs of favoritism and government decisions are not only used to reward, but are withheld to punish. If Zimmerman walks on this all your wonderful reasoning would make little difference. The people here would have their own take on what it means.

Keep in mind that we already have a SYG case on the books where a fiancee came home at two in the morning the day of their wedding. They had met on Matchbox.com. For two years they traveled, using up most of her savings. There was little left before she died. She was under five feet and He was about six feet tall. Yet he shot her in the hallway within a four foot range and didn't even get manslaughter. He was one of the connected boys.

So, you have to add in the local flavor to begin to understand why this case unnerves me.

[spin]

54. I have to agree that there appears to be either ...

a dysfunctional police department or as you suggest a "good ole boy network" in that area of Florida.

It has been my opinion that sometimes the authorities in Florida hide behind the "Stand Your Ground" law to allow a favored individual to walk. While the intent of the law is clear, the wording could be improved so as to remove any ambiguities or confusion. Perhaps any case involving stand your ground should be reviewed by a higher authority than the local officials. Also currently the law allows a judge to throw out a case at a pretrial hearing even though the prosecutor disagrees. Once again this might lead to favoritism.

In passing, one of the first cases to deal with self defense in our nation supports stand your ground.

Self-defense (United States)

***snip***

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

[Baitball Blogger]

59. "violently assaulted"

I hope that includes aggressive following and possible threatening stance.

[spin]

61. No, obviously it does not ...

Let's look at the excerpt again ...

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

But if it fits your agenda, feel free to interpret it anyway that your want. Perhaps you can find that it promotes vigilantism and allows anyone to simply confront another person, start an argument and then shoot him. That would be, in my opinion, a long stretch but the majority of the main stream media might well agree with you.

[Baitball Blogger]

63. I think what we are looking at is ALEC's EPIC FAIL in the wording.

Since it absolutely leaves the door open for vigilantism. Yes it does. Admit it.

As long as you leave the person dead so he can't give witness to who was the aggressor, this is exactly the kind of nightmare loophole that would cause trouble for minorities everywhere.

I do believe there is wording somewhere that says that all you have to do is feel threatened. I don't know if that comes from a court opinion, or part of the same law. In which case, it is obvious that Trayvon felt threatened per the phone call. He had a witness.

In addition, I believe the prosecutor will claim that Zimmerman became the aggressor once he left the car to chase Trayvon down. Maybe she sees the flaw, and hopes to rectify it with this case? Because nobody, and I mean. nobody who isn't already perturbed by this case, will accept Zimmerman walking on this loophole.

Frankly, it sounds like Zimmerman knew what he had to say to get in the clear. And, yes, I have an agenda. It's called justice.

[spin]

64. Let's suppose you were involved in a shooting with no witnesses. Under the old law ...

you had a duty to retreat.

If you were wise (and cold-hearted) you took the common wisdom at the time and made sure your attacker was dead because, "Dead men tell no tales." Since there were no witnesses, you could claim that you retreated before shooting and unless the physical evidence proved you wrong -- you walked.

In any case where there are no witnesses it can be difficult to determine exactly what happened.

As far as what the Florida law says ...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

***snip***

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

***snip***

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter 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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
emphasis added
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

The term "reasonably believes" is extremely important.

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Force

***snip***

How Does a Jury Decide the Issue of Self-Defense in Florida?

In determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to the defendant at the time of the incident. This inquiry into what a “reasonable person” would have done is known as an “objective standard.” [emphasis added

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

How should we resolve a case that happens on the street and where one person is dead, there are no witnesses and the evidence doesn't show the entire sequence of events? It's a real conundrum.

I fear that many who post here and dislike concealed carry laws would simply reply that the only fair way to resolve such as case would be to require the defendant to prove that he didn't start the fight. Since he would be unable to do so, he would spend many years in prison for quite possibly an appropriate use of self defense. However under our system of law, it is the state's responsibility to prove the quilt of the accused as mentioned in the excerpt above.

[slackmaster]

24. Everyone has a right to self-defense at all times

The question seems silly to me.

[Baitball Blogger]

27. Then you don't realize how prejudice is going to play into the final decision.

[slackmaster]

31. You don't have any more knowledge of what the final decision will be than I do

But thanks for trying to insult me.

[Baitball Blogger]

38. I was no more insulting than you were.

The point is, this case is going to depend on whether Trayvon will be seen as the victim, or Zimmerman was. If they believe that Zimmerman had a right to see Trayvon as a thug, and had a right to confront him, (which, many right-wingers do believe since black men in hoodies are always indicative of gangsta history, according to them) then Zimmerman will walk. Many gun nutters will sympathize with Zimmerman and support him. We don't want those kind on the jury.

On the other hand, if the jury is made to understand that this could be anybody who has a right to be walking home from the 7/11 with a bag of skittles without having to explain himself to a stranger who has no signs of legal authority, then the case goes our way. Of course, we have to get the jury to understand that Trayvon represents all of us.

[slackmaster]

45. I think you are close, but IMO what will really matter is who initiated the physical confrontation

Basically, who either threw the first punch or blocked the way so the other couldn't get away. The former would be assault, the latter false imprisonment (or whatever they call it in Florida.) Following someone, confronting a person, asking questions, and being black don't qualify as justification for escalation to a physical fight.

[Baitball Blogger]

46. Here we disagree vehemently.

If you have a gun, following someone and confronting him should be the whole ball game.

Because, in your scenario, Trayvon would not have the right to defend himself. He had already tried walking away, and that didn't work. So he was dealing with the second option which meant fighting for his life. He could have had the first swing and he would still be in his rights.

[slackmaster]

51. The gun would not be an issue until it became visible. We don't know the sequence of events.

Precisely when and how the gun came into play may prove to be a pivotal issue in deciding the case.

If Zimmerman was brandishing it before he had a reasonable belief that he was in danger, then the case becomes a slam-dunk (Trayvon's alleged attack on Zimmerman was justified, and Zimmerman is guilty.) If he kept it concealed until after Trayvon began beating his ass (assuming that actually happened, which I am not at all sure of BTW,) the issue of who was acting reasonably, if anyone was at all, is much less certain. I think it's possible Zimmerman could still be convicted of something because he initiated the whole confrontation.

Because, in your scenario, Trayvon would not have the right to defend himself.

I'm not clear on what you mean by my "scenario." I've stated repeatedly that I don't know exactly what happened.

[Baitball Blogger]

52. It would be impossible to determine if Zimmerman exposed his gun.

This case boils down to these issues:

(1) Did Trayvon attempt to avoid a confrontation?

Yes, he did. He walked away.

(2) Did he have a right to defend himself if someone went out of their way to confront him?

Yes, he did.

[slackmaster]

55. IMO Zimmerman is dumb enough to admit on the witness stand that he brandished his gun

Though he does have a right not to testify at all, and it might not be possible to determine that he is lying if he does.

(2) Did he have a right to defend himself if someone went out of their way to confront him?

Yes, he did.

It depends on what you mean by "confront," which could be anything from following, to questioning, to blocking egress, or even pointing a gun at him. I would say the last two, or some kind of equally threatening behavior, would justify Trayvon using force in self-defense.

[Baitball Blogger]

58. Define questioning.

If someone followed me home and came up to me and was less than nice, I would feel threatened.

[Life Long Dem]

29. "he had every right to defend himself if he thought someone was going to attack him."

Zimmerman following Trayvon was perceived as an attack by Trayvon?

[Quixote1818]

32. You see the way it now works is if you are getting raped or mugged or stalked

if you start to land some punches on the criminal who attacked you, they can blow you away even when you are crying for help.

[Baitball Blogger]

36. Isn't that the truth?

Trayvon was begging for his life. Why doesn't that play in as a factor?

[Rex]

42. It will be a factor, all of it will.

Zimmerman is going to face some jailtime no matter what charges finally end up being filed against him.

[Baitball Blogger]

43. If that happens,

this case will be a turning point for this county.

[krispos42]

37. My position on this is that the SYG laws defend Martin, not Zimmerman.

If Martin had wrestled the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him, Martin should have been given a pat on the head and a cookie.

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin did not have the means to respond to Zimmerman's aggression in such a manner as to be grossly disproportionate (e.g., Z pokes M, M draws a gun), so at no point can Zimmerman claim self-defense.

It's likely he was protecting his precious white ego from being sullied. Defeat from a black kid 100 pounds and 10 years lighter? Unpossible!

[Baitball Blogger]

39. I think and hope this is the case the prosecutor will present.

[Romulox]

44. 1) Self defense is a human right that everyone possesses; 2) Self-defense is the most FACT INTENSIVE

inquiries in the law (or is among them.)

That means speculation is essentially useless.

[cliffordu]

48. Yes he did under the stand your ground law.

It is unfortunate that he took skittles and a diet pop to a gunfight.

[treestar]

49. Of course. And you make a good point.

We'll never get to hear what Trayvon has to say. We don't know what happened, and it could have been that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.