It’s Monday morning after a hard weekend — time to teach you all some law.
Bill Nunn as Radio Raheem being choked by police in Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing” — THAT is an example of someone being able to show a subjective and objective reasonable fear of death.
For those of you unfamiliar with Ta-Nehisi Coates, he is one of the best editorial writers working today. Among relatively young African-American editorial writers, his perspective is pretty much indispensable. His article on the “not guilty” verdict in the George Zimmerman trial is a stylistic triumph that builds on the notion — which seems to be solidifying into conventional wisdom — that the verdict was correct under the state’s law; the problem is that the law itself is terrible and in effect invites people to provoke others into fights and then legally kill them, a sort of human counterpart of bullfighting.
I hope that you’ll read the article, “Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice“, from top to bottom; I’ll entice you into trying to do so with his introduction and his conclusion:
In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it’s important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida’s self-defense statute:
…
I don’t think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can can legally kill you, provided I “believe” myself to be subject to “great bodily harm.” It is then the state’s job to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury:
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
There has been a lot of complaint that “stand your ground” has nothing to do with this case. That contention is contravened by the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to — at any point — retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman’s story fishy. Again the jury instructions:
George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.
And from that, he derives this conclusion:
It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn’t come back from twenty-four down.
Fortunately, Coates’s analysis is, so far as I can tell, wrong.
The ellipsis after the first paragraph I quote from him contains section 776.041 of the Florida Penal Code. I reproduce that below, but first I want to present two preceding sections of the code.
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.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
…
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.
Proof of a crime means proving certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements for the crime of murder are found elsewhere in the Florida Penal Code; those are the facts that the state has to prove in order to convict. The accused can claim “justifiable self-defense.” It is not part of the state’s case; it is something that (barring prosecutorial error) must be presented by the defendant with enough force to create reasonable doubt as to guilt.
In some circumstances, such as 776.013 (dealing with a home invasion, i.e., someone breaking into your house), the law can set forth a presumption that a person had a reasonable fear sufficient to justify lethal self-defense. In that situation, the state has to find one of the exceptions that can be used to rebut that presumption, listed under 776.013(2), and prove its elements beyond a reasonable doubt as well. For example, if the “home invasion” is by the landlord who has a right to be there (and, I’ll bet that courts have found, who is there at a reasonable time and who has announced his or her identity in a manner that would reasonably expected to convey it), then the presumption is rebutted and the justification of self-defense can’t be used.
If there’s no presumption, though, then the defendant has to produce some evidence to justify self-defense.. And, notably — especially given the presence of a presumption in 776.013 — neither sections 776.013 nor 776.041 contain a presumption that the person using lethal force is justified.
In this case, it has to prove that — given that Zimmerman was the aggressor and provoked the confrontation — (1) the force that Trayvon used against Zimmerman was great, (2) Zimmerman believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, (3) that Zimmerman’s belief was reasonable, and (4) that that Zimmerman had 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.
[UPDATE: In a discussion on Daily Kos, I learned that a prima facie case that Zimmerman believed that he was in imminent danger was entered into evidence in about the only way that it could happen without subjecting him to cross-examination: the prosecution entered the evidence themselves. I revised what I wrote there, but here I think that it’s just going to be too abstruse to explain. I dumped the rest of the article that depends on the prosecution not doing something so unbelievably dumb; I’ll refer you to this article if you really want an explanation.
I’ve also deleted two comments that seemed to cross the line, along with anon’s reply to them. Let’s start with that part of the slate clean.]
Did I miss something Greg?
You suggested that had Zimmerman bruises on his neck it would have shown an incident of choking and therefore Zim would have had felt adequate fear for his life.
Did Zim not have gashes on the back of his head and claim that his head was being pounded in to the edge of the sidewalk?
Was that dis-proven? Did I miss something?
When somebody is pounding the back of my head into the sidewalk, I usually feel like killing the guy to keep him from killing me first. We only have one head skull, and brain for this life.
Zimmerman was looking for the guy and encouraged an incident to likely happen, He wanted the dude to not “get away” for whatever Zim’s biased feelings were, but who is to say what Zimmerman really expected to happen.
Once the incident happened it got ugly, really bad things happen when one is in a survival mode.
If he wanted to use proportional force, he would have had to return the favor of skull knocking. Now that would start to look really ugly. Maybe he should not have aimed for the heart, who knows?
No evidence was presented to the jury that Martin slammed Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk — not even by the eyewitness neighbor, Jonathan Goode, who claimed that he saw Trayvon straddling Zimmerman.
Sorry to hear about your history of skull-sidewalk misadventures.
So there was no courtroom discussion about the gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head? That is odd.
I don’t know if there was discussion about the gashes. If so, the only people who might be able to explain how they got there were Trayvon and Zimmerman — and one’s dead and the other wouldn’t testify.
Well, I suspect that Trayvon gave him the gashes on the sidewalk, or Zimmermann bashed his own head on the stucco apartment wall or maybe the police offered to bash his head in the interrogation room to give him the excuse. It must have been 1 of those 3 scenarios. I am not sure if he had the time to find the best stucco wall without witnesses. I think the police might have done it.
Or maybe the “gashes” were actually pretty superficial and don’t require much explanation.
There was no blood found on the sidewalk, nor was there any blood or GZ DNA found on Trayvon Martin.
2 different doctors testified that Zimmerman’s head wounds were superficial.
If Zimmerman would have stayed by his car, he wouldn’t have gone to trial and Martin would be alive. Do you have kids? If you do, did you teach them about what to do if strangers are lurking around them? And what about Martin’s rights to defend himself? This happened at 7pm. That is when people walk their dogs, come home from work and do other things outside. Would Zimmerman have been after a “white” kid with a hoodie? And the medical personnel agreed that Zimmerman’s injuries were superficial and did not require stitches. If it happened the way Zimmerman claimed he would have at least had a concussion and probably a cracked skull.
Yes, Martin has a right to defend himself physically. Of course he does. As does Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, claimed that Martin came back towards him and circled around the car. True? No witness knows.? But if true, that is probably what encouraged Zimmerman to get out and keep following/tracking him while on the phone with the police.
At 7:13 GZ reports TM running towards the S. Oregon Ave exit (which just happens to be right where TM was staying) that is when GZ got out of his car and FOLLOWED TM.
Why didn’t GZ report that TM was “circling” his car? Because it NEVER happened that’s why. How do we know ? Because it’s contradicted by the 911 call and Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.
George Zimmerman was and is a proven liar.
Also, I think it is clear that Zimmerman had his “fight” response going and was repressing the “flight” in order to be strong and heroic, dutiful in his responsible civilian way. He was on the phone with the police, constantly trying to give them directions to the exact location.
In other words, Zim was expecting police back up (most likely, unless he was purposely not able to find house addresses that he claimed that he could not find).
People that are expecting the police to arrive within minutes do not commit premeditated murder or accidental unprovoked murder especially when they are surrounded by apartment witnesses.
Watch the video of his re-enactment. It seems all plausible/possible. He did not want his suspect to slip away while he was responsible for his neighborhood watch. With prejudice, he did not want his suspect to slip away.
I hope Zimmerman is charged by the Feds. It is clear that the states have a different view of justice, especially those known to be racially biased, just look at how they act when it election time — they do anything and everything to make it next to impossible for people of color to vote. In Florida anything north of Miami is considered the south and that includes racist attitudes. It can be and is racist in other states, including California like in the rural areas, but the southern states are more open with their feelings.
He might get charged by the Feds due to political pressure. But it will have the same result as the political charging of murder in the State case. Not guilty.
Will we see the same result in the Fullerton cops case? It was overcharged for sure and wasn’t murder, so it’s very possible.
*Jeantel was on Pearce Morgan tonight. Very credible and there is little doubt that the fix was in before the trial started. The Prosecution Playing all the Zimmerman explanations of what happened……..was ridiculous. Jeantel told it as it was………sad
that Travon was there and became Zimmerman’s shill for the night.
“the prosecution playing all the Zimmerman explanations of what happened” HUh?
What are you trying to say? The prosecution was working for Zimmerman instead of trying to convict Zimmerman?
For what reason?
The cops were working for Zimmerman.
The cops usually work for the prosecution, who did a pathetic job here.
I’m with the Ships on this one, the fix was in. They put Martin on trial, not the killer.
I was not able to watch the whole trial, so maybe I missed it, but did anybody ask the police what the role of Neighborhood Watch is?
Are they supposed to be armed and following kids around, or did this guy go against protocol by leaving the car with a loaded gun? What do they train these volunteers to do?
It was either a mistake or it was no accident.
Ron & Anna, I watched same interview. I think she did a good job, under the circumstances. She is a teenager who had to speak in front of the world about her experience, how many teens can do that? The prosecutor also insulted and was so aggressive the judge told him to back off of her.
White people need to get out of their “lily white” worlds more often and spend time in big cities where they will be exposed to many different types of people from different cultures and lifestyles. I read many of the comments here, from other media sites and tweets and there are so many ignorant comments from people who are clueless, but who are very good at making racial slurs and bigoted comments…that is behind their laptop screens using fake names.
jeantel demonstrated everything that is wrong with lower income, under educated, young america, black, white, brown or yellow…no respect for process or authority, no fundamental comprehension of the english language, a sense of entitlement. if she represents the product of education in america, we have much larger problems than the stupidity of george zimmerman
Willlie, YOU are what is wrong with America. So you think anyone who doesn’t speak the same as you; look the same as you must be stupid? Willie, can you spell b-i-g-o-t?
seriously, would you hire that woman to interact with your customers or clients unless of course you own the 7/11 in her neighborhood. she does not possess the skills to work in an office. and I did not say that she was stupid because she does not look like me (god forbid anybody look like me), she is stupid because she has no ability to articulate a coherent thought or interact with the general public. she is stupid because she in making no apparent effort to incorporate herself into the general society. furthermore, what I said was I do not care if she were white, black, brown or yellow, what she evidences is a failure of both the education system and society. the truth is that it is people like you, who enable and apologize for people like jeantel who are the real bigots because instead of forcing them to improve themselves, you justify their failures and shortcomings. you are the one that is keeping them down, not me
She is ESL and speaks three languages. In her world she is well understood.
is ebonics one of them, because if it is, that does not count
Wherein willie deville shows just how ignorant HE is.
Let me help you with that, willie;
“Is Ebonics one of them? Because if it is, that does not count.”
You know, question marks after questions, avoid run-on sentences, etc.
Actually I think English is her third preference. Couple that with a physical deformity, her severe underbite, and you start to sound xenophobic.
Why did the prosecution allow Juror B37 to remain on the jury. This bigoted b—- already had the preconceived notion that George Zimmerman was innocent and Trayvon Martin was up to no good that night. Juror B37 had a twofold agenda: (1) to find Zimmerman not guilty; and (2) to write a book about the trial. If I were to place a bet, it would be that Juror B37 was the “Property Manager” on the jury, and thus able to bully the rest of the jurors to accept her ignorant views.
I think Ron and Anna Winship were right on point, “the fix was in”, just like the OJ trial, where DA Gil Garcetti allowed the trial to be moved to downtown Los Angeles, where it was almost certain that a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled.
Fairness does exist anywhere, My advice, try not to be victimized and get a good attorney like Greg. BAHHH hhhaa haa.
Have a look at this article, Eddie: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html
Gosh, I did not realize that we were being graded. I will endeavor to improve my grammer. I do not think, however, that it diminishes my point: the woman is ignorant.
So you’re allowed to “grade” Ms. Jeantel, but you don’t like it when someone “grades” you?
Good god, do people ever stop to take a look in the mirror anymore?
i get graded all the time, the results vary depending upon who is doing the grading. i wasn’t trying to grade sweet jeantel, i was simply pointing out that, if she represents the future, i am glad that i am old
I don’t get your point at all willie.
Do you really want everyone to be as polished and well educated as yourself? If so, then you might be the guy selling the snacks at 7-11, because you would just be average.
I thought that you liked being smarter than the average Joe, so that you could have an advantage over them.
I don’t think that Rachel Jeantel is the best that that generation has to offer, and she doesn’t want to be their spokesperson. She was a reluctant witness because she has been teased all of her life, and knew that she would be criticized by people like you, who don’t know her.
So put away your hanky, and quit weeping for the future.
You have to be pretty ignorant to spell grammar incorrectly.
i do not claim to be otherwise
Jeantel explained to CNN’s Piers Morgan how she warned her friend that Zimmerman — could be a gay rapist!
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you – on the phone – about the “creepy ass cracka” and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say – may be a rapist … for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not “that kind of way” ……. seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? And people need to understand, he didn’t want that “creepy ass cracker” going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you … his little brother was there…… You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.”
So did you find that convincing or not convincing Skallywag?
I think she makes some great points, but it is probably a stretch to say that Trayvon was concerned about his younger brother being attacked by the gay rapist. Unless of course he suspected that his younger brother was gay and prone to be involved in those kind of relationships. Trayvon could have been projecting his own gay sensitivities onto his younger brother in a telepathic cellular way to Jeantel. Then again maybe Jeantel is projecting her own Gay aggressiveness onto Zim and both of the brothers?
Is this PC or not PC? So difficult to tell these days.
I find it f**king weird – but I am considering changing my blog handle to “creepyasscracker.”
I can’t think of better name for you. Love it !
Well, I do declare the verdict is in!
Everybody projects their own ideological propaganda onto this story But I look forward to Greg’s rebuttal!
In an interview with the Huffington Post Live’s Marc Lamont Hill:
Rachel Jeantel — a key prosecution witness and friend of Trayvon Martin — said she thought it was Martin who had landed the first blow in the altercation with George Zimmerman.
She doesn’t know. She is just speculating to make him sound tough instead of gay like the “Creepy Ass Cracker”
She is full of shit – just like you double eye.
2 more good articles about the link between racism and the trials outcome…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/22/1076889/-Black-Shooter-of-White-Victim-in-Florida-Claimed-Stand-Your-Ground-still-went-to-Court?detail=email#
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/16/1224102/-Why-Isn-t-NRA-Arguing-Trayvon-Martin-Tragedy-Could-Have-Been-Averted-if-Only-He-Had-a-Gun?detail=email
Anecdotal – stand your ground has been beneficial to black defendants.
The Zimmerman defense did not use the “Stand your Ground” defense. They did not want to go there.
See the latest post, “SHAME ON SANFORD, FLORIDA, FOR LETTING A KILLER GO FREE” on my blog, “Eddie’s Corner”, at http://www.eddierose.org