Quote:
|
This, in itself is not a crime.
|
And ... I said it was a crime, where? (I'm guessing you're referring to the "activity" and not the "watching" as that would make more sense).
And before you say I implied it, the only thing I implied was "reasonably suspicious" - not a crime.
It seems worth mentioning that Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime, either.
Quote:
The part where Z shot T. The default in this situation is some variant of murder unless Z has a proper affirmative defense. Even by the rather loose Floridan law he doesn't because his tracking can be considered provocative. Being provocative itself is not a crime. However, due to this Z's use of force cannot be justified under 776.012, only under 776.041. He has a duty to retreat. And he is not protected by 776.032, so the police can and should arrest him, grill him and force him to prove his affirmative defense in court.
He might still get his day in court if he can demonstrate to preponderance of evidence that
1) Trevor attacked him first, because tracking isn't that great a provocation and probably doesn't justify Trevor' use of force (IF he struck first).
2) He really reasonably believed at that moment he was about to die, despite the fact he wasn't worried enough to go to the hospital.
Even if he doesn't prove 2, if he can prove 1 he would probably get some kind of lowball sentence.
|
I'm sorry, friend, but your entire post was a prime candidate for "post that misses the point" of the decade. You're making huge assumptions on a sequence of events which are contested, and applying the law as though your assumption is true. Zimmerman CLAIMS that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked, which, if accurate, invalidates everything you cite.
Yet, I wasn't arguing a single damn thing on a primarily legal level. Rather, I was making a point on a "put yourself in this situation level" - a human one. Like it or not, despite the fact that somehow you've reached a technical verdict (which in and of itself implies that the spirit of the very legal system you cite completely escapes you), a jury is going to consider the emotional situation ... which is actually ALSO part of the law.
The legal system wasn't designed to be treated the way you try to, which is a reason cases aren't presented before courts in the way you argue them on this message board.
Yet, despite all of that, I must reiterate you're missing the point of my post. I won't regurgitate here in a "quote this/respond to this" fashion, as I think I was pretty clear that I was simply referring to being in Zimmerman's shoes without considering the finer points of the law.
Most importantly, my point was that, while I probably wouldn't have acted in the same way he did, I don't find it a stretch that others would. In other words, although I may not agree with him, I can see where he was coming from.
And that has not a damned thing to do with 776.041 .. or any other statute.
PS: I'm curious - will you stipulate that Zimmerman acted legally if he is acquitted?