The Gadfly
Senior Member
- Feb 7, 2011
- 2,190
- 614
- 48
I've done nothing of the kind, Peach; all I've done, is told you what the statute says, where thee is a claim of self defense; it says that there must be probable cause (supported by evidence-physical evidence, witness testimony, etc.) to indicate that a homicide was NOT self defense, before charges are brought. Now, if there were evidence Martin was, say, shot in the back, that would be probable cause.If there were evidence that Zimmerman was beating Martin, and then simply shot him, that would be probable cause. If there were evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, that would be probable cause, Are any of those the case? We do not know. Is there any other evidence (not supposition), that would constitute probable cause to believe that Zimmerman DID NOT defend himself, when there certainly IS evidence to show that Martin DID assault Zimmerman? We do not know. ALL we know, is that there WAS a verbal confrontation of some sort between the two; that at some point during or after that, Martin DID strike (assault) Zimmerman, and that at some point after that, Zimmerman DID shoot Martin. Those seem to be the only uncontroverted facts we have. Now, is there any evidence that Zimmerman struck (assaulted) Martin first, or that Martin reasonably acted in self defense, when he struck Zimmerman? There may be, there may not be; we don't know. So, unless there is some fact we don't know, that investigators DO know, there's no probable cause under this statute to charge Zimmerman with a crime.
What makes this confusing is that under common law self defense, Zimmerman could be charged simply because the state could allege that Zimmerman unreasonably confronted Martin in the first place (whether his action in doing so was reasonable would be a question for a jury to decide). Second, the state could allege that Zimmerman unreasonably escalated the initial verbal confrontation (again a question for a jury to decide). In defense, Zimmerman would thus have to show (to the satisfaction of a jury), that he acted reasonably in approaching and confronting Martin, and that he did not unreasonably escalate the situation prior to the assault, which undeniably occurred. At that point, the state could allege that Zimmerman was not reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, when he shot Martin; again Zimmerman would have to satisfy a jury that his fear was reasonable. If he met all those requirements he would be acquitted, if not, he would be guilty of some form of unjustified homicide.
With this statute, there's a key difference; the way it reads, Zimmerman only has to show that in approaching and confronted Martin, he acted "lawfully", which is a looser standard. He does not have to have acted reasonably; he merely has to NOT have violated any Florida law.That's the first problem, because it puts the state in the position of having to show probable cause to allege a statute WAS in fact violated, and which statute that was.Now then, if there were evidence that Zimmerman DID violate the law, (by assaulting Martin, prior to Martin striking Zimmerman, for example), that would be probable cause. IS there any such evidence? We don't know, but without it, or something similar, there's no probable cause. IF Zimmerman's story is all the evidence there is, then Martin was the one acting "unlawfully", leaving the only test of "reasonableness" to whether Zimmerman could reasonably have feared death or serious injury at Martin's hands. (Note here, that Zimmerman does not have to prove he actually suffered "serious bodily injury, ONLY that he reasonably feared it. A continued assault, after he was down, would be Prima Facie evidence of "reasonableness", if the evidence showed that's what occurred. Unless the investigation reveals evidence that there was no continued assault, the presumption would be that there was. What everyone is having a problem with is that this statute, as written, is heavily loaded against the party who FIRST commits an unlawful act; even if the act in question is understandable, it must be LAWFUL, i.e. LEGALLY EXCUSABLE under the requirements of the applicable statute. Normally, one may not lawfully strike another over mere words, unless the words themselves legally constitute a threat, or an unlawful demand. Is there evidence that Zimmerman said anything to Martin that would legally constitute either a threat, or an unlawful demand? We don't know, but UNLESS there is, Zimmerman's story once again gets the benefit of the doubt, absent anything to refute it. Unfortunately, unless there is physical evidence or witness testimony that shows Zimmerman violated some law before Martin hit him, it may well turn out, that the only people who will ever know exactly what words were exchanged, or if there was any threat by Zimmerman to Martin, are the two of them, and there's only one left to tell the tale.
