The Zimmerman case is one week old and already there are things that will become part of our study of self defense. Hopefully you will never have to defend yourself, but if you do, you will be victimized twice, or more!
The dirt bag will try and take your stuff and/or your life, then the news media will run with whatever story they think will give them more viewers/listeners/readers (the truth be damned). Then there may be a trial for your freedom, and then another trial for all you have and will ever own. Nice system we have?
First of all, don’t let any of that stop you from defending yourself. Your life is the most important thing. I had a Drill Instructor in the Police Academy tell us stories about him fighting in Vietnam, he summed up his life after that war simply; if someone isn’t shooting at you, life isn’t that bad and you can handle it. So solve problem number 1, survive the encounter. Problem number 2 is you have to be able to live with yourself. You have to look yourself in the mirror every morning and know you did the right thing.
Problem number 3 (way under the first 2) is that you have to deal with the “Justice System” and sometimes it can be straight unjust. That is where we are with the Zimmerman case. This case is going to set precedent about how other self defense cases will be tried in the future. Week one of the case just rapped up and we have an important decision from the judge already. He allowed “hearsay” evidence to be given to the jury. Normally only dying decrees can be entered into court evidence as hearsay. Hearsay evidence is simply someone else saying this is what the other person said about the facts of the case. Normally someone that hears a dying person say something can be admitted because that person is dead and cannot be brought before the court to explain what they said.
In the Zimmerman case the judge allowed the hearsay from about what Zimmerman said right after the incident when one of his neighbors came out to see what happened. Luckily for Zimmerman (or smartly by him), his statements where about how Martin tried to kill him and how he defended himself.
Also during the trial I expect “stand-your ground” laws to be affirmed or destroyed. Hopefully they will be affirmed because it’s an important part our legal right to defend ourselves and one less thing we have to prove in court if we have to defend ourselves. Without stand-your ground after an incident you would have to first prove that you couldn’t run away or escape to the court so that your use of any force was justified. In states like California even in your own house you have to prove to the court that you couldn’t just run away before you can use force against someone. That could be a huge stumbling block in court.
I also expect to see if double jeopardy will be ignored in the case. Knowing limited amounts of evidence and only reading recaps of the trial so far, I’m 80% sure Zimmerman was defending himself. There are a couple things that came up that could prove it the other way and there are a couple ways that this could have been murder instead of self defense. If I had all the evidence I could probably tell you for sure. But I won’t put that on the record until after the trial is over. But we will see if double jeopardy is used against Zimmerman like the police officers in the Rodney King case. They where acquitted and then retried by the federal courts for the same acts. If Zimmerman is acquitted and the city/state riots the Feds may come in again and have a trial about civil rights as a way to appease the violence.
We’ll see and only time will tell, but hopefully people in Florida will except the court’s and jury’s decision and not try to burn down the state when it’s over.
Stay Safe,
Ben
Ben,
First, I see this as the justice system working. I am sorry Zimmerman is being inconvenienced and spending lots of money for his defense, but he shot an unarmed teenager who at least, INITIALLY, was doing nothing wrong and in a place he was legally allowed to be. The evidence, testimony and cross examinations need to be heard by a jury.
Second, I question your opinion on the hearsay testimony. I have seen dozens of prosecutors, defense attorneys and former judges on television commenting on every aspect of this case. Not one has brought up the hearsay point you mention.
Finally, this case is not about Stand Your Ground laws of Florida. If you go by Zimmerman’s story, he was PINNED to the ground, being suffocated and having his head repeatedly bashed into the sidewalk. He had no opportunity to retreat or flee. This would be a case of basic self defense, allowable forever in Florida, and long before any Stand Your Ground laws were instituted. ( Incidentally, I don’t think his injuries, a swollen nose, never diagnosed as broken, and two small cuts on the back of his head, are consistent with his story. ) That will be up to the jury to decide. I suppose an argument could be made, if he did not employ deadly force, the injuries would have become much worse.
BTW, I am a big fan of your podcasts and articles. They are always informative, entertaining and thought provoking, as I can always take away some useful knowledge or, at least, concepts worth pondering.
Thanks, William Lee
William, Thanks for the comment and being a reader and listener. I’m honored that you follow me. I would disagree with you on the first point and defer to all the law enforcement that investigated the case. They didn’t arrest him (which is really unusual) so they clearly thought this was a case of self defense. The court of public opinion moved this to trial. When the emotions got involved like they did, justice can no longer be blind. But time will tell if the officers where right or wrong. We’ll know at the end of the trial.
The hearsay testimony is my personal opinion and I think it is pushing what can be aloud in court. I teach as part of an after action to talk to the witnesses and say things that will get you help and not hurt you later. I personally think this is pushing the normal hearsay rules and reinforces that what you say after the incident matters as much as anything else.
I think the stand your ground part will come when they start asking Zimmerman what he was doing there. That will start to challenge the stand your ground laws. If the prosecutor starts asking why didn’t you leave or why you where there? Then the judge may allow it (because the prosecutor will argue it shows intent), but defense should argue that he had no duty to retreat at any time.
As to the amount of damage that can be done by someone slamming someone else’s head against the ground, almost every cop would agree and has been trained to recognize that as deadly force. So we’ll have to see what happens in the court room and what facts come to light as the statements continue.