You have some points there, I admit, but you're putting too much burden of proof on the defense.
There is no way Zimmerman can prove he didn't provoke Martin because there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the physical fight.
#2 is also dubious because it involves the mental state and thought processes of a man who is dead, as well as because there are no eyewitnesses to the moment things went physical. All we know is Z told 911 he was trying to keep watch on M so he didn't get away after acting in a manner Z thought suspicious enough to call 911 about.
There is an "earwitness" account, though. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend when things went physical. That has been confirmed by the phone records. From her testimony we can learn a lot about Martin's mental state (nervous about the stranger following him) and a little bit about how the altercation began (We know that Martin verbally confronted Zimmerman before the altercation began). We have to throw out the girlfriend's conjecture about Zimmerman pushing Martin because there is no way she could know who did the pushing based on what she heard. But we
do now that her testimony contradicts Zimmerman's claims about being attacked from behind.
If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.
Actually, all self-defense cases are held to the same burden of proof I am talking about. It prevents guilty people from lying their way free. We have a contradiction in reports of how the initial confrontation went down. The more credible account is Martin's girlfriend's account because it makes sense in the circumstances. Zimmerman's account doesn't make any sense given teh facts that are known.
The only provocation we KNOW Zimmerman made to Martin was following him. Following someone doesn't give the followed person the right to physically assault them absent other signs of threat.
That's not an entirely accurate portrayal. You are completely ignoring out Martin's clear attempt to flee from Zimmerman. That's a
very important fact that should not be discounted. The fact that he first attempted to flee indicates that he meant Zimmerman no harm. Zimmerman continuing to follow Martin after Martin attempted to flee
does give Martin the right to physically defend himself. It goes back to biology. Fight or flight. If you remove the flight option by negating it's efficacy, you limit it to a fight response.
That's why backing any frightened animal into a corner is a guaranteed way yo be attacked by an animal. Humans are no different.
What are the requirements for self-defense? I know 'em by heart....
1. You must be without legal fault in provoking the incident. (IE you weren't doing anything illegal.)
2. You must have believed yourself to be in imminent danger of bodily harm.
3. A reasonable man in the same situation would also believe #2.
And this applies to Martin, first and foremost. It is an undeniable fact that the initiator of threatening behavior in this situation was Zimmerman.
Martin did not provoke the incident (he was doing nothing illegal).
Martin did believe himself in imminent danger (as evidenced by his fight or flight response). This is also confirmed by the girlfriend's testimony.
Biologically speaking, once flight is removed as an option, any threatened animal (including humans) will resort to fight responses. That's a perfectly reasonable response.
Martin met all three criteria for self-defense in this situation. That's based entirely on the facts. Even if we remove the girlfriend's testimony and focus
entirely on Zimmerman's own words from the 911 call, we can see that Martin met all three criteria.
Martin's attempt to escape from Zimmerman is of
absolute importance.
Further, the reasonable-man standard of believing yourself in danger of bodily harm is that three elements must be present: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy/Intent.
-The subject must have the Ability to do you harm.... okay, both Z and M qualify in that regard.
-The subject must have the Opportunity to do you harm right NOW.... if Z was walking away from Martin, this puts Martin's supposed SD claim in serious jeopardy. Contrariwise, we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Z, and Z had injuries of some kind.
-The subject must demonstrate Jeopardy behaviors or Intent.... the subject must do things indicating that an attack is imminent, like cocking a fist and moving towards you, or verbally threatening and reaching for a weapon, that sort of thing. Again, we have eyewitnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman, but we have no eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman exhibited Jeopardy behavior towards Martin.... unless you count following him and keeping him under observation, and if that is ALL then we're REALLY opening a can of worms for people to make spurious SD claims!
Available info indicates that Martin moved to confront Z and backed off when he saw he was on the phone (to 911). Do we have any evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted (provoked) Martin? Not that I know of, other than following him, and that isn't a crime in itself, unless we start making assumptions about Z's body language or facial expression.
Again, your analysis ignores a major piece of evidence. Martin's attempt to flee, reported by
Zimmerman himself. You make a
major unsupported assumption as well, one that is especially ironic given the fact that you seem to be demonizing making assumptions about body language (despite the fact that most body language is both universal
and predictable once the emotional frame of mind is known, as it is here for Zimmerman).
You claim, without
any evidence, that the reason that Martin "backed off" was because he saw that Zimmerman was on the phone to 911. This is complete conjecture on your part. You claim one second that we cannot know Martin's state of mind, but then you say that "available info" allows us to understand his motivations.
At least my assumptions are based on known psychological phenomenon that are relatively universal (body language, fight or flight responses). Your is complete nonsense. You cannot
possibly know why Martin backed off. But when you say he backed off because he saw Zimmerman on the phone, it gives the false impression that he was guilty of something. That something about Zimmerman being on the phone made Martin nervous in and of itself (i.e. that Zimmerman is calling the cops).
There's nothing wrong with making certain assumptions, but only if those assumptions are reasonable in nature. An assumption based on known biological reactions to certain stimuli, for example, is a perfectly reasonable assumptions. An assumption about motivations based on nothing but imagination, however, is not.
IMHO both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman are (were) a pair of overly-aggressive dipsticks who BOTH turned a misunderstanding into a homicide by their poor choices.... but I can't see convicting Z of Murder-2 simply for following someone he deemed suspicious.
I think you demonize Martin for having a reasonable biological response to a threat. Zimmerman was the instigator, that much is known.
We don't have to assume that what the shooter said was true.... but we DO have to have some kind of evidence that it ISN'T.
Exactly. And there is
plenty of evidence indicating that in this case. In fact, Zimmerman's own account of events helps build a case
against him having a right to self-defense.
