Most of the physicists or physical chemists I know can't STAND biology

(Though I don't think there's evidence at this point to call it a "murder.")

Hearing as much as everyone else has, what would you call it so far?

I'm not a lawyer, but at this point, it seems more accurate to call it a homicide.

I agree, for the record. Isn't the crux of the matter the law about how self-defense works in FL? "Stand your ground" or something?

I've only read a few stories about this, but it seems like the "stand your ground" law and the concept of self-defense are either being conflated or bastardized (or both) in this case.* I don't see any way that "stand your ground" applies to a situation in which Person A actively pursues Person B and a confrontation ensues, but the Sanford police seem to be applying an oddly loose definition of standing one's ground while the media, much of which has always hated this law, seems more intent on demonizing "stand your ground" rather than explaining why it likely didn't even apply in this case.

and the guy still hasn't been arrested (I think?).

The idea that person A could follow person B away from the person A's house, shoot person B and then claim self defense seems like a weird application of the law, but then as Joe points out, it might just be a conflation of separate issues.

It also seems that, in order for "stand your ground" to apply, Person B needs to be a threat to Person A. Does the law really grant everyone a wide berth to imagine that they are being threatened, and to take violent action even if there's no real threat?

It seems likely in this case that Zimmerman won't be able to use the law to escape punishment,

In # 1014 above, Matt's figures on "justifiable homicide" rulings in Florida since 2005 certainly don't ease one's fears.

Probably not hundreds, and maybe not that many at all, but without either earwitnesses or eyewitnesses, how could we possibly know what sort of a number to put on it?

Right, that's my point. You implied in #1016 that "stand your ground" has resulted in a large number of unprosecuted murders — "Matt's figures on 'justifiable homicide' rulings in Florida since 2005 certainly don't ease one's fears" — and my point is that Matt's numbers might very well be deceiving. Even discounting the added media attention brought on by the racial angle, the media frenzy surrounding the Martin/Zimmerman case suggests these types of homicides don't lack for media attention in the Sunshine State.

Zimmerman's attorney is also saying this is a simple self-defense case, and that "stand your ground" doesn't apply.

I mentioned that Zimmerman apparently hadn't even been questioned about the Martin shooting, which was something I had read elsewhere. But according to Zimmerman's attorney, this is false. Per CNN, "Zimmerman has talked with authorities — unaccompanied by counsel — whenever they have asked him to do so."

I don't get this. I mean, he can argue this if he likes, but it seems like it will be difficult for him to win--given the multitude of evidence suggesting he was in no threat.

The story linked above says Zimmerman had a broken nose, a deep gash in his head, and was wearing clothes that were wet and grass-stained on the back. That, to me, doesn’t sound like he was in an offensive position, but it's unclear where the two men were when Martin was shot — i.e., was Martin eight feet away, or was he on top of Zimmerman?

It's not at all clear that Zimmerman forfeited a subsequent self-defense claim by initiating the pursuit.

It's unclear to me how Martin apparently started pummeling Zimmerman if only Zimmerman was armed, but if Martin was punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman had a credible fear that he was about to be disarmed (and possibly shot with his own gun), there's at least a plausible self-defense claim. (The story linked above says Zimmerman had a broken nose, a deep gash in his head, and was wearing clothes that were wet and grass-stained on the back. That, to me, doesn’t sound like he was in an offensive position, but it's unclear where the two men were when Martin was shot — i.e., was Martin eight feet away, or was he on top of Zimmerman?)

If he was on top pf Zimmerman, his clothes would not have been described as 'grass-stained'.

I suppose this must be where the media confusion over SYG came in. I guess I agree, but I am kinda unclear on the concept of this.

It's unclear to me at all that the broken nose/lacerations were inflicted on Zimmerman by Martin. The cellphone recordings, the 911 call, none of that stuff indicated that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The whole story is weird and doesn't make a ton of sense. Why would Martin punch Zimmerman?

Even still, is it typical for a punch from a 14-year-old boy to constitute a credible threat for self-defense?

Zimmerman's clothes were described as being wet with grass stains on the back, not Martin's.

If Zimmerman was armed, and especially if he was the only one armed, how did Martin get on top of him,

Martin was 17. Apparently, Martin was taller and more athletic than Zimmerman, while Zimmerman weighed more.

Recycling a comment from elsewhere, I see it like this: If Zimmerman was getting into his car on a dark street and Martin came running up in a threatening manner with his hand in his waistband or his pocket, and Zimmerman made a snap decision to defend himself, “stand your ground” might be a valid defense. But once Zimmerman made the conscious decision to pursue Martin — a pursuit he could have abandoned at any time — a self-defense claim involving lethal force should still be available but should require more than “he reached into his pocket” or “he took a swing at me.”

I don't understand this, either, although it might further establish that Zimmerman was way out of his depth. If Zimmerman was armed, and especially if he was the only one armed, how did Martin get on top of him, assuming the witness report(s) and Zimmerman's injuries are true?

On the merits of the law, which again seem only tangential to the Martin case, the most striking report I saw is that homicides classified as "justifiable" in Florida jumped from 45 in 2005 to 105 in 2009. That sounds, on first analysis, more like a case of murders being re-classified as justified rather than a massive increase in truly justified killings.

The unnecessary confrontation was perhaps driven by racial bias (although Zimmerman is part hispanic). But even if so, and even given the reaction from the authorities, it would seem to be better if we just dealt with these particular circumstances, instead of pretending that this is Selma Alabama 1965.

The first issue to me is whether A forfeits his right to claim self defense when he provokes an unnecessary confontation with B, causing B, in reasonable fear for B's life, to defend himself by harming or threatening harm to A, after which A uses lethal force, causing B's death.

Again, I would hate to be on this jury, because it's possible I might have to vote to acquit and would be a national pariah.

Well, better to be a pariah for doing the right thing than a hero for doing the wrong thing.

Anyway, other than pure haplessness, I still can't figure out how Zimmerman was armed but somehow managed to end up with Martin on top of him, as one or more witnesses apparently told the police in the immediate aftermath.

People were talking about the lack of blood on Zimmerman, and I'd like to add that police found Martin on his face with his arms under him. I haven't yet seen anything from the autopsy as to where the bullets entered. And I've been thinking of situations that could end with Zimmerman having no blood and Martin being found the way he was and wondering what situations Zimmerman might feel reasonably threatened and have it end up that way.

And I've been thinking of situations that could end with Zimmerman having no blood and Martin being found the way he was and wondering what situations Zimmerman might feel reasonably threatened and have it end up that way.

Scenario: They start fighting and Zimmerman is losing. Zimmerman manages to shove Martin away but Martin gets back up and starts rushing Zimmerman. Zimmerman shoots him.

The over-arching issue to me has to do with the wisdom (or lack thereof) of neighborhood watchmen. I realize police can act illegally, but, still, they would seem to be in the best position to handle this. If the issue is manpower, I'm not sure a layman neighborhood watchman is the answer.

That'd be a long push to get him far enough away to not get blood on him. Still not sure how his hands end up underneath him.

Well, certainly not if they're going to run around shooting people. I didn't think that was the idea behind neighborhood watch stuff in the first place. They're the neighborhood WATCH, not the neighborhood shooters. If you see something, you call the cops (which Zimmerman did), and then you back off.

The unnecessary confrontation was perhaps driven by racial bias (although Zimmerman is part hispanic).

Agreed. My gut reaction to the first two or three stories I read was that the racism angle was probably nonsense, and that this was more likely a case of a somewhat hapless law-enforcement wannabe who knew just enough to be dangerous. My opinion is subject to change, but none of the bluster of the past few days has moved me off this opinion.

He called Martin c**n, after all.

The whole assuming a black kid in a hoodie (why aren't they sweatshirts, btw) is Up to No Good is sort of low grade racist.

He seems more mall-coppish than anything. The racism angle, while almost certainly overblown, seems to be real.

hoodie (why aren't they sweatshirts, btw)

#1040 Eyewitness testimony is generally useless. Frequently worse than that.

Add the word most and you are probably right.

He called Martin c**n, after all.


He did? I've probably read at least 10 articles on this by now, and not one has mentioned this. The transcript I read had him saying, "These a**holes always get away," but I didn't see any slurs.

Well, certainly not if they're going to run around shooting people. I didn't think that was the idea behind neighborhood watch stuff in the first place. They're the neighborhood WATCH, not the neighborhood shooters. If you see something, you call the cops (which Zimmerman did), and then you back off.

The unnecessary confrontation was perhaps driven by racial bias (although Zimmerman is part hispanic).

Your parenthetical doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of your sentence.

Overblown perhaps when interpreting Zimmerman's motives, but a good deal more damning when considering the response by the police. A black man gunning down an unarmed white teenager would most assuredly be handled differently.

Your parenthetical doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of your sentence.

He did? I've probably read at least 10 articles on this by now, and not one has mentioned this. The transcript I read had him saying, "These a**holes always get away," but I didn't see any slurs.

Overblown perhaps when interpreting Zimmerman's motives, but a good deal more damning when considering the response by the police. A black man gunning down an unarmed white teenager would most assuredly be handled differently.

But the claim that it was handled this way because of the races of the two persons (and again, Zimmerman is not "white") is purely a figment of peoples' imaginations. I've seen no evidence to support that.

And the claim that we live in a world where we are "long past" the point where race doesn't strongly inform the activities of the majorities and minorities in question is a figment of your imagination.

Invoking Emmett Till and comparing this situation to that is simply misguided.

At one point Oliver became choked up with emotion talking about his friend but said he was coming forward freely even though it may expose him to reprisals.

"I just have to do what's right, not just for my friend but for everyone involved," Oliver said. "His mother in law lost her job for this. He's in hiding. His mother in law can't see her own daughter because she fears for their lives."

My apologies if you felt like I did that, as it wasn't my intent to say that the situations are remotely comparable. To Al Sharpton, though, it's part of the same continuum which is what is driving his rhetoric. I realize that for you this is a criticism of Sharpton. To an extent, we are all prisoners of our own experience. What Sharpton experienced in Mississippi and Alabama in 1965 informs his discussion on Trayvon Martin in 2012, for better or for worse.

Black friend defends shooter of Florida teen

What the hell did Al Sharpton experience in Mississippi and Alabama in 1965? In 1965 he was 11 years old, and had lived (and still has) his whole life in New York.

Substitute a different civil rights leader who's talked about it on TV.

It's unclear to me how Martin apparently started pummeling Zimmerman if only Zimmerman was armed, but if Martin was punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman had a credible fear that he was about to be disarmed (and possibly shot with his own gun), there's at least a plausible self-defense claim.

No there's not.

Jesse Jackson would be the polarizing civil rights leader you're looking for here. He was 24 years old in 1965 and was born in South Carolina.

I thought Sharpton was older than that, and I got lazy with the assumptions. He looks like crap for someone less than 60.

I've probably read 20 articles by now but none have come close to answering either of the above. Has anyone seen any answers?

1. How much, if any, of Zimmerman's self-defense claim did Zimmerman surrender if, as generally reported, his pursuit of Martin instigated the ensuing altercation; and

You can't shoot someone who is throwing snowballs at you

The only scenario that is remotely plausible is the one laid out by Nieporent above. But no one believe that this is what happened. No one.

I will admit - I'm 38 years old - that I had never heard of the racial slur "coon" before this case.

I will admit - I'm 38 years old - that I had never heard of the racial slur "coon" before this case

I will admit - I'm 38 years old - that I had never heard of the racial slur "coon" before this case.

I will admit - I'm 38 years old - that I had never heard of the racial slur "coon" before this case.

Nope. Never heard of it. Never read it. Never saw it on tv. Never saw it in a movie.

At least, not that I can recall.

In fact, when I first heard of it in this case, I saw it in print as "c--n" and I stared at it and still couldn't fill in the blanks.

Who, outside of Andy's pool hall friends, is using this?

It's hard for me to imagine that some people are unfamiliar with the term. Not if you took literature, history, politics at college, I would think.

I mean, I believe you, it's just weird.

Someone else reading this has not heard of the word either. Probably not two people, but at least one :-) Whether they confess is another story.

If any of my pool hall friends tried using that word in public, that'd be the last time they ever would be allowed in any pool room I've played in since about 1980. News flash: Pool rooms are integrated, and what few racists are left in them know better than to run their mouths.

They've done a remarkable job, but even the Tyrell Corporation isn't perfect ...