Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

It's relevant because it is nearly 100% the cause of the fight.

There are only a few situations which would invoke a fight or flight response from someone, and revealing/pointing a gun at someone is one of those situations.

Given the circumstances of the night, can you think of anything reasonable that would cause the two to fight? They both did not knew each other so there is nothing in their releationship that would cause them to fight (other than racism). Random strangers do not just start fighting each other.

And if the gun wasn't revealed prior to the fight, how exactly did it become free and unholstered? Zimmerman claims that Travyon tried going after the gun when it was on the ground. Guns don't easily come free from a holster, I don't think it can come free that easily during a fist fight.

The prosecution should really dig deeper into the cause of the altercation, and bring in the holster as evidence.

Who claimed the gun was on the ground? I don't remember that at all from any testimony or statements.

You can't reason through people's reactions like that. Someone acted unreasonably or none of this would have happened.

I may not have the clearest understanding of the law, but if I'm following you correctly, you're saying that Trayvon had no legally justifiable reason to to be afraid simply because he didn't know of the existence of the gun?

Of course I'm not. I'm saying you can't cite something as justification for that fear if he didn't know about it.

 

[empty vessel]

Zimmerman's greatest legal advantage is Florida's law that places the burden on the State to prove the negative that Zimmerman was not engaged in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That, more than anything, will be responsible for setting him free (if he does go free). The case for murder is strong. The case against self-defense is not. But, if the defense had the burden of proof, their affirmative self-defense case would not be strong either, and Zimmerman would stand a much higher chance of being convicted.

 

[Nightstick11]

you still have to prove that a skinny teenager manhandled a larger, heavier adult

I don't buy it and there is not enough proof to back that up that an WWE self inflicted cut in the back of the head

Just want to make it clear I am not a Zimmerman supporter. I will slightly disagree with you here: what the defense needs to show here is that (a) at any point did trayvon become the legal instigator and (b) if so, would a reasonable person (florida law standard) in the same situation have used deadly force to protect himself.

 

[gutter_trash]

Florida law is stupid

Federal Law should be law of the entire USA when it comes to taking someone's life.

State Laws are retarded

 

[KHarvey16]

Good questions. Florida law, at least, is vague about what constitutes provocation. It just says, "The justification [for use of force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who ... nitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." That's all it says with regard to losing the right to use force. And I don't think there's much Florida case law about it, either.

But you have to remember there is a jury here that can be reasonably expected to use some common sense. A jury is unlikely to find that somebody provoked violence just by calling somebody's hat ugly. Of course, it would depend upon the totality of the circumstances. Was it said tauntingly? Repeatedly? Was he picking on the person? Even if there was provocation, it would not necessarily justify the other person's use of force. In other words, the person who was provoked into using force can still be committing an illegal assault. But the person who provoked that violence cannot thereafter claim that his own use of force after having provoked the physical assault is legally justified, i.e., that it was self-defense. In short, where an aggressor provokes violence from another resulting in both the aggressor and the other person using force, both people's use of force can be illegal and punishable. Nobody has a right of self-defense in such a scenario, and both parties are unlawfully using force.

This is what this case comes down to. Even if Martin struck first, the question of whether Zimmerman's own use of force in response to that is justified depends upon whether a jury thinks he provoked the violence. If he did, then both Martin and Zimmerman could be said to be using force unlawfully. And if that's true, then Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder unless one of the very narrow exceptions applies that would allow him to reclaim the right to use force.

Regarding your last question, the first aggressor rule is common and long-standing:

The accused being where he had a right to be, on his own premises, constituting a part of his residence and home, at the time the deceased approached him in a threatening manner, and not having by language or by conduct provoked the deceased to assault him, the question for the jury was whether, without fleeing from his adversary, he had, at the moment he struck the deceased, reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that he could not save his life or protect himself from great bodily harm except by doing what he did, namely, strike the deceased with his gun, and thus prevent his further advance upon him.​

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7538963423942939640 (1895 SCOTUS case)

The law thinks it is highly important to identify who the primary aggressor in a situation was, for obvious reasons. The law does not want to reward or encourage aggression that provokes violence.

Interesting, thanks. Is it expected for things involving a jury that language is relaxed as far as specificity since it's people making a judgment call in the end?

 

[Brinbe]

Zimmerman's greatest legal advantage is Florida's law that places the burden on the State to prove the negative that Zimmerman was not engaged in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That, more than anything, will be responsible for setting him free (if he does go free).

Agreed, I've come to terms with this. GZ will probably get off based on Florida law/self defense. But he'll always be a terrible person regardless. Don't start none, won't be none. He tried to be some superhero, got his ass handed to him by TM and with no remorse killed a young kid as a result.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Florida law is stupid

Federal Law should be law of the entire USA when it comes to taking someone's life.

State Laws are retarded

I'm glad you have no power to decide such things.

he is guilty, he stalked and killed an unarmed minor

I don't believe his actions would fall under stalking according to Florida State law. But I am not a lawyer and the case is currently in trial, so I am sure they will determine that fact.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm glad you have no power to decide such things.



I don't believe his actions would fall under stalking according to Florida State law. But I am not a lawyer and the case is currently in trial, so I am sure they will determine that fact.

remind me to never move to Florida

 

[Figboy79]

so the point of the case is all about the validity of his claim to use Stand Your Ground clause.

Prosecution trying to prove Zimmerman to be the instigator that would null and void his claim to use STAND YOUR GROUND

I don't think the defense is using Stand Your Ground, just plain old self defense.

I have another anecdote I'll share with you guys, though:

A few years back, when my wife was an Assistant Manager at a video store (and before we were married, actually), she was closing up the store. I'd come and pick her up whenever she worked the closing shift.

I pull up into the parking lot, and I see this guy in a van parked a good 15-20 feet from the entrance to the store. He has the back doors of the van wide open, and I see my wife in the store, shutting off the lights and getting ready to leave the store. I pull up next to the van, and just sit there and wait for my wife to finish.

The guy in the van sees me pulled up next to him, gets out of the driver side, closes the back of the van, and then drives off, as my wife is leaving the store and walking to the car. My wife mentioned that the guy had been parked out there for a while, and when she saw I wasn't there, she took an extra long time to close the store until she saw me pull up. We never saw the guy again, but I made sure that I got to her job at least 10 minutes before she closed.

Yes, sitting in your car and watching a store isn't illegal, but in instances like these, and like being followed by a stranger in a car, it's best to err on the side of caution. Judging by some of the comments I've read in this thread, me, nor my wife, should have been concerned by the actions of this stranger, because he wasn't doing anything illegal. Unless, of course, I showed up 10 minutes later, and my wife was nowhere to be seen because Mr. Rape Van got hold of her. I think, when Trayvon ran away (according to both Zimmerman's and Rachel's account, Trayvon tried to get away), he was trying to remove himself from a confrontation with this stranger (a "creepy ass cracka," if you will), and get away. Zimmerman, who stated before "These punks always get away," was not inclined to let that happen. I can understand how, at the moment Trayvon saw that Zimmerman had exited his vehicle to follow him, he'd be more inclined to defend himself, with the only weapon he had on him, his fists.

Zimmerman had a gun. He was in control. He acted unbelievably irresponsible, and he should be held accountable for his actions.

 

[royalan]

Of course I'm not. I'm saying you can't cite something as justification for that fear if he didn't know about it.

Ah. Makes sense. Thanks.

I don't believe his actions would fall under stalking according to Florida State law. But I am not a lawyer and the case is currently in trial, so I am sure they will determine that fact.

...Why wouldn't it be considered stalking?

 

[XenodudeX]

This guy is going to get away with this, isn't he?

 

[empty vessel]

Agreed, I've come to terms with this. GZ will probably get off based on Florida law/self defense.

And to elaborate a bit on this, I do not think the problem with the State's self-defense case is establishing Zimmerman as the aggressor under Florida law. The fact that many of us recognize Zimmerman as a "but for" cause of the violence that night suggests pretty clearly to me it is reasonable to find that his conduct that night provoked it. The problem for the State will lie in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman never reclaimed the right to use force after having lost it. It is very difficult to reclaim the right to use force after having lost it, but the State has virtually no evidence about what occurred. And you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have any evidence.

Ultimately, I think the verdict will depend upon how strictly the jury holds the State to its burden.

 

[GrandHarrier]

...Why wouldn't it be considered stalking?

From glancing through the Florida statutes on stalking, there has to be some sort of repetition to the action with malicious intent.

 

[DragonSworne]

And to elaborate a bit on this, I do not think the problem with the State's self-defense case is establishing Zimmerman as the aggressor under Florida law. The fact that many of us recognize Zimmerman as a "but for" cause of the violence that night suggests pretty clearly to me it is reasonable to find that his conduct that night provoked it. The problem for the State will lie in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman never reclaimed the right to use force after having lost it. It is very difficult to reclaim the right to use force after having lost it, but the State has virtually no evidence about what occurred. And you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have any evidence.

Ultimately, I think the verdict will depend upon how strictly the jury holds the State to its burden.

If we know for a fact that he lost his right to use force, why must it then be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt that he never reclaimed it? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't Zimmerman have to prove that he reclaim his right to use force beyond a reasonable doubt?

What in the florida laws makes the burden on the state to prove Zimmerman never reclaimed the use force?

 

[Heel]

Agreed, I've come to terms with this. GZ will probably get off based on Florida law/self defense. But he'll always be a terrible person regardless. Don't start none, won't be none. He tried to be some superhero, got his ass handed to him by TM and with no remorse killed a young kid as a result.

That's pretty much where I'm at. He's an overzealous neighborhood watch idiot who racially profiled a kid and put himself in a really stupid situation. Beyond that, let's say he's telling the truth. Martin takes the first swing, he gets his nose broken and his head slammed into the pavement. "You're going to die tonight" and the kid reaches for his exposed gun.

Should George Zimmerman, as deplorable as he is, have to choose between his death or being a murderer? I don't think I can get behind that like some people have in this thread.

 

[DragonSworne]

Who claimed the gun was on the ground? I don't remember that at all from any testimony or statements.

You can't reason through people's reactions like that. Someone acted unreasonably or none of this would have happened.



Of course I'm not. I'm saying you can't cite something as justification for that fear if he didn't know about it.

"After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him into the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of 'you're going to die now or you're going to die tonight,' something to that effect. He continued to beat George and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/zimmermans-fathers-claims_n_1386981.html

So the gun never was on the ground. So Trayvon noticed the gun and said "you're going to died tonight", and did not go after the gun? He was going to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands?

 

[Particle Physicist]

From what I have been learning in this thread:

From a legal standpoint, Zimmerman might be innocent.

From a moral standpoint: Almost everyone agrees he's an asshole that did a terrible thing and should be punished for his actions. Sadly, legality does not equal morality. Please keep that in mind when you are arguing with out resident lawyers here. They aren't saying that Zimmerman is a saint. Just that it's possible he's not guilty from a legal standpoint. And are pointing out the reasons why.

No, some people (not everyone) are actually arguing that he did nothing wrong. There people in the older thread that even admitted to donating funds for his legal defense. Legally, I think most of us understand that it will be a difficult thing to prove since there is a severe lack of evidence.

 

[DragonSworne]

. "You're going to die tonight" and the kid reaches for his exposed gun.

Where does it say Trayvon reached for the gun? According to Zimmerman and the police report, he only continued to beat him after the gun was exposed and said "You're going to die tonight". Zimmerman is the only one that reached for the gun.

 

[Vicetrailia]

That's pretty much where I'm at. He's an overzealous neighborhood watch idiot who racially profiled a kid and put himself in a really stupid situation. Beyond that, let's say he's telling the truth. Martin takes the first swing, he gets his nose broken and his head slammed into the pavement. "You're going to die tonight" and the kid reaches for his exposed gun.

Should George Zimmerman, as deplorable as he is, have to choose between his death or being a murderer? I don't think I can get behind that like some people have in this thread.

It's not fair for you "not get behind something" based on Zim's varying accounts.

 

[Figboy79]

This guy is going to get away with this, isn't he?

It's still up in the air, I think. The trial is far from over, I believe. Despite the overwhelming cynicism in this thread, I don't think the Fat Lady had sung for the prosecutors. At the end of the day, it's completely up to the jurors.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not particularly concerned about the ins and outs of Florida law. All I know is that the Martin's 17 year old son was taken from them by George Zimmerman, and Trayvon looked to have a good head on his shoulders, with no history of violence and aggression, and his future was taken from him.

It just upsets me that had Zimmerman stayed in his car, he, nor Trayvon, would be where they are at now (the former on trial for murder, the latter in a casket 6 feet under). As I've mentioned many times, I know what it's like to lose a family member to a senseless, violent crime, so I understand whole-heartedly what the Martin's are feeling. I do want justice, but as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout American history, justice for minorities is very rarely doled out. I know people hate to be reminded of that in "post racial America," but it's true.

EDIT: Personally, I think he's going to walk. But that's just my own cynicism showing.

 

[Heel]

Where does it say Trayvon reached for the gun? According to Zimmerman and the police report, he only continued to beat him after the gun was exposed and said "You're going to die tonight". Zimmerman is the only one that reached for the gun.

In the video where he's walking the police through the altercation, doesn't he say he feels Martin slide his hand down his torso towards the gun?

It's not fair for you "not get behind something" based on Zim's varying accounts.

What has varied, exactly? Not claiming to be an expert on the case by any means.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Not necessarily. Even IF someone instigated, that doesn't give the defender to beat the shit out of the aggressor. If the instigator tried to withdraw or retreat, and the other party pursued him, the other party becomes the instigator.

I don't think Zimmerman ever stated that he tried to run away.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Zimmerman's greatest legal advantage is Florida's law that places the burden on the State to prove the negative that Zimmerman was not engaged in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That, more than anything, will be responsible for setting him free (if he does go free). The case for murder is strong. The case against self-defense is not. But, if the defense had the burden of proof, their affirmative self-defense case would not be strong either, and Zimmerman would stand a much higher chance of being convicted.

These self defense laws are so screwed up. Part of the whole gun culture really. :/

 

[Cyan]

Where's "you're gonna die tonight" coming from? I'm guessing this is something Zimmerman has claimed?

 

[Particle Physicist]

"After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him into the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of 'you're going to die now or you're going to die tonight,' something to that effect. He continued to beat George and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/zimmermans-fathers-claims_n_1386981.html

So the gun never was on the ground. So Trayvon noticed the gun and said "you're going to died tonight", and did not go after the gun? He was going to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands?

Zimmerman's account is so stupid. I seriously hope he takes the stand to "prove" to the world how innocent he is.

 

[empty vessel]

If we know for a fact that he lost his right to use force, why must it then be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt that he never reclaimed it? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't Zimmerman have to prove that he reclaim his right to use force beyond a reasonable doubt?

What in the florida laws makes the burden on the state to prove Zimmerman never reclaimed the use force?

Well, we don't know for a fact that he lost his right to use force, the jury will determine that. (If I were on the jury, I'd be inclined to find that he did lose it.) The reason the State would still have to prove that he did not reclaim it is simply because Florida law appears to make that the State's burden, at least as far as I know. The ability to claim justification for the use of force as an aggressor is framed as an exception to the general rule that aggressors cannot claim the justification, i.e., "the aggressor cannot claim the justification unless ... ." Since the State has the burden to prove that it was not self-defense, it almost certainly also has the burden to prove that those exceptions do not apply. Of course, Zimmerman still has a burden of production, and it's not at all clear to me exactly what he has to be produce to put the burden of proof on the State as regards self-defense.

 

[Figboy79]

In the video where he's walking the police through the altercation, doesn't he say he feels Martin slide his hand down his torso towards the gun?



What has varied, exactly? Not claiming to be an expert on the case by any means.

Is Trayvon Martin Vishnu or something? According to Zimmerman, the amount of things that Trayvon was doing to him simultaneously would indicate he had, at the least, 4 arms.

Where's "you're gonna die tonight" coming from? I'm guessing this is something Zimmerman has claimed?

Yes. During one of Zimmerman's various accounts of events, Travyon said, "You're going to die tonight," while simultaneously smothering him, bashing his head against the ground, and reaching for his firearm, while Zimmerman himself, showing an expertise in ventriloquism I don't think I've ever seen, was screaming at the top of his lungs for help.

 

[Heel]

Where's "you're gonna die tonight" coming from? I'm guessing this is something Zimmerman has claimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

Zimmerman's reenactment for the police.

 

[Cyan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

Zimmerman's reenactment for the police.

Ah, ok.

It seems a little odd to just take that at face value. "Hey, by pure coincidence, the guy said the one thing that might make me justified in using lethal force in self-defense!"

I'm picturing being in Trayvon's shoes here, and "you're gonna die tonight" doesn't enter into it. It just doesn't fit.

 

[Yoritomo]

Isn't there also a duty to retreat or disengage under florida self-defense if they're not arguing stand your ground?

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

[Cloudy]

I think the prosecutors screwed up this case by charging Zimmerman with murder in the first place. He should have been charged with manslaughter or something like that.

Now dude is going to walk because the jury won't want to give him 25 to life.

 

[empty vessel]

Isn't there also a duty to retreat or disengage under florida self-defense if they're not arguing stand your ground?

I don't think so. Stand your ground still applies as it is built into the general self-defense law. It's just that Zimmerman didn't take advantage of special additional procedures Florida offers that would have allowed a judge to find him immune from prosecution before any trial. But an aggressor's use of force is not justified even under stand your ground (unless he meets one of the two narrow exceptions that allows him to reclaim the justification).

 

[KHarvey16]

Isn't there also a duty to retreat or disengage under florida self-defense if they're not arguing stand your ground?

What you quoted says there is not. But regardless the defense is arguing a series of events that prevents Zimmerman from retreating once the force is being applied. If the defense's argument isn't accurate there are likely a few more reasons why self defense wouldn't apply beyond not retreating.

 

[Heel]

Is Trayvon Martin Vishnu or something? According to Zimmerman, the amount of things that Trayvon was doing to him simultaneously would indicate he had, at the least, 4 arms.



Yes. During one of Zimmerman's various accounts of events, Travyon said, "You're going to die tonight," while simultaneously smothering him, bashing his head against the ground, and reaching for his firearm, while Zimmerman himself, showing an expertise in ventriloquism I don't think I've ever seen, was screaming at the top of his lungs for help.

I dunno man, it's a series of events. Watching the reenactment I don't see anything that requires more than two hands and a mouth at one given time. Zimmerman's claiming Martin took a hand off from smothering him to reach for the gun.

Do they have an idea of how long the actual fight lasted?

Ah, ok.

It seems a little odd to just take that at face value. "Hey, by pure coincidence, the guy said the one thing that might make me justified in using lethal force in self-defense!"

I'm picturing being in Trayvon's shoes here, and "you're gonna die tonight" doesn't enter into it. It just doesn't fit.

I have no idea what either of them would say in the heat of the moment. At that point it's a life or death fight in both of their minds, right?

 

[J.ceaz]

I just don't see someone with a fifty pound weight deficit and no fight training pinning Zimmerman.

 

[Touchdown]

 

[vas_a_morir]

Worst comment of the thread yet.

Well, if you think Trayvon had a right to defend himself because he was scared, why wouldn't Zimmerman have the same? That's my logic. That's why I find it baffling that people keep bringing up the fact Trayvon had a right to defend himself, as well. To me, that's very apparent. *shrugs* (also, not morally, but legally speaking)

And besides, there are comments worse than mine. "All people who defend Zimmerman are racist" and "Zimmerman had more of a right to be in that neighborhood than Trayvon." You can't tell me my comment was worse than that, Ironman.

 

[Figboy79]

I dunno man, it's a series of events. Watching the reenactment I don't see anything that requires more than two hands and a mouth at one given time. Zimmerman's claiming Martin took a hand off from smothering him to reach for the gun.

Do they have an idea of how long the actual fight lasted?



I have no idea what either of them would say in the heat of the moment. At that point it's a life or death fight in both of their minds, right?

According to Zimmerman's testimony, he was being smothered while screaming for help.

According to the 911 call, the screams for help go on for at least 45 seconds, and are abruptly silenced when the gun goes off.

In either case, I'm not inclined to believe anything that comes out of Zimmerman's mouth, given his history of lying and aggression. He's shown the strength of his character, and it's incredibly weak. Martin, on the other hand, has no similar history, but people are very, very quick to label him as an aggressor with no evidence to really support that claim other than a culturally accepted notion that black people (and especially males), are prone to aggression.

At least that's how all the "Martin must have been angry because he was being followed," comes off. There's never any consideration for "Martin must have been afraid after being followed by a car and then on foot."

Even so, it's been a while since I've seen the re-enactment (I've been following this story since it broke over a 1 and a half ago), so I don't remember 100% what Zimmerman said, but the point is that his story has changed at least 3 times, before settling on whichever one he has now. It's hard to keep track.

Is he going with the one where he's ambushed from behind? Or is he going with the one where Trayvon says, "You got a problem, Homey? (dramatic beat, waiting for Zimmerman to say no, which his does), "Well you do now." (and proceeds to punch him).

I don't even know.

 

[Yoritomo]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

How could you change the law to guarantee someone like Zimmerman goes to jail? No commission of any infraction holds any guarantee that someone will serve time and be convicted. The Presumption of innocence in any case means that there's a change. It's up to the jury.

The only thing I can say is that if I were on the jury Zimmerman would do some time based on the information that I have. Were I Trayvon I would have been afraid of the man following me. Were I zimmerman I would have reported the incident and stayed in the car if I really thought something was going on. They were too evenly matched for there to be reason for deadly force.

 

[methane47]

That's pretty much where I'm at. He's an overzealous neighborhood watch idiot who racially profiled a kid and put himself in a really stupid situation. Beyond that, let's say he's telling the truth. Martin takes the first swing, he gets his nose broken and his head slammed into the pavement. "You're going to die tonight" and the kid reaches for his exposed gun.

Should George Zimmerman, as deplorable as he is, have to choose between his death or being a murderer? I don't think I can get behind that like some people have in this thread.

I dont think a single Person in this thread is saying Zimmerman should have allowed Trey to kill him. The various comments are saying, that he should have stayed in his damn car, He should have NOT pursued treyvon, and he should have atleast IDENTIFIED himself to treyvon.

Because he did NONE of those, a fight broke out, he was the victor, but he should suffer the consequences of his actions

Well, if you think Trayvon had a right to defend himself because he was scared, why wouldn't Zimmerman have the same? That's my logic. That's why I find it baffling that people keep bringing up the fact Trayvon had a right to defend himself, as well. To me, that's very apparent. *shrugs* (also, not morally, but legally speaking)

And besides, there are comments worse than mine. "All people who defend Zimmerman are racist" and "Zimmerman had more of a right to be in that neighborhood than Trayvon." You can't tell me my comment was worse than that, Ironman.

HOW is it possible that you justify it in your head that a person can instigate a fight, and then claim self defense.

Thought experiment: a child was being bullied at school. constant picking on the person, tormenting... etc etc. If the victim then stands up for himself and attacks the bully, but the bully then completely destroys the victim. Who would say is at fault? Who would you say is responsible for the fight? Would you allow the bully to claim self-defense to skirt the punishment?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Ah, ok.

It seems a little odd to just take that at face value. "Hey, by pure coincidence, the guy said the one thing that might make me justified in using lethal force in self-defense!"

I'm picturing being in Trayvon's shoes here, and "you're gonna die tonight" doesn't enter into it. It just doesn't fit.

It is straight out of a really shitty action film.

 

[empty vessel]

Thought experiment: a child was being bullied at school. constant picking on the person, tormenting... etc etc. If the victim then stands up for himself and attacks the bully, but the bully then completely destroys the victim. Who would say is at fault? Who would you say is responsible for the fight? Would you allow the bully to claim self-defense to skirt the punishment?

It's worth reiterating that two people who are using force against each other may both be doing so without justification, i.e., illegally. It is not necessary that one be declared innocent and the other guilty. So it is not necessary that Martin be innocent of all wrongdoing for Zimmerman to have been acting illegally. And vice versa. In many instances in which two people are using force against each other, both are doing so illegally.

It is possible for two people to be acting unlawfully against each other at the same time.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

State Laws are retarded

So you'd be fine with things like gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, etc. never ever becoming legal in any part of the United States then?

Thought experiment: a child was being bullied at school. constant picking on the person, tormenting... etc etc. If the victim then stands up for himself and attacks the bully, but the bully then completely destroys the victim. Who would say is at fault? Who would you say is responsible for the fight? Would you allow the bully to claim self-defense to skirt the punishment?

Provided the bully didn't physically instigate it, absolutely.

 

[pompidu]

This is really bizarre case and I doubt Zimmerman was telling the truth on what actually went down. Who grabs a gun and follows a random stranger? If he walks free I imagine this will probably become more common.

 

[Norml]

Ah, ok.

It seems a little odd to just take that at face value. "Hey, by pure coincidence, the guy said the one thing that might make me justified in using lethal force in self-defense!"

I'm picturing being in Trayvon's shoes here, and "you're gonna die tonight" doesn't enter into it. It just doesn't fit.

people talk a lot of smack when they have the upper hand in a fight.

 

[KingKong]

This is really bizarre case and I doubt Zimmerman was telling the truth on what actually went down. Who grabs a gun and follows a random stranger?

someone who thinks of himself as a vigilante protecting his neighborhood

 

[Kinyou]

So you'd be fine with things like gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, etc. never ever becoming legal in any part of the United States then?

You should quote his entire post

Florida law is stupid

Federal Law should be law of the entire USA when it comes to taking someone's life.

State Laws are retarded

 

[Stinkles]

We can't just assume that he did if there's no evidence to do so!



So if someone is following you and you fear they have a gun simply because you're in America, you're justified in shooting him on sight regardless if he actually does or not? No, being afraid of a gun you have no reason to assume is there is not reasonable fear of death or serious harm.

This isn't a technicality of the law or some obscure legal concept. It's simple logic. If someone doesn't know a threat exists, it's unreasonable to cite that threat as justification for them being afraid at the time. How does that not make absolutely perfect sense?

whom did Trayvon shoot on sight?

 

[KHarvey16]

whom did Trayvon shoot on sight?

You aren't following the response at all.

 

[vas_a_morir]

HOW is it possible that you justify it in your head that a person can instigate a fight, and then claim self defense.

Thought experiment: a child was being bullied at school. constant picking on the person, tormenting... etc etc. If the victim then stands up for himself and attacks the bully, but the bully then completely destroys the victim. Who would say is at fault? Who would you say is responsible for the fight? Would you allow the bully to claim self-defense to skirt the punishment?

You misunderstand. I don't give a care about 'instigating the fight' if he doesn't break the law in doing so. If you say to a Yankees fan 'Yankees suck' and he hits you, you do not give up your right to self-defense. If you went up to the Yankees fan and spit in his face? Yeah, you do.

Likewise, if you are a cyclist, and someone is following you on a bike, you don not have the right to jump on them an assault them. If they shout "Why are you riding around here?" I don't think you have the legal right.

I don't know why this is so controversial. Trayvon has a right to defend himself against criminal threats against his bodily harm. However, I personally feel he does not have the right to defend himself against perceived threats of bodily harm from people who are not breaking the law. I don't see how those statements are controversial.