Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground?

Why not? Are you saying juries can’t use their subjective opinion and common sense to decide whether Zimmerman’s behavior that night would have caused a reasonable person to be in fear for their safety?

If this is allowable for a jury, then you can’t say “following someone around like a creeper, on a dark rainy night, despite Martin’s attempts to get away” is insufficient information. Not unless you’re speaking for a jury that doesn’t even exist yet.

What crime did Zimmerman see Martin commit?

To clarify the case you cited had an individual who was cought breaking into the defendants car, note the Forcible felony list from earlier

So once again, how did this apply in the Zimmerman case?

Please cite your evidence on the path of Martin and that he ambushed Zimmerman.

Zimmerman witnessed Martin beating him, pinning him to the ground, and continuing to beat him.

That was after the chasing him down bit happened, and if he was pinned to the ground there is no need to invoke a duty to retreat exemption because it was not an option.

Thus if true this would be normal self defense laws and not SYG.

Again?

Zimmerman brother has said that Zimmerman told him that Martin approached Zimmerman from behind.

Do YOU consider that to be an “ambush”? I consider that to be a confrontation between two people who wondered why the other person was there. That would explain why both men asked the other, “What are you doing here.”

Does Corey have evidence that Zimmerman version did not happen or could not have happened?

And is hearsay admissible evidence?

And you admit that both suspects were likely facing each other before the assault began if they both talked?

I believe that has been stated by O’Mara. It’s a self-defense case. That doesn’t mean that O’Mara, or whoever Zimmerman’s attouney will be if the case ever goes to trail, can change their intended defense.

Who do you believe was chasing who? Was Zimmerman running backwards after Martin who was also running backwards to get away?

No, in this case the burden of proof is on you, in this thread we are talking about Martin’s right to defense, you need to prove intent.

According to the evidence Trayvon approached him from the left rear but it is quite possible for that to happen if, what was Zimmerman returning to his truck was perceived by Trayvon as him circling back past his hiding place.

But by not answering I guess you do concede we currently have no reliable information about the path of Trayvon?

Zimmerman’s brother will not be called to testify.

I assume that both men were facing each other while they were asking each other questions. I assume both men were facing each other when Martin punched Zimmerman and broke his nose.

So the direction of approach by Martin matters how?

There is documentation Zimmerman has a temper and a tendency to snap, I am sure Martin’s Defense team could have made a compelling argument that it may have happened in this case.

Hahaha. Everyone in FLA has a right to defend their own lives. Everyone, including Martin, Zimmerman, Corey, Sharpton, and convicted felons have a right to use lethal force to defend their lives if they believe that their life in in imminent danger except as covered by the specific exclusions of FLA law.

If you believe that Martin believed that Zimmerman was circling past him, all you (or more to the point, Corey) have to do is produce some evidence or eyewitness that says that happened.

Not if that “documentation” is inadmissible.

The direction (from behind) only details “how” Martin approached Zimmerman.

And there are documents and video’s concerning Martin’s multiple suspensions and street fighting technique. You can’t discuss the character of one participant without allowing the discussion of the other participant’s character, assuming both participants had survived the encounter.

Yes…yes you can,

In each case the charge would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are providing a false dichotomy.

And if both survived you wouldn’t have a homicide case which would change things a lot.

Yes, that’s what I am saying. In Florida, the jury can’t rely on inference like that:

Quoting State v Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla 1977)

It’s not allowable for any Florida jury.

Hold on – it might be admissible in a trial of Martin, depending on how that trial unfolded.

Ok. Here’s a case where, like this one, only the shooter’s testimony establishes the crime:

Note that the “criminal conduct” is established by Monagan’s claims, just as it would be in the instant case by Zimmerman’s claim.

So if “mere” inference isn’t allowed, what evidence would objectively prove reasonable fear of safety and thus preclude the need for any inference whatsoever?

It would be impossible to create an exhaustive list of all the kind of situations and circumstances that would constitute this, so I’m curious to how you’ll answer this question.