Refresh my memory; which eyewitness reported seeing Martin sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating him up?
No. Zimmerman’s racist paranoia and hatred created the situation. If you act like a racist dickhead and make someone fear for their life then have a right to defend themselves.
You do not have a right to murder a child over a situation you created.
Zimmerman should have just called the cops if a kid with a bag of skittles seemed so threatening.
Why didn’t he call the cops? Instead he chased down an innocent kid making him fear for his life and then shot him when he tried to defend himself.
In some places, pursuing somebody with a gun in your hand is considered that kind of things that starts fights. I know I’d feel threatened if somebody came after me with a gun. I might even feel I needed to defend myself.
No, not if Zimmerman started the problem by pointing a gun at Martin. Zimmerman doesn’t have the right to kill Martin just because Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman’s unprovoked attack. As far as Martin knew, Zimmerman was just a mugger with a gun.
And this demonstrates the madness of the Florida law.
Incorrect, confronting them is legal but following them around is an aggressive act and it is reasonable for them to believe you intend to do harm. This is justification for them to defend themselves if they feel they are at risk.
It’s not extremely debatable. CNN audio engineers show that it was used. I recommend anyone watch the CNN video on the link who doubt this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/did-george-zimmerman-use-a-racial-slur/254925/
So yes, Zimmerman was a racist douchebag shot to death an unarmed 17-year-old kid who weighed 100 pounds less than he did.
No, your point is idiotic. You’re not allowed to use deadly force if someone initiates force against you. For example, if a wife slaps her husband, or for that matter if a husbands slaps his wife, he or she can’t shoot the other.
If a reasonable person would be able to resolve the situation without using deadly force than it’s murder and a reasonable person would think there are ways to respond to a 17-year-old kid who’s 100 pounds less than you without using deadly force.
Seriously? The links have only been posted a dozen times on this thread and others.
There is still a bar that must be met to use deadly force, “self defense” does not allow one to use deadly force in all cases in Florida.
No, since there is no reasonable fear for life in that case.
And yet Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him bloody, with Zimmerman yelling for help and not getting any. Which in any “reasonable person”, IMO, would elicit reasonable fear for his life.
I disagree. I think Terr’s interpretation of the law is absurd.
If I’m with my girlfriend in Florida and she got angry at me and she slapped me for some reason or even decided to start punching me, the Stand Your Ground law certainly wouldn’t permit me to shoot her.
You don’t need the SYG law for the same scenario to occur.
My understanding is that no, he is legally culpable in that instance, as he initiated the use of force.
You cannot start a fight and then claim self defense. If the law is written that way it’s some sort of mistake. If I attack you and you fight back, I am not engaging in self defense if I succeed in killing you; otherwise, any murder would be negated unless the victim offered no resistance.
The situation would certainly be different if the confrontation were to be interrupted, or Martin escalated in in some way, such as coming back with a gun.
But Martin did speak to him, and asked a perfectly valid question. You made it sound as if he said nothing. Why didn’t Zimmerman answer his question? We’ll never know, but it sure sounds to me like Zimmerman is the aggressor there.
Again, I can’t prove it. But the evidence is tilted that way.
I don’t know why you’d address some doofus with no uniform as “officer,” but whatever.
You’re doing what you accuse everyone else of; assuming facts not in evidence. As the call went dead shortly after, we don’t know if, in fact, Martin said something; maybe he had lots to say, but the call was cut off.
Don’t believe it. IF Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims, he’s not going to ask “what are you doing here,” and the sound of the scuffle would have started before the talking. You’re expecting me to believe Martin jumps Zimmerman while still on the phone and Zimmerman’s response is “what are you doing here,” not “aaaaaah” or “get the fuck of me” or “holy shit”? Pfft, that doesn’t pass any smell test at all. If in fact this is Zimmerman’s story, and the girlfriend is believable (which I don’t know) the Zimmerman’s story is full of shit.
Of course it’d also be nice to know where Martin was shot relative to Zimmerman’s vehicle. My Google-fu is not strong here, and frustratingly I cannot find where anyone’s drawn up a simple diagram. If MArtin’s body was close to Zimmerman’s vehicle that helps to corroborate Zimmerman’s story. If it is some distance away, that casts further doubt on Zimmerman’s story.
So Martin’s only mistake was not carrying gun to quickly dispatch Zimmerman, as soon as Martin feared for his life, instead being armed with only his fists??
What a world you advocate, where every dispute is solved with a gunfight, because everybody knows everybody else is armed and therefore a deadly threat. Whoever shoots first is the winner, because the other guy is “moot”..
He was the aggressor, the fact that it escalated to a point where he was losing does not change that.
He lost any right to claim “self defense” by being the aggressor, if a jury would rule that way is unknown, but by the letter of the law he did not have any right to claim self defense.
If you don’t intend to rob a bank but not shoot anyone it is still murder if someone “forces” you to shoot them.
It does not matter that his intentions were good, Zimmerman was the aggressor and in the wrong and it was hist aggressive acts that caused the entire situation to happen.
Martin was within his rights to defend himself from a physically larger person who was stalking him at night, he is the one that would have had rights under the law as written had he used deadly force.
First of all, you have absolutely no evidence that he “initiated the use of force”. And second, even if he did, the law explicitly says he is entitled, STILL, to use deadly force.
It is written that way (with caveats, such as impending threat to life and no way to escape).
Huh? Here is the exchange:
Martin: “Why are you following me?”
Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
…scuffle sounds supposedly follow.
So yes - Martin said nothing at all to Zimmerman after Zimmerman’s question.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/v-fullstory/2706876/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html
Zimmerman told police he was on his way back to his truck when he was approached from behind by Trayvon, Lee said. Zimmerman said Trayvon attacked him.
The story is quite compatible with Trayvon initiating the conversation, Zimmerman responding with his “What are you doing here?”, then Trayvon attacking him.
The world is what it is.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
You’re wrong, according to Florida law that was quoted in this thread at least half a dozen times.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/Chapter776/All
As I posted on the previous page the law is NOT written that way, you may want to review it.
The who through the first punch started it rule may work with your brother but it is not how the law works.
Trayvon had reason to believe he was in danger due to Zimmerman’s acts of aggression, by following a person at night.
Fortunately, It isn’t what you pine for, and probably even less likely now. In case you didn’t notice, a lot of people are upset about this case. With any luck, this will turn the tide on the pro-gun lobby, and the Kochs and Scaifes of this country will get shouted down under a flurry of tighter gun control laws.
He chased a kid a hundred pounds smaller than him down in the dark and made the kid scared for his life. That’s not starting anything?