In my opinion, nothing. This whole line of thought was introduced by folks on your side of the issue.
You may expect someone to say that, but that’s definitely not something anyone has actually said, or that I would ever say.
Impressive deconstruction of the argument. Of course, the argument was constructed entirely by you. Then, by some convoluted logic, attributed to your opponents… and then triumphantly pronounced as ridiculous. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a more blatant straw man as one you watch an opponent construct in one sitting, before your very eyes, based on absolutely nothing but their expectation of the argument (that would have probably never even come.)
I dunno, emeraldia. Sounds at least someone in this thread is already thinking along these lines. If I remember correctly, in the early days of this case, much ado was made over the possibility that Martin could have moved after being shot, which is why we had to accept it was no big deal that his body was oriented so far into the grass relative to the sidewalk.
Hope it has finally dawned on you why making a big deal over Zimmerman retreating is a big mistake for the defense. Even if Martin collapsed right where he was shot, Zimmerman did not retreat as soon as he was able. He did the opposite.
Because you made a huge friggin mountain over him lying about Martin saying a couple of words after being shot and now you’re back-peddling yet another one of your grassy-knoll theories.
I have a better idea, lets stop pretending. He didn’t chase after Martin after shooting him. Martin was down but still alive. Zimmerman looked for a weapon out of common sense. That’s still falls under self defense. The extended beating indicated Martin intended to seriously harm Zimmerman.
More legal arguments from a non-lawyer who can’t be bothered to research debate points when challenged by a real lawyer.
You’re arguments appear to be based on an emotional desire to hang Zimmerman and not hard evidence. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that the people defending Zimmerman have looked for solid flaws in his account and would have latched onto something with substance. There is no love for this man. But the same applies to Martin and the evidence shows he engaged in a serious beating without provocation. This lead to the shooting. He brought it on himself.
It is possible that Martin moved after he shot him, but before Zimmerman was on top of him restraining him. Or that he moved while he was trying to restrain him. Or, that Martin moved after Zimmerman stopped restraining him. I don’t know- and I don’t know if an explanation for where Martin’s body was found is necessary, because I honestly haven’t looked closely at that issue yet.
Well, he didn’t use deadly force after he shot him, so he no longer had the duty to retreat.
Zimmerman never said he searched the body to look for a weapon, so the only one pretending is you. He said he got on top of him and grabbed his arms. To him, the fight was still in progress because he didn’t know he’d hit the kid.
This is ludicrously simple. He did not retreat. Even after the kid had “given up” (Zimmerman’s words, not mine), Z still was dadgum determined to bring the kid down. He went after him and tackled him. Bravo, Z. You confessed to manslaughter, and your fans can’t even see that.
Which means Z went after him and tackled him like a lion pouncing on its wounded prey, yes.
Which means Martin, after taking a bullet to his chest, still was trying to get away from Zimmerman. And Zimmerman subverted this by wrestling him.
That doesn’t change the fact that no matter how you slice it, Zimmerman continued to fight Martin even after the kid had pulled away from. A living, conscious Martin who was capable of traveling south after he was shot actually presents more problems for the defense than an instantaneously dead Martin. But go on touting those experts who claim Martin was conscious if you think him saying “ok, you got me” will help him stay out of prison.
Maybe you should get around to doing that if you’re going to defend Zimmerman.
It doesnt matter. By Zimmerman’s own words, he didn’t know the kid had been shot, so he still thought the fight in progress. And, according to the doctors you just were crowing about, Martin in all likelihood was still alive and conscious at the time when Zimmerman got on top of him.
The fact - you know, the thing that we can prove, with actual evidence, rather than make up to defend our wild irrational speculation - that Zimmerman was on his back being punched and restrained by Martin for minutes before he shot him, proves that he couldn’t retreat.
At no point before the fight started did Zimmerman have any duty to retreat - he was perfectly within his rights to follow and verbally confront Martin. If he started the fight, he has a duty to attempt to retreat before shooting - which it appears he attempted to do, else he would have shot Martin immediately. Which, as far as we know, as there’s no evidence he attacked Martin, he was entitled to. This destroys your theory that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin.
As for attempting to restrain Martin after the shot was fired, that’s perfectly legitimate. He had no reason to think Martin would stop his assault, as he didn’t initially think he killed him.
Every one of your theories about this case has been shown to be wrong. Even the ones where you’ve backpeddaled from your previous craziness, they’re still wrong, and demonstrably so.
Answer this - why do you want to see a man who is probably innocent convicted of murder?
Like I said, he never said he searched his body to look for a weapon. He said he had placed himself on top of Martin and stretched his arms out with both of his hands. Unless the man has a third hand that none of know about, he couldn’t have been searching the kid’s body.
Before I argue with you anymore, are you really telling me you think a defendant who says they shot someone in self defense because they couldn’t retreat might be ineligible for civil immunity, but someone who says they we’re standing their ground can get it? That passes the reality test to you, really? And you have law degree as well?
The state of Florida does not distinguish between “I couldn’t retreat” self defense and “I could retreat but did not” self defense. Both types fall under the umbrella of SYG. The statutes make that clear.
The law is clear on this, so it really doesn’t matter what excuse you come up with to defend him this time. Once an assailant withdraws and stops their attack, any attempt to continue or resume the confrontation constitutes escalation, and you forfeit any claim of self defense. The deadly force didn’t techinically become “deadly” until Martin died, so Zimmerman had escalated the conflict when it was still in progress by dint of Martin still being alive.
Once he stops being in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, he has to stop defending himself. It’s not the act of withdrawing that matters, it’s the perception by the victim.
So, you’re arguing that someone restraining someone who’s been brutally beating them isn’t legitimate self defence? You’re wrong here, as usual.
I notice you still haven’t answered my question - why do you want to see a man who the evidence suggests is innocent convicted of murder? Why do you keep twisting the evidence to find any scrap that makes him look guilty, despite the fact that the majority is in his favour?
No, that is not how it works. If we take this theory of yours to its logical conclusion, then anyone could fight anyone else and not be obligated to stop until the other guy is dead. Even if the other guy backed away. It is not reasonable to be afraid of someone who has “given up” (again, this what Zimmerman said Martin did…interesting choice of words, ain’t it).
The reason I know you’re not looking at this logically is the fact that you’re defending Zimmerman using the very same issue that gets him in trouble. That issue being the idea that he thought Martin was still alive and uninjured. If he thought the kid had “given up” out of his own volition (rather than because he was shot), there was absolutely no reason why he should have opted to have wrestled and pinned him to protect himself.
If you were in the fight of your life and your assailant backed off of you, would you get up and try to run away in case the guy changed his mind? Or would you get up off the ground and run right to him so you can lay on top of him and wrap your hands around his?
Not when restraining them follows the withdrawal of physical threat. This is what the law says, not me.
I didn’t answer the question because it’s a stupid one loaded with shrillness. Obviously I don’t think Zimmerman is innocent. I think he’s guilty of murdering an innocent kid, and that’s why I want him to go to jail. Shocker, I know.
Please cite any part of the self defence law that says someone may not defend themself against a person when they are in reasonable fear of harm. The person does not have to be actually attacking them, or doing anything illegal - although of course their actions affect whether it’s reasonable. There was no reason for Zimmerman’s fear to cease just because Martin was no longer on top of him. Had Martin got off and run away, and Zimmerman shot him in the back, you would be right, but that’s the level it would need to be at.
I see you still claim to believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder. You either don’t understand the law, or don’t understand what happened in this case. We know Martin attacked Zimmerman, we know he inflicted serious bodily harm on him, and we know he was on top of Zimmerman preventing Zimmerman from retreating when he shot him. Those things combined make the shooting legal.
Now, even if your argument that Zimmerman shouldn’t have approached Martin after firing the shot was valid (which it isn’t), it still would make him at most guilty of assault, as it had no effect on whether Martin died.
I swear it was you who, less than 24 hours ago, insisted that the only way Zimmerman could have retreated from Martin was by burrowing into the ground with his sphincter. That was you, right? Such vivid, heart tugging imagery. But when you reconcile this with what supposedly happened after Martin “gave up”, it becomes quite comical. Zimmerman was unable to retreat from Martin, except, you know, when he could. And instead of using that opportuntity to retreat, he plopped his fat self on top of the kid.
It’s clear to me now why O’Mara announced he wants to try this as traditional self defense. He wants the prosecution to offer him a plea deal, the poor guy. He is essentially waving a white flag and showing his tail tucked beneath legs, while at the same time trotting out a line of BS to fool Zimmerman supporters into thinking he has a strong case.
At a minimum, it shows that Zimmerman was more interested in fighting Martin than getting away from him. This, in addition to his mild wounds, will destroy any claim that he had reasonable fear of serious injury when he pulled that trigger.
At worst, it shows that Zimmerman forfeited his claim to self defense by escalating the conflict even after Martin withdrew from him. This would make him guilty of manslaughter at the minimum.
Zimmerman should have told the story like this, if we are to believe his claim that he had no retreat due to the menace-to-society that Martin was:
“I fired the gun. He reared back and said ‘You got this’, but I didn’t know what the hell that meant. I thought he was still dangerous. So I pushed him and ran like the dickens. It was only after I looked behind me and saw I wasn’t being chased that I realized I had shot him.”
Also, why would he stop screaming if he didn’t know that Martin had been shot? If we are to believe his story, he felt his life was in danger right before and right after the gun had gone off. Yet the screams paint a different picture.
The thing I still don’t get is that Martin’s arms were not found stretched out in the way that Zimmerman said they were. Was this ever explained?