Teenager shot/killed while Tweek's hero gets off free

[zoobernut]

If all Zimmerman did was walk up to him, what was Martin defending himself against?

And, I think what you mean to say is that Zimmerman never had a right to self-defense in the first place. I think you're imagining a scenario where Zimmerman runs up and says "wtf you doing", Martin is scared and starts beating his ass?

Walking up to someone and acting in an aggressive manner at night are you saying that you can't see how Martin could perceive that as threatening? Also don't forget that Zimmerman was actively following him before the confrontation. Also a stranger asking you personal information that they have no right to ask you about is generally perceived as threatening too. There are many scenarios that this could have easily gone down where Martin would feel threatened by an aggressive acting stranger and feel like it is necessary to defend himself against this person.

[Synbios]

Neither did Martin. There is a chance that the prosecutor has enough evidence to prove that Martin was acting in self defense when he attacked Zimmerman. 2 people can't simultaneously claim self defense against each other. Or can they?

Well it is Florida...

[Correction]

If all Zimmerman did was walk up to him, what was Martin defending himself against?

And, I think what you mean to say is that Zimmerman never had a right to self-defense in the first place. I think you're imagining a scenario where Zimmerman runs up and says "wtf you doing", Martin is scared and starts beating his ass?

Somehow you've omitted "with a loaded gun" from two crucial sentences here. Good job!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Somehow you've omitted "with a loaded gun" from two crucial sentences here. Good job!

He approached with a drawn gun? Or he just had a loaded gun on him?

[Lucavi]

If all Zimmerman did was walk up to him, what was Martin defending himself against?

And, I think what you mean to say is that Zimmerman never had a right to self-defense in the first place. I think you're imagining a scenario where Zimmerman runs up and says "wtf you doing", Martin is scared and starts beating his ass?

We still have no idea what transpired; we don't know what was said to whom, we don't know who struck first, and we don't know when the gun was drawn or fired. All we know is that Martin attempted to run at some point, Zimmerman pursued him, and after some yelling and scuffling, Martin was shot.

I don't know how you can figure that SYG will or will not work, based on what we know. There isn't really enough to prove or disprove that Zimmerman had the "right" to use the claim of "self-defense", especially if he was the aggressor, and simply cried "self-defense" after he realized that Martin was beating his ass. If he started the fight or the situation leading up to the fight, and shot Martin only when he realized what a big mistake he had made in even starting the altercation, then SYG isn't, and should not hold up.

[Sera]

The police really colored people's discussion of this topic by relying on the SYG law. Even if Zimmerman initiated the altercation by walking up and speaking to Martin, he did not lose his common law right to self defense.

except that he was specifically told by police personnel not to approach Martin or pursue him, and disobeyed that

[Sera]

Neither did Martin. There is a chance that the prosecutor has enough evidence to prove that Martin was acting in self defense when he attacked Zimmerman. 2 people can't simultaneously claim self defense against each other. Or can they?

i suppose they can when one is too dead to claim self defense, lol!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

except that he was specifically told by police personnel not to approach Martin or pursue him, and disobeyed that

Legally, that does not deprive him of his right to self-defense. He must have been the aggressor in order to lose that right. Shouting a racial epithet, approaching him, telling him to stop, quickly approaching from behind and then stopping are not actions that deprive him of that right.

Was he stupid? Yes, but stupidity is not an element of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The only way I see you guys getting the result want is if this is not a true:

Zimmerman... reasonably believed that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

[zoobernut]

Legally, that does not deprive him of his right to self-defense. He must have been the aggressor in order to lose that right. Shouting a racial epithet, approaching him, telling him to stop, quickly approaching from behind and then stopping are not actions that deprive him of that right.

Was he stupid? Yes, but stupidity is not an element of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The only way I see you guys getting the result want is if this is not a true:

Zimmerman... reasonably believed that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

IF you initiate someone else to have the right to self defense doesn't that take away your own? Yes I know Martin is dead and yes I know the burden of proof is on the prosecutor but given that we have no idea what happened in that moment when Martin attacked Zimmerman currently for us discussing it on the forums it is equally likely that Martin only attacked Zimmerman in self defense as it is that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Martin... reasonably believed that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. See it is easy to do. Your judgement is quite clouded which is ironic since you are complaining about others being clouded.

Also for the bold part: Wait you don't consider doing those things to a stranger in the dark night aggressive? Is that just your opinion or is that legally true? Because either way that is just retarded. Chasing someone down in the night and telling them to stop where you have no legal authority to do so all while shouting a racial epithet is very aggressive behavior and can easily elicit a self defense response from someone and that person would be in their right to defend themselves if they feared for their life.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

IF you initiate someone else to have the right to self defense doesn't that take away your own? Yes I know Martin is dead and yes I know the burden of proof is on the prosecutor but given that we have no idea what happened in that moment when Martin attacked Zimmerman currently for us discussing it on the forums it is equally likely that Martin only attacked Zimmerman in self defense as it is that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Yes it does, but only if I threaten lethal force. If I casually approach you, and you respond with lethal force, I do not lose my right to self defense.

Now what happens if I say, brandish a gun, you respond by bashing my head into the ground, and I shoot you? The initial threat is probably not lethal yet the response is. I would be guilty for the assault, but not the killing. Some states say you are still guilty for the killing because of "unclean hands", but Florida doesn't seem to be one of those states.

Edit: I suppose that's a 2nd theory of how Zimmerman may be guilty of something.

[MaachaQ]

Yes it does, but only if I threaten lethal force. If I casually approach you, and you respond with lethal force, I do not lose my right to self defense.

Now what happens if I say, brandish a gun, you respond by bashing my head into the ground, and I shoot you? The initial threat is probably not lethal yet the response is. I would be guilty for the assault, but not the killing. Some states say you are still guilty for the killing because of "unclean hands", but Florida doesn't seem to be one of those states.

Edit: I suppose that's a 2nd theory of how Zimmerman may be guilty of something.

I feel that simply having a gun out is a threat of lethal force, even if it's not pointed at a person. If the kid saw the gun in his hand, or in a visible spot on his person, the threat seems pretty clear to me, especially if he was being agressive in his questioning at the same time. The weapon would then be the first threat of lethal force, allowing Martin to respond with lethal force of his own. I'm not completely familiar with the SYG law and all the back and forth about whose lethal force threat came first and should be "covered", but that is why the courts are involved to judge the case based on the available evidence.

[Dimmauk]

Would any of you want to fight someone just because they were asking you questions? Even if that person was being a dick and even if they had a gun? I would still try to defuse the situation and talk to that person calmly. Unless of course they used a racial slur, then it's on cause I keeps it real!

[Eurell]

You are still ignoring the fact that he chased the kid through back alleys and shit. You are also ignoring the fight or flight reaction people have brought up numerous times.

This isn't a simple matter of the dude walking up and calmly asking trayvon why he was out.

[Dimmauk]

You are still ignoring the fact that he chased the kid through back alleys and shit. You are also ignoring the fight or flight reaction people have brought up numerous times.

This isn't a simple matter of the dude walking up and calmly asking trayvon why he was out.

Oh I'm not ignoring that, I actually didn't know he chased him through back alleys. For some reason I now have chase scene music in my head.

[archibaldcrane]

As long as that photo is real, Zimmy is gonna walk. Dill with it.

[Tyche]

Aren't we still missing a 911 tape?

I doubt we really know what's been shown in discovery. Tbh, I doubt either side of the bar has show everything in discovery. Picture doesn't help, but it's far from a lock. The fact the defense leaked that photo means they felt some kind of pressure.

[RKenshin]

Now what happens if I say, brandish a gun, you respond by bashing my head into the ground, and I shoot you? The initial threat is probably not lethal yet the response is.

I can't honestly believe that most people wouldn't respond in fear/self-defense to some stranger coming up to them with a gun brandished. You don't exactly wait until someone is aiming the thing at your head before you take action; that's how you end up dead. It's not like guns require you to count to five after taking aim before it allows you to pull the trigger.

[Yugl]

Brandishing is a loose term, so perhaps not all forms of brandishing require retaliatory force. That's also why your hypothetical is irrelevant. It's more accurate to question whether retaliatory force is reasonable if someone pursues you during the night while brandishing a weapon. That changes the response dramatically.

It's the same proposition your fellow republicans will and have provided for protective jurisdiction.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I can't honestly believe that most people wouldn't respond in fear/self-defense to some stranger coming up to them with a gun brandished. You don't exactly wait until someone is aiming the thing at your head before you take action; that's how you end up dead. It's not like guns require you to count to five after taking aim before it allows you to pull the trigger.

The point was, if Zimmeran approached with non-lethal force, he didn't lose his right to self-defense. If A approaches with non-lethal force, B responds with lethal force, A retains the right to self-defense. A is still guilty of the assault, but not of murder (in most states, some say A has "unclean hands"). Insert your own provocation that isn't a lethal provocation since Correction doesn't seem to know the answer. Must have too excited at an opportunity for an insult.

[BaneTheBrawler]

As someone said, in my book, a gun automatically indicates the intent/willingness to use deadly force. Why shouldn't I immediately respond with as deadly a force as I can muster?