Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole thing is a series of unfortunate events. But self-defense does not look back and say, "Did I really need to use deadly force?" All that it requires is that Zimmerman believed he needed to use deadly force in order to protect himself at that instant. The expectation that the jury can read Zimmerman's mind retroactively and know what he was thinking -- that is the point where the case against Zimmerman breaks down. We cannot know what George Zimmerman was thinking at the time. We cannot prove that he didn't feel he was headed for serious injury or even death in that moment. Sadly, we can't even validate that the whole thing went down exactly like we think it went down. Reasonable doubt = acquittal.
.
No, that is not all that is required. That is just one aspect as per the jury instructions:
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
I mean, read the above, there's a lot more to it, than that Zimmerman feared serious bodily injury or for his life.
If none of them worked could you still be able to "go for the gun"?
You don't defend yourself based on slapping , then scratching, then punching, and escalating it until you are unable to do anything else.
This is said in light of being in a situation where you fear for grave injury or death.
In that case doing anything else could be playing Russian Roulette with your life.
I don't believe Martin met the criteria to attack under the Law.
May be understandable but not necessarily legal.
Do you think that shooting Trayvon was his only option? I don't.
No, that is not all that is required. That is just one aspect as per the jury instructions:
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
I mean, read the above, there's a lot more to it, than that Zimmerman feared serious bodily injury or for his life.
Do you think that shooting Trayvon was his only option? I don't.
Have someone sitting on your chest beating the crap out of you and you have a gun, your view would change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
