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.
You're assuming Zimmerman was the initial agressor. Following someone and asking him what he's doing WITHOUT any other facts cannot be interpret as aggression.
EVERY fight is initiated by ONE person. Somebody always throws the first punch.
The logical extension of your statement is that the non-initiator in any fight has a legal right (in Florida) to murder the person who initiated the fight.
EVERY fight is initiated by ONE person. Somebody always throws the first punch.
The logical extension of your statement is that the non-initiator in any fight has a legal right (in Florida) to murder the person who initiated the fight.
You are flatly incorrect and wrong.
The test is whether the assault at that instant in time gives you a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer serious physical injury or death. If the answer is "yes" then the use of force is justified even if it results in the death of your assailant.
Anyone who believes that they have the right to mount a combatant and pummel them with impunity is just flatly wrong. Your right to defense ends when the attack ends; if Martin and Zimmerman got into an altercation irrespective of how it began when Zimmerman was knocked down and not attempting to continue the confrontation "mutual combat" (or any combination of simple assault and battery) was over.
No, the case rests on the evidence. At present the evidence supports the claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, had precluded his escape, and was beating him.
If you are on the ground and have been mounted by either an assailant or mutual combatant and are being pummeled the odds are good that you're in the clear if you use force, including deadly force, to stop the assault.
The test is whether the assault at that instant in time gives you a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer serious physical injury or death. If the answer is "yes" then the use of force is justified even if it results in the death of your assailant.
Anyone who believes that they have the right to mount a combatant and pummel them with impunity is just flatly wrong. Your right to defense ends when the attack ends; if Martin and Zimmerman got into an altercation irrespective of how it began when Zimmerman was knocked down and not attempting to continue the confrontation "mutual combat" (or any combination of simple assault and battery) was over.
If Martin then decided to get on top of Zimmerman and give him a "beat down" for grins and giggles that's felony assault and if the party you're assaulting is armed you may find out the hard way that he has both the moral and legal right to stop you (if he's able.)
There are also reports, incidentally, that Zimmerman lost visual contact with Martin and was returning to his vehicle to await the arrival of police when he was jumped from behind. The location of the last 911 call from him places him right near his vehicle and is supportive (but not dispositive) of this claim. The exact sequence of events leading to the point where Zimmerman finds himself face-up with Martin on top of him (assuming that's what happened) however is ONLY material if he did not have a justifiable fear of his life or serious bodily injury when he fired. If he did then the circumstances prior to that instant in time are, with rare exception, immaterial.
It is for this reason that determining whether or not Martin was in fact on top of Zimmerman and beating him while Zimmerman was calling for help (a clear declaration of desire and intent to escape were he able) are critical. At present the evidence supports this conclusion.
If the evidence available to the public changes so will my opinion.
This is very interesting to me. You have some eye witness who claim that Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon and you have some you saw the opposite. Yet, some believe one witness, but not another.
Look, I don't know how it went down. It could've very well been that at some point during the fight, they were on top of each other at different times (this can happen when folks roll and/or are wrestling for control while on the ground).
Not one eye witness saw this altercation from start to finish, so none of them can be relied on completely.
And if it is true, as one eye witness says, that Zimmerman was standing over Trayvon once he'd shot him, why was it reported that Trayvon was face down? If someone is on top of you and you shoot them in the chest, don't they roll over onto their backs? Or at the very least, slump over top of you and you push them off (which again rolls them onto their backs)?
The test is whether the assault at that instant in time gives you a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer serious physical injury or death. If the answer is "yes" then the use of force is justified even if it results in the death of your assailant.
Anyone who believes that they have the right to mount a combatant and pummel them with impunity is just flatly wrong. Your right to defense ends when the attack ends; if Martin and Zimmerman got into an altercation irrespective of how it began when Zimmerman was knocked down and not attempting to continue the confrontation "mutual combat" (or any combination of simple assault and battery) was over.
I'm not buying that Zimmerman thought he was going to get beaten to death. Makes more sense that he was fearful of the a$$ kicking he was getting and wanted to end it.
Now that the truth is coming out about Zimmerman and his self defense, these guys look like idiots jumping to a conclusion before they know any facts.
But on the other hand, they aren't paid for their intelligence.
Some of the other idiots are paid for at least attempting to be intelligent. Obama grandstanding and Jackson with his "I'll pass judgement before I know anything" typical position are actually an embarrassment.
Anyways, interesting that he had a holster. I am just wondering how easy it is to un-holster a weapon and fire while being beaten. Just a question but I guess the forensic evidence to go along with this statement will show what happened.
Agreed. Because if someone is on top of you smashing your face, wouldn't they be laying right around your waist/hip area? How would you even be able to reach for the gun if your attacker is straddling you as you're being pummeled?
You don't always need medical attention for a broken nose. I didn't when I broke mine.
Well then your nose probably looks a wreck. A broken nose should receive medical attention. Especially if you already have the guy being looked over for injuries.
Now that the truth is coming out about Zimmerman and his self defense, these guys look like idiots jumping to a conclusion before they know any facts.
But on the other hand, they aren't paid for their intelligence.
Some of the other idiots are paid for at least attempting to be intelligent. Obama grandstanding and Jackson with his "I'll pass judgement before I know anything" typical position are actually an embarrassment.
What self defense? Following a kid 10 years younger than you and a 100 lbs lighter with a tek-9 and murdering him for no reason?
The test is whether the assault at that instant in time gives you a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer serious physical injury or death. If the answer is "yes" then the use of force is justified even if it results in the death of your assailant.
An objective standard will be applied. Just as in negligence cases, when the facts are examined through the eyes of the "moral paragon" (i.e., a "boy scout"), the facts in a self-defense case are viewed in the same light. The question is really, "Would a reasonable person in that position have felt it necessary to use lethal force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?" That question should go to a jury and I'd bet Vegas money that a jury would come back with a gulity verdict.
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.
Boycott the Miami Heat
