rain_gryphon | (no subject)

If Zimmerman were black, he'd probably already be on death row.

I wasn't aware that the right of self-defense specifically did not apply to black people.

No one would buy it was self defense if he was black. Actually, no one bought it was self defense in the Zimmerman case, but the stand your ground laws are that broken. In practice they only apply if the shooter is a white male, though.

Actually, no one bought it was self defense in the Zimmerman case, but the stand your ground laws are that broken.

Your statement is completely inaccurate. Zimmerman admitted from the start that he had shot Martin and that this shooting had caused Martin's death. His legal defense was totally based on the claim of self-defense ("stand your ground" wasn't even invoked by Zimmerman since it was utterly-irrelevant to the situation; Zimmerman did not have the power to escape when Martin was standing on him trying to kill him), and the jury found him not guilty of all charges. On what basis do you imagine the jury acted -- "Well, it would normally be bad to kill under these circumstances, but who cares about black people" ...?

The jury didn't think it was self defense and asked the judge if they could convict him of a lesser charge, but were instructed that unless the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman never 'felt afraid' they had to acquit him.

It's entirely possible he did feel afraid while he was hunting down, attacking, and shooting the kid.

The change in requirements for a 'self defense' plea comes from the stand your ground law.

Edited 2013-07-15 17:40 (UTC)

It's entirely possible he did feel afraid while he was hunting down, attacking, and shooting the kid.

How did Zimmerman start the fight? The only injuries discovered were the bullet wound which killed Martin, bruises to Martin's knuckles, and the injuries Zimmerman received from the beating Martin administered him.

The only possible scenarios I see under which Zimmerman is guilty are:

(1) Zimmerman committed assault and battery by grabbing or pushing Martin (but not very hard, as no marks were left on Martin) and then Martin fought back but was shot after inflicting some damage on Zimmerman, or

(2) Zimmerman committed simple assault by credibly threatening Martin, then Martin defended himself, but was shot after inflicting some damage on Zimmerman.

The problem is that there is no actual evidence (direct or circumstantial) that Zimmerman started the fight. There is a lot of (circumstantial) evidence that Martin started the fight.

What is your theory as to what actually happened?

How, in Zimmerman's place, would you have ended the fight when Martin was on top of you bashing your head in against the concrete? "Get up and run away" would be impossible, as you would have a grown man on top of you. Martin's mass is unaffected by pleas of "he's a minor!"

Uh, your facts are what Zimmerman was claiming, but they weren't supported by physical evidence. The scenario where Martin was "bashing his head into the ground" was specifically not compatible with the physical evidence since Zimmerman didn't have bruises or scratches on the back of his head.

Even so, is your argument that it should be legal to start a fight with someone and then shoot them if it looks like you're losing? I mean, it clearly *is* legal, but you think that's a good thing?

Uh, your facts are what Zimmerman was claiming, but they weren't supported by physical evidence. The scenario where Martin was "bashing his head into the ground" was specifically not compatible with the physical evidence since Zimmerman didn't have bruises or scratches on the back of his head.

Martin had just gotten started. He had already broken Zimmerman's nose. One eyewitness confirmed that Martin was standing on top of Zimmerman.

Even so, is your argument that it should be legal to start a fight with someone and then shoot them if it looks like you're losing?

No.

However, that does not seem to have been what happened. Both on the direct physical and on the circumstantial evidence, Martin definitely threw the first punch. The only way Zimmerman could have started the fight is if he first grabbed or pushed Martin (remember: "assault and battery" merely requires menace and a "touching"), and there is no evidence that Zimmerman did this.

I mean, it clearly *is* legal, but you think that's a good thing?

It is not legal to start a fight and then shoot the victim if it looks as if you are losing. It is also not legal to start hitting someone because you feel "disrespected," which is rather clearly what Martin did. If one does this, then one cannot claim to be an innocent victim if the person one started hitting turned out to be armed and shoots oneself.

And, again, since you didn't respond the first time:

How did Zimmerman start the fight? The only injuries discovered were the bullet wound which killed Martin, bruises to Martin's knuckles, and the injuries Zimmerman received from the beating Martin administered him.

The only possible scenarios I see under which Zimmerman is guilty are:

(1) Zimmerman committed assault and battery by grabbing or pushing Martin (but not very hard, as no marks were left on Martin) and then Martin fought back but was shot after inflicting some damage on Zimmerman, or

(2) Zimmerman committed simple assault by credibly threatening Martin, then Martin defended himself, but was shot after inflicting some damage on Zimmerman.

The problem is that there is no actual evidence (direct or circumstantial) that Zimmerman started the fight. There is a lot of (circumstantial) evidence that Martin started the fight.

Can you answer me this time, or will your silence or evasive answer prove that you don't really have a logical argument?

What is your theory as to what actually happened?

What I've read on the case is that the physical evidence was consistent with Martin 'defending himself' and not with Zimmerman 'being held down and beaten'. Martin was already afraid for his life before Zimmerman approached him. Zimmerman was told not to initiate a confrontation and did it anyway.This is what the evidence says. Zimmerman's witness that claimed to see Martin standing over him was discredited.

I don't know who 'threw the first punch' but I find it very hard to believe that Zimmerman restricted himself to verbal taunting and more to the point *as I said before* it doesn't matter. Zimmerman started the fight by any reasonable interpretation of the situation. If Martin had had the gun it would have been a straightforward case of self defense and he probably still would have gone to prison anyway because he was black in a white neighborhood and that's what happens *all the time*.