Zimmerman Martin Case

I'd be interested in knowing that too. And, since I haven't learned enough about the case yet to say, I'm wondering what Martin was doing that was suspicious.
 
Even if Zimmerman started the fight I still think the court made the right call. The evidence points to him getting his butt kicked and, I don't know about you, but getting my head smashed into a pavement would have me in fear for my life or at least fear of brain trauma. Even if Zimmerman started it I don't fault him for reaching for his gun in that scenario. You can start a confrontation and still claim self defence if your opponenta reaction justifies it. Having your head bounced off the pavement justifies it for me.
 
Not according to the jury in this case as he was acquitted. So, the question would be what would a civil case determine. Again though, as a martial artist, I don't claim self defense after placing myself and others at potential risk. Perhaps as a legal get out of jail free card, but not ethically or philosophically.
 
I doubt, legally speaking, you can't start a fight, then, when the person you are attacking defend himself, shoot your victim and claim self defence.
 
Civil law is different because it is (normally) judged on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
 
I made a mistake saying the majority. The wiki article does give examples of Zimmerman calling in a young person who escaped, and one of two young black people who broke into a house one of whom was later ID'd by Zimmerman
 
Yes, shooting the guy would've been the only option. Now let's pretend he didn't have the gun and was in the same situation. Do you think Zimmerman automatically dies? If there is any doubt in your mind that he does, then how is he justified in taking someone else's life(not talking legally).

Speaking of self defense, Martin might've thought his own life was in danger after being followed like that. If he had been armed and shot Zimmerman after being tailed, wouldn't he be just as legally justified?
 
I think part of the problem lies in the sequence of events. How much concrete, reliable information do we have on the sequence of events? Because "Martin attacks Z, Z draws gun, Z shoots Martin" is a whole world apart from "Z brandishes gun, Martin attacks Z, Z shoots Martin."
 
Depends on the response. Its quite possiblt for self defence to become assualt if you cross a line. We don't know what Zimmerman did, if anything, but I can see a decent lawyer arguing that having your head smashed into concrete goes beyond self defence. The dangers associated with it wouldn't be an appropriate response to any normal assualt. If you hit me and I managed to mount you and land punches I'd arguably be acting in self defence. If from that dominant position I then started bouncing your head off the curb I've gone beyond reasonable force. From a pozition of control I've then started attacking you in a way that could potentially cause severe damage. I'm not defending myself anymore, I'm assualting you.
 
The majority of Nazis were German. Does that make all Germans suspicious. Probably all KKK members are white, does that make all whites racist? Same with white collar crime, it's mostly committed by white men. So all white men in business suits are up to no good?

What was suspicious? Did the autopsy show signs of alcohol or drugs?
 
I dont think he automatically dies, but I know that if my head was being smashed into concrete I'd be worried about it or at least facing a brain injury. We also have no idea how long he would of carried on had he not been shot. I also dont care about debating this from a moral standpoint. My understanding is the outcry over this case is to do with perceived racial prejudice granting the not guilty result. I only care about pointing out the dexision was correct within the legal parameters I expect a court to work within.

For your second paragraph being followed does not equal being beaten.



For the shooting itself there's various witness statements collaberating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him and that Zimmerman was screaming for help
 
But if the person has a gun, I'd call bouncing his head off the curb self-defence, and a proportional respsonse to a deadly threat. If I continued doing it after they were unconscious, or safely disarmed, then that would be assault.
 
I guess this is what I was trying to say. I didn't say all Blacks but more than enough to get a good demographic sample. Anyway, didn't mean to offend, not that you could talk about racial issues without offending someone. On that note...what is PC "Blacks" or "African American"?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1177035&page=1#.UeQFQNLCaSo
 
Not if the guy has been tailing you in a car, confronts you, is trying to stop you from going about your business AND HAS A DAMN GUN ON HIM!
If I got into a fight with someone that had a gun I'd be trying to make sure he didn't get up and shoot me before I could leg it and that basically means disarming him or rendering him unconscious.
There's a massive force disparity there.
 
Factually? No. Does it mean I can appreciate a nazi victim being suspicious of all Germans at the time or a black victim of the kkk being suspicious of whites? Yes.

Autopsy wise there was trace levels of thc but the amount suggests he was high long before the day of the attaxk and was sober then
 
Sure, but that wasn't the question. Nobody is disputing that bit. Just the events leading to that bit.
 
Having to use me phone really makes keeping up difficuilt.

Anyway, I don't disagree. But thwn if I'm being beaten up and someone tries to disarm me I could well fear him using it on me afterwards. Zimmerman carrying a gun was legal. Him having one doesnt automatically make him the attacker. I imagine Martin did try and disarm him. Would explain why Zimmerman was shouting for help so much. But I ddont blame him for being unwilling to let someone who's beating him up ALSO get a hold of a gun. This is less evidence based but from the sound of his voice shouting for help on a 911 call I dont have much trouble accepting he could of feared for his life. If you reasonably fear for your lfe (and I believe he could have) you have a right to deadly force regardless of qhether you started the confrontation or not
 
Back
Top