5/05/2012 11:42am, #1131
If that has been reported accurately, does that all add up to you? Is there a point at which you might think..."oh, he's full of **** about what happened that night"?
5/05/2012 11:46am, #1132
Last edited by bobyclumsyninja; 5/05/2012 11:53am at . Reason: Sometimes it's laugh or cry
5/05/2012 11:47am, #1133
5/05/2012 12:10pm, #1134
However, I'm a philosopher, not a politician. No need to turn this thread into a gun control clusterfuck.
The pertinent question seems to be:
Why was Zimmerman confronting Martin if he was scared?
Because he was packing heat, that's why - he knew that if the situation turned to violence, he could rely on his gun.
You can't play the self defence card if you initiated a confrontation. Especially if you are armed.
Since it's so much fun to speculate, here is my speculation:
Zimmerman confronted Martin, expecting him to submit to the threat of the gun. (maybe even tried a 'citizens arrest') Martin figured he was bluffing, and tries to call Zimmerman's bluff. Martin figured wrong, and copped a bullet as a result.
Last edited by Colin; 5/05/2012 12:21pm at . Reason: typo
5/05/2012 12:12pm, #1135
5/05/2012 12:21pm, #1136
5/05/2012 12:24pm, #1137
This guys a lawyer:
Assuming George was the First Aggressor
Although it is my opinion that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that George Zimmerman was the aggressor as a matter of law. Let’s assume for the minute that Trayvon Martin was lawfully defending himself because he was provoked by George Zimmerman’s “pursuing” of him; the questions then need to be asked:
Did George Zimmerman forfeit his right to self defense entirely; and
Could Trayvon Martin respond with disproportional force to the initial “confrontation.”
The answer to both of these question is No. George Zimmerman did not forfeit his right to defend himself entirely and Trayvon Martin could not resort to Deadly Force simply because he was being “pursued” or was subsequently “confronted” by George Zimmerman.
Disproportionate Force Exception
Codified in Florida Statute 776.041(2)(a), the “Disproportionate Force” exception qualifies “The First Aggressor Rule” and provides limited circumstances by which an initial aggressor’s right to self defense is restored.
The exception holds that even if a defendant “initially provokes the use of force against himself” if the response is disproportionate to the initial provocation, then the defendant’s right to self defense is restored.
Last edited by tgace; 5/05/2012 12:31pm at .
5/05/2012 12:30pm, #1138
5/05/2012 12:32pm, #1139
5/05/2012 12:35pm, #1140
Being followed is not reason to use deadly force...having your head smashed into the pavement (if true) is....easy enough to understand.