Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Only assuming the person you intend to incite to violence doesn't just knock you off your feet and remove themselves from the situation.

Right. That's the "hope" part of my post.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Only assuming the person you intend to incite to violence doesn't just knock you off your feet and remove themselves from the situation.

Yup. Hopefully they're not prone to bad judgment calls, like some sort of teenager.

theplatypus wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Only assuming the person you intend to incite to violence doesn't just knock you off your feet and remove themselves from the situation.

Yup. Hopefully they're not prone to bad judgment calls, like some sort of teenager.

Bad judgement frequently leads to poor outcomes.

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:
That's probably a better word usage for Martin...Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So did Martin just smack Zimmerman when he was walking down the street? That's my question. Who first engaged with who?

And I thought the question of "is this a good or bad law?" was one of the main issues surrounding the case.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

BurtReynolds wrote:

digster wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:
That's probably a better word usage for Martin...Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So did Martin just smack Zimmerman when he was walking down the street? That's my question. Who first engaged with who?

And I thought the question of "is this a good or bad law?" was one of the main issues surrounding the case.

million dollar question.

It is one of the main issues "surrounding" the case. But it's doing just that: surrounding. It's not involved IN the case itself.

Rob wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So I guess if you really want to kill someone, you should just follow them, hide a gun in your pocket, and hope the first couple blows don't knock you out or seriously disorient you.

Only assuming the person you intend to incite to violence doesn't just knock you off your feet and remove themselves from the situation.

Right. That's the "hope" part of my post.

and that they don't stick ya first

I understand the legalities of the situation, but it's just difficult to wrap my brain around the notion of someone with a gun following an individual, confronting the individual, that individual fighting back, and the individual is the aggressor.

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

digster wrote:

sportsfreakpete6 wrote:
That's probably a better word usage for Martin...Martin was scared and hit Zimmerman and thus became the aggressor whereas Zimmerman felt his life was threatened when he was getting beaten.

So did Martin just smack Zimmerman when he was walking down the street? That's my question. Who first engaged with who?

And I thought the question of "is this a good or bad law?" was one of the main issues surrounding the case.

million dollar question.

It is one of the main issues "surrounding" the case. But it's doing just that: surrounding. It's not involved IN the case itself.

Wait, how is the manner in which Zimmerman approached Martin, if he did, not the crux of the case? If he walks up, threatens Martin with a gun or physical violence, swings at him or whatever, and Martin responds, that's irrelevant? I feel like that would kind of be the point.

digster wrote:I understand the legalities of the situation, but it's just difficult to wrap my brain around the notion of someone with a gun following an individual, confronting the individual, that individual fighting back, and the individual is the aggressor.

I'm not positive, but I believe the test for self-defence was a subjective one (as it would be in Australia, see some of my previous posts, though we have some additional qualifications to satisfy.) Though his actions prior to their physical confrontation would have been important to the prosecution in casting doubt on whether this was actually the case, all Zimmerman needs to establish is that he, in his own mind, legitimately felt frightened at the moment Martin attacked him and that his actions were motivated by a desire for self-defense.

OK, but couldn't that extend to any type of situation? To use an extreme example, a woman walking home gets mugged and pulled into an alleyway. She grabs a broken bottle and starts swinging it at her assailant, and he pulls out a gun and shoots her. The assailant could say he is fearful for his life and safety, but obviously the woman responded to the situation in that manner because she was fearful for hers.

I guess that's the reason I'm not understanding then why Martin's feelings of whether his life or safety was threatened is irrelevant.

digster wrote:OK, but couldn't that extend to any type of situation? To use an extreme example, a woman walking home gets mugged and pulled into an alleyway. She grabs a broken bottle and starts swinging it at her assailant, and he pulls out a gun and shoots her. The assailant could say he is fearful for his life and safety, but obviously the woman responded to the situation in that manner because she was fearful for hers.

I guess that's the reason I'm not understanding then why Martin's feelings of whether his life or safety was threatened is irrelevant.

Because Martin was the aggressor. According to Zimmerman, he got out of his car because Martin started running and he wanted to know what direction so he could tell the cops. Zimmerman said that on his way back to the car, Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him to the ground. Got on top of Zimmerman, began beating him and then was shot. If Martin felt his life or safety was threatened he wouldn't have returned to the scene and assaulted Zimmerman.

Were there witnesses or evidence that corroborated his story?

digster wrote:OK, but couldn't that extend to any type of situation?

Yes.

It's the job of a good prosecution to create doubt in the jury's mind that the defendant was legitimately fearful at the time they claim to have acted in self-defence.

In this case, for all of Zimmerman's actions leading up to the confrontation, I think they made the right call.

(Correct me if I've made an error, anyone more familiar with the case and the relevant laws in Florida.)

I guess my question is, that, in the way you are defining it at least (if I'm understanding correctly), the assailant from my previous example WOULD legally be acting in self-defense. He would be in fear for his life if the woman he tried to assault was swinging a broken bottle at him. What had led to that moment would be irrelevant?

digster wrote:Were there witnesses or evidence that corroborated his story?

I don't believe so.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution in regards to a claim of self-defence. Once raised, Zimmerman's counsel don't need to prove it, the prosecution need to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. That just wasn't possible here.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning that the fact that nothing corroborated him should necessarily be the nail in the coffin.

digster wrote:I guess my question is, that, in the way you are defining it at least (if I'm understanding correctly), the assailant from my previous example WOULD legally be acting in self-defense. He would be in fear for his life if the woman he tried to assault was swinging a broken bottle at him. What had led to that moment would be irrelevant?

No, that person wouldn't be able to use self defense because he was committing a crime against that woman, which led to her assaulting him (defending herself).

shinkdew wrote: No, that person wouldn't be able to use self defense because he was committing a crime against that woman, which led to her assaulting him (defending herself).

So if Zimmerman was threatening to Martin in any legal manner, that would sink Zimmerman's defense, correct? If Martin had reason to believe his safety was in jeopardy? That seems to be what folks are saying in Zimmerman's defense.