You need to check the statutes, who was the "aggressor" in the situation (i.e. who initiated the confrontation, did Zimmerman approach Martin or the other way around) has no bearing on an affirmative defense of self defense.I could be wrong, because I'm not a lawyer nor an arm chair lawyer, but the way the law works from my understanding is that if Martin returned up the path and confronted Zimmerman after getting away from him, then Martin would unfortunately become the aggressor in that situation. The law is funnily specific like that. If you and I get in a fight, and I get away and then return a few minutes later and attack you again, I became the aggressor, regardless if you actually initiated the fight. To take that example further, if you and I get in a fight, and I flee and come back with a gun and shoot you, I can be charged with basically 1st degree murder. I premeditated, grabbed my gun, and returned to the fight to shoot you.
Intent and the order of events becomes all important.
Or in her case, when did they drop reading and writing entirely?Seriously, I realise I've been out of school a long time but when did they drop cursive reading and writing?
since becoming a American Inventor.Or in her case, when did they drop reading and writing entirely?
How does it feel to be so terrified of anyone who isn't white?Or in her case, when did they drop reading and writing entirely?
And you'd lose any hope of mounting a legal defense around self defense if you attacked someone for simply following you!best defense is a good offense, if someone was following me, id set up an ambush and turn the tables
Interesting, wasn't aware.You need to check the statutes, who was the "aggressor" in the situation (i.e. who initiated the confrontation, did Zimmerman approach Martin or the other way around) has no bearing on an affirmative defense of self defense.
We'd be making fun of some gator-chasing florida redneck who testified in a similar manner too, mocking her black culture is just easy.How does it feel to be so terrified of anyone who isn't white?
No, you'd be complaining about the liberal media making him look bad.We'd be making fun of some gator-chasing florida redneck who testified in a similar manner too, mocking her black culture is just easy.
Well first, you look up the statute that governs self defense in the jurisdiction you're interested in. In florida, that appears to be 776.013. You can peruse the statutes there, but it seems to me that (3) is pretty relevant here.Interesting, wasn't aware.
You should expound on this though, because its interesting, and those of us who aren't lawyers would probably find the details of how self defense is determined in a court of law enlightening in regards to this case.
Like I said I'm neither lawyer nor armchair lawyer, so everything I've said on this, of course, comes with the implicit acceptance that I don't actually know fuck all about what I'm talking about.
Really dude?Now I'm sure the racist trolls will go "PROFILING IS UNLAWFUL! HURR!" and all manner of things that there is no proof of, but you'll see in the statute there that there's nothing about who initiated the confrontation.
Actually no, who was attacked is not the same as who initiated the confrontation.Really dude?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity andwho is attackedin any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Makes it pretty clear you're only allowed to use deadly force if you are the person being attacked. Who initiated the confrontation is pretty important.
Let's not forget that even if Martin did retrace his steps and go back to where Zimmerman was, it doesn't mean he started the fight.
Let's also not forget that if Martin was in a dominant position during the fight, that also doesn't mean he started the fight.
Unfortunately, it's very likely we will not be able to prove either way who started the fight, which in the end is the only thing that matters, legally.
Manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense with the murder charge.The prosecution is in a hopeless position because they charged Zimmerman with murder rather than manslaughter. The difference being they have to show Zimmerman acted with malice to get a murder conviction. Not going to happen.
Those are both true, but why would Martin retrace his steps at all without some intent? One side in the discussion has bruised knuckles and a bullet hole in them and the other had a messed up head. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's story. The prosecution needs something beyond "OMG Racist" to get me to go down your line of reasoning.Let's not forget that even if Martin did retrace his steps and go back to where Zimmerman was, it doesn't mean he started the fight.
Let's also not forget that if Martin was in a dominant position during the fight, that also doesn't mean he started the fight.