In my eyes, whether or not Martin threw the first punch, or if he was on top shouldn't matter to the trial in the slightest. An armed man that is not a police officer is clearly chasing him in the night for no obvious reason. When the victim tries to run and hide, the armed man does not give up pursuit, but goes snooping through yards until the two meet. One tried to retreat, the other forced confrontation. To me, you cannot be the instigator and aggressor, and the one defending yourself because you later started to lose the confrontation you forced.
But oh well, the kid was black and Zimmerman had light enough skin. That is always grounds for acquittal in the South. If you are black, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/]firing warning shots in your own home while being beaten gets you 20 years[/url]. If you are white, you can chase someone down and shoot them and be completely innocent. Gotta love that clear-headed objective thinking going on in Florida.
English
-
I understand your frustration with the case. I do however disagree with your logic. Simply put, your logic states: If person x follows and confronts person y, person y can legally attack and kill person x without further physical provocation. Concrete related injuries can be quite lethal, especially if you're having your head smashed into it. It's not far reaching to say that Martin could have killed Zimmerman. I'm sure the headlines would be quite different then. I have read about the case you linked. I do agree with you that that is an injustice.
-
Nowhere did I say person Y can kill person X. That's the problem with having such a hard-on for guns, all of a sudden everything looks more threatening. A fistfight is not deadly force. It is a big stretch to go from minor scrapes to assume anyone's life was in danger. It's a misdemeanor assault, and a bit of a gray area who would even be guilty, considering the only person on Earth that knows how the fight started is Zimmerman, and he won't say anything. Here in Minnesota, not only would Zimmerman not qualify for a self defense argument because he chased down the victim, but pulling a gun during a non-lethal confrontation would have nullified his claim as well. The person that forces the confrontation cannot claim self defense, and the person that escalates the confrontation also loses their claim to self defense.
-
You believe having your head smashed against concrete is non-lethal?
-
Given the extent of the damage done, absolutely. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to kill someone with your bare hands, even if they don't fight back. Especially a healthy young male who supposedly had taken self defense classes. If a gun wasn't brought into the fight, I don't think either would have had serious injury. The whole thing could have been avoided entirely if Zimmerman didn't corner the kid in a back yard, or if he bothered to identify himself and why he was chasing the kid. There was absolutely no reason to escalate the conflict to lethal force, and ample opportunity to avoid it altogether. I think on both counts, Zimmerman refused to take reasonable action to avoid conflict. Now, you aren't required to reasonably avoid lethal force in your home, but Zimmerman was not in his home, did not witness a crime, and was the one that forced the contact. To allow him a self defense argument after all that is insane. That essentially legalizes all murder if you get into a fist fight and are losing, even if you instigated the fight. That is ridiculous. I'd worry about the precedent this sets, and that any bar fight can legally become a shootout, but I'm pretty sure this new interpretation of the law will only apply to light skinned people killing dark skinned people, since dark skinned people still get 20 years for brandishing a weapon in their own home when an intruder shows up.