Your entire line of logic is totally dependent on those two bold statements. Why are you assuming Zimmerman was following Martin and was then attacked? Your post is written as if Martin just turned around and started swinging. I don't think you're clueless enough to believe that, but that is what the line of logic in your post follows. Secondly, why are you assuming Zimmerman isn't distorting the truth? Do you honestly believe he wouldn't alter the facts to avoid jail time? I have to believe you realize we would hear a different version of events if Martin was alive. More importantly do you think Martin would have killed Zimmerman if he hadn't been armed? I'm asking that absent of legal ramifications. It's all unwanted, last I checked. You're claiming that as long as you start an altercation, it's ok to shoot someone, as long you didn't plan on it going that far when the confrontation began. Of course that too means Zimmerman had to shoot Martin to save his life, or prevent himself from sustaining injuries he wasn't going recover from. Edit: And once again, Florida doesn't fail to disappoint.
That he wasn't running. What it shows is absolutely immaterial now. A jury of Big Z's peers agreed with him. As someone who lives here, I'm glad this is over. I really hope that the interested parties don't riot...especially in my neighborhood.
Wait, are you actually happy about this? Edit: not the verdict itself, but this entire situation is shitty, and a 17 year old kid is dead. I don't know that I'd be giddy that the guy who shot him technically wasn't legally culpable.
The verdict made me feel physically ill. I can only hope that this will lead to some reevaluation of gun laws in Florida, but it seems like that's probably wishful thinking. Ugh.
You do realize the defense waived the stand your ground pretrial hearing, right? That was never a part of this case and had no bearing on it. I guess I'm confused on opinions here of self defense. If someone is in a situation where they feel that their life is in grave danger, should they not be able to defend themselves in your opinions? If you do think they should, what qualifiers do you think need to be added to preclude situations like this from happening again?
I am not happy about the situation but I am happy with the verdict. I have followed this trial since day one I came to the same conclusion that this jury did. I do believe that he brought this on himself but I do not believe that he started the fight.
You're not going to get any disagreement on the first question, I'll hazard. But my issue lies with the idea that they subjectively "feel that their life is in grave danger," because this is frequently an impossible claim to evaluate. There is literally one person who has the requisite facts in a case like this, and he's the one trying to avoid a prison sentence. Even if you put the qualifier that it need be a reasonable fear, there is still the question of what corroborating evidence one needs to present. It's a strange area of law, because the typical stance of law is that in order to make an affirmative claim (e.g. "the defendant is guilty of grand theft auto"), one must prove that statement beyond reasonable doubt. Things are not-definitely-true until proven to be true. Self-defense, on the other hand, somewhat switches this order, since it is now the defendant who is making an affirmative claim (e.g. "I admit the killing happened; however I posit a specific set of facts such that it was self-defense"). Yet the reasonable doubt is still in favor of the defendant, so the state of affairs is assumed-true-until-proven-otherwise. Like I said earlier, I have absolutely no idea how one would theoretically prevent such a situation from occurring or whether doing so would be on the balance worthwhile, so perhaps this is the least-bad state of affairs.
Zimmerman started it and finished it. I don't think he's guilty of murder, but there should be some sort of penance for shooting someone just because you're getting your ass kicked. Hello civil court!
The problem is that it is a situation that he provoked. He, for all intents and purposes, started and escalated the situation. Let me posit this: You're in a bar, minding your own business. Some guy is staring at you all night, giving you shitty looks. You can't help but notice, as he won't take his eyes off you. You go into the bathroom, and he follows, and just stares at you. Mind you, none of this is illegal (like you said, following is totally legal, as is watching someone/staring at them), but it is creeping you the fuck out, and you can't figure out what the guy's problem is. You bar is closing and you and creeper are the last two there (he is still giving you the stink eye, but you can't figure out why). You leave, he follows you out, maybe says something like "what are you doing here?" or "who do you think you are?" You are under the influence a bit, and sick of this guy staring at you all night and following you around, so you turn and say 'why the fuck are you following me?" Maybe you're frustrated because this isn't the first time you've been singled out for no reason (at least no reason apparent to you). You're frustrated to the point of taking a swing at a guy that has been acting aggressive towards you all night. Now, you're younger and stronger, so you knock him on his ass and, for good measure, you jack him in the face again, cause he is still fighting back (of course he was fighting back, right?). Next thing you know, you're shot in the chest. Are you going to tell me that guy was one hundred percent justified in killing you? And, for the sake of this scenario, take the race out of it. Its two pasty white guys.
He may be protected from civil court because he was found not guilty. That one is tougher to explain. Usually, protection is applicable when you're in your home or car.
Technically irrelevant, especially since the burden of proof in civil court is "preponderance of evidence" and typically requires a mere majority of the jury if it is a jury rather than trial. All you need is 4 of 6 people believing there is a 51% chance he was negligently or maliciously responsible for the death of Martin.
Protected by what? People get sued in civil court often when a conviction won't stick. The burden of proof is much lower.
Was this aggression? If you walked away after punching the guy (assuming there wasn't an escalation to shooting) a few times, would law enforcement seek to press charges against you? If you answer that question yes then, in my opinion, you have escalated the situation and taken your life into your own hands because at that point control has been lost in the situation. It becomes a "your word against mine" situation in the absence of eyewitnesses and if you are killed then it is unlikely your killer will go to jail. As far as civil court in Big Z's case is concerned, he has an easy out. Wait for the suit to come, declare bankruptcy and have the BK court discharge it.