"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Zimmerman essentially stalk the kid around because he looked suspicious then confront him? To me that sounds a lot like instigating a fight then shooting someone. Not to say Treyvon was a saint but he was being followed by some sketchy guy for no apparent reason" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
5 ups - 0 downs = 5 votes
85 comments submitted at 01:54:19 on Jun 26, 2014 by Soul_Shot
The stand your ground law was relevant because he would have likely had a duty to retreat under other standards of self defense
No he wouldn't.
At the time that he fired he was, according to his story, being straddled by Martin on his back.
At that point you are unable to retreat and every state in the country would have called that a good shoot.
The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin around and the reasons for him doing so is completely irrelvant.
No, in most cases if you start a fight and then kill someone because they're winning the fight you started, that's still murder.
He didn't initiate physical contact and Martin spoke to him first.
No reasonable person would call that "starting a fight"
Yeah, I always take the word of someone who shot someone else on what happened at face value. Especially someone like George Zimmerman. People who have been repeatedly arrested for domestic violence are definitely non-violent people you can trust would only act in self-defense!
The only one saying Martin started a fight is Zimmerman. Who also killed him. Not exactly the most trustworthy source. So yes, Zimmerman's actions before the shooting are actually very relevant, because if Martin was threatened or if Zimmerman physically accosted him, he would have been protecting himself. At which point no, Zimmerman would not have a legal right to kill someone in self-defense of a fight he started.
> At which point no, Zimmerman would not have a legal right to kill someone in self-defense of a fight he started.
That is not necessarily correct.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense
>A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.
Just because you started a fight doesn't mean you have to allow yourself to be killed....
So now getting punched a few times by a teenager is deadly force?
And is a gun not deadly force? If Zimmerman threatened Martin with his gun (which there are reports of him doing with other people, so it would not be some kind of out of character behavior), that would be threatening deadly force already. In which case Martin would have the right to pursue every route of self-defense possible, even if we're assuming Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.
> So now getting punched a few times by a teenager is deadly force?
According to several witnesses he was getting his head slammed into the concrete. That is absolutely deadly force.
>If Zimmerman threatened Martin with his gun
You seem to be hung up on these hypothetical scenarios in which there is no evidence for.
No, Zimmerman claimed his head was being slammed into concrete (funny, being able to not even get a concussion from that), a couple witnesses just said they saw Martin on top of him. Another witness said she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.
Overall, I'd say the idea that Martin just suddenly attacked Zimmerman so Zimmerman had to defend himself is a hypothetical scenario there's only shoddy evidence for.
> Overall, I'd say the idea that Martin just suddenly attacked Zimmerman so Zimmerman had to defend himself is a hypothetical scenario there's only shoddy evidence for.
Well there is certainly more evidence for it than against it.
Welcome to "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
More Comments - Click Here
Your argument tactics are amazing.
No, the law didn't apply in this case. If it had, he would have been granted immunity from prosecution and gone home without a trial. His lawyers argued it was a 'stand your ground' case in a pretrial motion, the judge turned them down, and the trial proceeded normally.