IM a law abiding citizen. A 17 year old originally from a rough neighborhood who has been suspended for
1)tardiness,
2)graffiti, and
3)a baggy

who only had a cell phone with candy and pop and was on the phone with a girlfriend

and who

crossed a street and ran away (probably an act of trying to AVOID someone)

v

a 28 year old with
1)a father who is a magistrate judge , but who has had

2)two restraining orders filed by two seperate women,
3)has been charged with pushing an officer when he got upset they were arresting his drunk friend,

4)has been fired for being over agressive with a female customer at his job and

5)STILL permitted to carry a gun, who
6)called a kid walking at night an Ahole and showed frustration that he might 'get away' and who
7)followed the kid BY CAR and went out of his way to follow him ON foot,,,,


is not such a clear cut case of a 'thug' getting what he deserved
but might be instead, a bully finally being held accountable

its quite probable/possible that the MAN had a temperament of bullying that he had been permitted to get away with and given a pass on because of who his father was,,,

until he finally KILLED someone trying to be supercop WITHOUT a badge (or any identifying features to let someone being stalked by him know he had any authority whatsoever)

quite possible he is a spoiled judges kid who has gotten away with using his brut against people smaller than him for so long, that it finally escalated into something that backfired and caused him to cause a KIDS DEATH,,,

If Zimmerman WAS the aggressor, it does change things.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

thank you, simplified

and logical,,,,

I don't know about logical, I have been working on simplicity. : )

Seems to me...IF he was seeking out a confrontation then it
SHOULD change the "stand your ground" situation.

I mean..ya can't go pick a fight and then kill the guy cause your losing. Or can ya?? We'll see.

The original intent was to stop a hoodlum criminal.

I hope so.

to stop someone 'suspicious' because they were walking at night while looking at houses

by someone who was watching someone walking at night from his car and following someone walking at night on foot,,,,

a night watchmen supposedly who had to get out to figure out the STREET he was on,,,,

compared to someone newly arriving who had to figure out which way he needed to go,,,

pot calling the kettle,, 'suspicious'

Dershowitz Slams Zimmerman Prosecutor: 'Unethical,' 'Irresponsible'

unethical, irresponsible...

words Id use to describe Zimmermans actions that night,,,,,,,

Did you watch the video? It's really quite interesting. Alan Dershowitz explains that even if Zimmerman started the conflict, he still has a right to self defense. The affidavit of probable cause has no new information, it doesn't fairly present the scenario, which is legally required. He believes that the DA overcharged Zimmerman, Zimmerman will be acquitted and then the DA will act outraged. It's all about her getting re-elected, not about finding justice.

we will see,,,,

as Lady said,, will the law in this case decide that people can pick fights and if they are losing bad enough than KILL their victim?

creates a whole new paradise for bullies,,,

sounds flaky to me,,, but people might justify it,,,,,

I agree. If some evidence exists to show he tried to detain, or otherwise accost Martin then he is going down, hard. (prob not murder 2, but they can reduce to manslaughter from what I understand)

Otherwise it will probably be a show with a predestined ending: acquittal.

A lot rides on what EXACTLY the witness saw, and if any new information is available.

The law allows no such thing, its VERY clear, the evidence is what will or will not allow him to go free, not the law.

This has been refuted over and over again.

I think if laws were really that 'clear' we wouldnt need juries,,,



it will be up to the twelve in the box and the case that is presented,,,

from a self defense sight

""When there is mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel,
both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed
it will be manslaughter at least."
– 16th Century English Self Defense Law -


Ninety percent of all "fights" are started over something stupid. If the court feels your actions were unwarranted or avoidable, your defense of self-defense will fail. Especially, if those actions result in deadly force.
"

my point is we can find dozens of legal interpretations of the 'self defense' defense, its limitations,,,etc,,,,

as opposed to one UNIFORM and clear one,,,so it really will be up to lawyers to present a case,,,

and whether self defense because of danger will be good enough
or whether self defense because of danger brought on by a defendant will be a limitation that voids the defense,,,

Laws are broad to accommodate an infinity of situations. Make them too specific they miss unintended situations.

However, that is not even the point. Innocent until proven guilty is the point. The evidence no matter what the law says is always the determining factor.

This is always true. The law will not protect Zimmerman if he illegally detained Martin, or if he escalated the attack negligently, or if it can be shown that he was irresponsible in his actions and did not try to deescalate the situation.

There are MANY ways in which he can be held legally responsible for Martins death (Because of the law, NOT despite it), the very flexibility of the law is what allows the prosecutors to have charged him in the first place.

Your comments are inane.

my point is we can find dozens of legal interpretations of the 'self defense' defense, its limitations,,,etc,,,,

Laws are broad to accommodate an infinity of situations. Make them too specific they miss unintended situations.



as opposed to one UNIFORM and clear one,,,so it really will be up to lawyers to present a case,,,

Innocent until proven guilty is the point. The evidence no matter what the law says is always the determining factor.



and whether self defense because of danger will be good enough
or whether self defense because of danger brought on by a defendant will be a limitation that voids the defense,,,


There are MANY ways in which he can be held legally responsible for Martins death (Because of the law, NOT despite it), the very flexibility of the law is what allows the prosecutors to have charged him in the first place.



Your comments are inane.


Im in good company

Basically what you are saying is this: Trayvon wouldn't have committed a crime if he beat Zimmerman to death.

Even if Zimmerman started a fist fight, that doesn't mean he lost his right to defend himself against murder. If Trayvon were trying to kill him, then Zimmerman had the legal right to defend himself with lethal force.

If that right didn't exist, then every bar fight would end with one person dead and nobody prosecuted. The "He started it!" defense.

If you want to quote you can either hit the quote button, or type [] with quote inside at the front, and [] with /quote inside at the end.

[ quote ] like this but without the extra spaces.[ /quote ]

Otherwise reading your posts is a real mess.

She is just asserting her opinions without regard to facts, and her disdain for self defense laws is showing.

msharmony if you want to back up your assertions you should use case law and the actual verbiage that you think allows people to get away with "murder"

basically put up or shadup.

I dont know, there was a gun involved. HAd he got the gun away and PRECEDED to kill Zimmerman,, that would have probably been excessive force. Had he killed ZIMMERMAN (With his hands) while Zimmerman was in possession/reaching for a gun,,,probably not so much


IF the lethal right to defend against killing is considered, than it is necessarily true it is a right that on its face BOTH PARTIES HAD

so what did seperate them, wasnt whether they had a right on its face, but if they had the right with aggravating factors such as who ENGAGED in the fight

and it could be interpreted even, that if its a MUTUAL Fight, whomever ends up killing the other will be at fault,,,


the aggravating factors weigh in,,,,

Ugh it burns . . . .

You have no clue what you are talking about.

It is not necessarily true at all whatsoever. The TOTC will matter in wether either of them had a justification for self defense, and at no point regardless if one has justified his right to defend does that give the other the same justification, nor nullify it.

So . . . your wrong.

The TOTC includes all kinds of elements which needs to be supported for each of them independentally becuase of what is called mens rea Lookitup.

If this was tort law, and not criminal law, you might be closer to right. Basicaly the circumstances alone are not enough, intent, disposition and perspective all play a role, becuase those are personal, it makes the justifications independent.