Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And as a teenager, it's his right to defend himself from a thirty year old man with a gun who is stalking him for no reason. Duh.
|
Again, you're letting emotion cloud reason.
There's a difference between a
perceived threat and a
real one. It is not legal to pre-emptively
assault someone simply because they give you the hibby jibbies, specially if you're
not cornered without any other avenue of escape or recourse.
I understand that if you've been followed by security when you walk into stores everyday of your life you'd consider that point arguable, but it isn't. This is why when invoking self-defence you must prove that you had
no other choice but to use force.
Martin had plenty of choices. He wasn't cornered into a blind alley or locked in a bathroom in his house. He had in fact lost Zimmerman.
Then he chose to beat Zimmerman up, giving Zimmerman
no choice but to defend himself.
See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
If Zimmmerman did what he was told, this kid would still be alive, and Zimmerman's life wouldn't be destroyed.
|
If Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman he wouldn't have gotten shot. That's the conclusion the jury, who had more access to
facts than we do, arrived at.