Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
Again, you're letting emotion cloud reason.
|
There is no emotion in this what so ever for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
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.
|
So an armed man following a teenager around in the dark isn't a threat?
The kid RAN AWAY from a man ARMED WITH A GUN. Zimmerman chased him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
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.
|
Zimmerman, a grown man, failed to identify himself in any way, shape, or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
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.
|
Martin was chased in the dark by a man with a gun. A man armed with a gun chased him and confronted him. What else could Martin do? Run some more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
Then he chose to beat Zimmerman up, giving Zimmerman no choice but to defend himself.
|
He didn't "beat Zimmerman up". Zimmerman got punched in the face.
Martin was acting in self defense - He fled, he ran, but was still confronted by a man who had been following him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp
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.
|
The Jury didn't have access to more facts than we did. A lot was kept from the jury, while we saw it all.