Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...
Agreed on the threat. I said above (to another user) that if someone is in danger (which doesn't neccessarily mean physical harm), they have a right to defend themselves. However, danger is relative. It is indeed a hard situation to pass judgement on.
Yet it seems how the public largely decided this case is upon what the media and press told them - and that is on making judgment personally on the 2 individuals. Most GZ haters will go on and on of GZ's past to prove he is evil. And Most GZ supporters are more critical on TM personally, including also in very hateful and degrading ways. Then, depending which of those 2 of each as persons, they construct the case with selective facts and largely speculations - if not outright denials - to prove they are right.
This is the fact. We will never know "who started it."
Clearly GZ didn't get any blows in on TM, but that does NOT mean GZ didn't start it. GZ is a big men. Most men think they are as tough as when younger. GZ had worked as party security. In fact, generally security and bouncers deal with aggression by shoving the other person to prove he's tough. While GZ never even was accused of assaulting an officer, he was charged (it dropped) with interfering with an officer by shoving the officer off a friend of his. While personally I respect GZ for that - coming to his friend's aid but not escalating it by fighting the officer (rather likely diverting the officer to GZ and in that defusing it at his own personal expense - in that it is not impossible that when TM got in GZ's face mouthing at him and seemingly physically threatening and GZ shoved TM back hard being a heavier, lower man.
In response, TM - big, fast and very long arms slams the palm of his into GZ's face breaking his nose and knocking him down to gain advantage. And, most directly relevant, is learned TM has texted about breaking someone's nose to win a fight and the advantage have when over someone. BUT, in that scenario, if GZ had shoved TM, I think TM has ever legal basis to slam GZ in the nose. Yet, in terms of not being surreal judgmentalism, on the bottomline once GZ's head hit the concrete - and with a gun in this incident - one of them was going to likely die.
Since we can not possibly be certain how it started in terms of becoming violent, regardless of which one died we would have conclude there is not enough evidence to prove either one guilty. Since we can not possibly know, there is no other possible verdict. If TM had gotten the gun and shot GZ and a lawyer advising him particularly, he would have said it started by GZ shoving him or throwing a punch at him. Yes, it could have happened that way. It could have happened how GZ said. Or could have happened some other way entirely. We'll never know, will we? THEREFORE, WE CAN NOT PASS JUDGMENT - AND THAT MEANS WE CAN NOT FIND HIM GUILTY. In no way, did the jury find him innocent.
It's be like putting Marines on trial after a fire-fight. While I suppose there are extreme circumstances to do so, doing so on speculation and lack to provable instant to instance actions of each Marine doesn't constitute reason for a charge, for a trial, and certainly not conviction and dishonorable discharge. It is the basis, if a serious complaint, for an investigation. There was an investigation. The police said there is no provable case. And all along they were absolutely right - and obviously so.
Like those who say GZ knew he wasn't in serious danger with only - so far- a shattered nose and the back of head bleeding in 2 different places. The answer to them is they weren't there. There is no way to know what a person would do do, let alone say what GZ would or should have done.
We do not know what we do not know. We do not know that GZ was in reality guilty or innocent. We'll never know. Accordingly, he walks. We each can still form our own opinion of him as a person. And we can each do so about TM too.
