Is self defense even plausible?

[sbrettt]

Lets be real, if you follow and confront someone who is un armed, then say you defended yourself when you instigated the confrontation, and when clearly nothing would have happened had Z just called the police and left it alone. In principle it's just plain silly.

 

[Josie]

According to a bunch of people who are smarter about the law than you, self-defense isn't just plausible, it's probable.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Lets be real, if you follow and confront someone who is un armed, then say you defended yourself when you instigated the confrontation, and when clearly nothing would have happened had Z just called the police and left it alone. In principle it's just plain silly.

From what I can tell, Martin jumped Zimmerman, so yes, it would be self-defense. Nobody forced Martin to jump Zimmerman.

 

[sbrettt]

According to a bunch of people who are smarter about the law than you, self-defense isn't just plausible, it's probable.

According to people who are smarter than the people you're talking about the people you're talking about are wrong.

 

[sbrettt]

From what I can tell, Martin jumped Zimmerman, so yes, it would be self-defense. Nobody forced Martin to jump Zimmerman.

Has that been proven though?

 

[Josie]

Has that been proven though?

All of the evidence points to just that.

 

[Oceandan]

The only LEGAL aspect of your flawed personally biased situation is, during the physical encounter, did GZ act as a "reasonable person" in fearing great bodily harm or death. I believe the LAW supports him using lethal force.

The LAW makes no distinction even in whom started the altercation.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Has that been proven though?

From the evidence that has been presented, I would say so.

 

[Josie]

According to people who are smarter than the people you're talking about the people you're talking about are wrong.

And who would those people be? Almost every judge and lawyer I've heard talk about this case believes that an acquittal is likely.

 

[sbrettt]

All of the evidence points to just that.

Well then I guess it really comes down to the fine print. Based on my principles, if you instigate a confrontation with someone and it's not on your property you should forfeit a self defense defense in court.

 

[OscarB63]

Lets be real, if you follow and confront someone who is un armed, then say you defended yourself when you instigated the confrontation, and when clearly nothing would have happened had Z just called the police and left it alone. In principle it's just plain silly.

let's be real, following someone and asking them a question is not "instigating the confrontation". a reasonable person does not react with violence to being asked a question. had Martin either a.) continued home after he was out of zimmerman's sight instead of stopping and waiting for him or b.) answered the question "what are you doing around here?" instead of punching zimmerman in the face clearly nothing would have happened

 

[Josie]

Well then I guess it really comes down to the fine print. Based on my principles, if you instigate a confrontation with someone and it's not on your property you should forfeit a self defense defense in court.

Court isn't based on your principles. If the jury believes GZ's account, there's no way he will be guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

 

[OscarB63]

Well then I guess it really comes down to the fine print. Based on my principles, if you instigate a confrontation with someone and it's not on your property you should forfeit a self defense defense in court.

exactly. Martin forfeited his right to self-defense when he instigated the confrontation by punching zimmerman in the face.

 

[SMTA]

And who would those people be? Almost every judge and lawyer I've heard talk about this case believes that an acquittal is likely.

I am hearing the same thing from my legal friends.

The consensus is that the prosecution (the local/state/fed) has done a pathetic job.

Seems that they tried to cobble some minor evidence based upon what they wanted, not on what really happened.

 

[sbrettt]

And who would those people be? Almost every judge and lawyer I've heard talk about this case believes that an acquittal is likely.

I was being silly because what you said had no real substance. Just he said she said.

 

[sbrettt]

exactly. Martin forfeited his right to self-defense when he instigated the confrontation by punching zimmerman in the face.

There ya go. Based on that no one was defending themselves.

 

[SMTA]

Well then I guess it really comes down to the fine print. Based on my principles, if you instigate a confrontation with someone and it's not on your property you should forfeit a self defense defense in court.

What everyone is telling you is that this part is incorrect.

 

[SMTA]

There ya go. Based on that no one was defending themselves.

NO English comprehension then.

 

[sbrettt]

Court isn't based on your principles. If the jury believes GZ's account, there's no way he will be guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

My principles are better.

 

[Thoreau72]

All of the evidence points to just that.

Obviously, it depends upon how one interprets the evidence. I agree with the OP. If Z had followed instructions received on the phone, and if he had NOT been armed, in accordance with the rules governing Neighborhood Watch, Martin would still be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He was on the prowl, with anger and hard feelings towards young blacks, and while he didn't find Rodney King, he did find what he wanted, and got to burn some powder in the process.

 

[sbrettt]

Everyone hear has gone around my premise. Is it reasonable to say you were defending yourself when you were the one who initially started and instigated a confrontation? What I'm saying is Zimmerman is the only reason Zimmerman got punched in the first place.

 

[sbrettt]

What everyone is telling you is that this part is incorrect.

So Z did not follow Martin and approach Martin?

 

[SMTA]

My principles are better.

Now you are really being silly.

 

[sbrettt]

Now you are really being silly.

Right there yes.

 

[TheNextEra]

My principles are better.

You're principles are neither law nor are they part of the court process. In other words, you're principles are irrelevent to the case at hand.