• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is self defense even plausible?

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,634
Reaction score
20,649
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
According to a bunch of people who are smarter about the law than you, self-defense isn't just plausible, it's probable.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,634
Reaction score
20,649
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,634
Reaction score
20,649
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,634
Reaction score
20,649
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

Ketsu no anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
7,748
Location
OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

SMTA

Ketsu no anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
7,748
Location
OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Ketsu no anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
7,748
Location
OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

TheNextEra

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.
 
Top Bottom