I think the Stand Your Ground law is the larger problem than the parties involved. This type of incident was going to happen sooner or later. In my opinion.
I don't think the law needs changing at all. I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement. He could not have retreated even if he wanted too.
The law is not a just shoot anyone law. It just means if someone if assaulting you, you can shoot. You can't just shoot someone because you feel threatened. There has to be a clear and present danger unlike the castle law.
I don't think we have any real evidence on who attacked who. Winning the fight isn't equal to being the aggressor.
I don't see the rallys supporting Zimmerman like I do for Martin.........
Then I guess the Martin's girlfriend, who said Zimmerman approached Martin, is evidence as well. That means you have two conflicting accounts. Why have you decided to go by the killer's account?Yes we do. We have testimony from Zimmerman. You may not like it, but it is evidence, and it is real.
Then I guess the Martin's girlfriend, who said Zimmerman approached Martin, is evidence as well. That means you have two conflicting accounts. Why have you decided to go by the killer's account?
None of this has anything to do with my specific criticism of what you specifically said.That makes it no less evidence. It is also irrelevant to what I said. If Martin confronted him or not does not mean he physically assaulted Martin. Confronting someone does not give you the right to beat on them. If Martin instigated the fight physically, he still needed to defend himself if he was getting his head smashed in as 2 witnesses testified to. Considering Martins youth and size, I would be willing to bet money he started the fight physically. That is just my opinion based on what we know though.
It does not make what Zimmerman did right, but the jury will decide based on the evidence. I am good with that.
You seem sensitive.You can keep your snide "siding with the killer" bull**** to yourself.
None of this has anything to do with my specific criticism of what you specifically said.
You said, "I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement." According to you, the "evidence we do have" is Zimmerman's account - period. However, Zimmerman's account is not the only evidence we do have. On the contrary, Martin's girlfriend's account is also evidence we do have. I'm curious as to why you only include Zimmerman's account as evidence and not the girlfriend when both are, in fact, evidence.
You seem sensitive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?