Did I suggest that?
And I presented you with what the law says. What's your point?
He did, actually. Read it again and get back to me.
Responsible, as in sending you to jail. I'm being very clear, which is the opposite of deceiving, which is what you were doing when you said:
I didn't, although I'm not sure how you define "nearly unconscious" when your being beaten about the head. Care to take a stab at it?
From the jury instructions (which come from the statutes any way...): "In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."
That's correct. He stabbed him in an earlier incident. In this incident, he simply threatened to kill him and then put his hand in his pocket. So the stabbing victim kills the guy who stabbed him and gets 16 years in prison. As I said. There's your moral hazard.
No. The prosecution could not prove otherwise and it should have been an easy win because the evidence supported Zimmerman's story. The case should never have gone to trial. You don't prosecute the victim.
I posted the info, so you don't need to bloviate about it if you haven't read it. The guy who got stabbed should have gotten off scott free.
Someone else in the story had blood on their hands too. Whitewash it out of your mind if that makes you feel better.
So not only does NY law punish the victim, you believe that's the right thing to do. Noted.