General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis CNN argument about who threw the first punch being all that matters is bogus!
I am so fucking sick of hearing this. Lets turn this around. If Trayvon thought his life was in danger HE was allowed to even use deadly force. You can use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others if you reasonably believe someone is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force while committing or about to commit any of the following crimes: burglary, kidnapping, assault in the first or second degree, burglary, robbery, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
So what we have here is two people who BOTH think their lives are in danger not just one for fuck sake! Had Trayvon killed Zimmerman he would have been legally justified if he feared for his life just as Zimmerman has argued. But who instigated this situation? That is what matters? As the prosecution says, you can't just read the end of the book and understand the whole book.
Rape victims probably very frequently throw the first punch, so if they end up dead was the rapist just acting in self defense? In Trayvon's mind Zimmerman could be a rapist or just someone out to hurt him.
Trayvon very well may have thrown the first punch, we will never know but if he did he was 100% justified even if he was just worked up from some creep profiling him and getting in his space. The important factor is who initiated the problem in the first place which in my view makes Zimmerman guilty of Manslaughter. Murder is way to hard to prove but I have zero doubt this was manslaughter.
As this lawyer points out: The mans actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.
Manslaughter is defined as: The killing of a human being by the?.?.?.?culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification?.?.?.?
Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?
I believe it does. But for the mans negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.
No reasonably careful person would do what the man did, and that should be obvious to everyone.
And, that is without considering anyones race.
Roberto Bob Martinez is an attorney in Miami and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carrying-loaded.html#storylink=cpy
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Is who was doing the wrong thing from the get go. My opinion - Trayvon was doing the right thing -'walking home like he was supposed to.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)That's not how "fights" start.
Mind numbing.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)What matters is what a reasonable person would do and I don't believe most reasonable people, even if they're losing a fight and regardless of who started it, would pull a gun and kill the other guy.
Zimmerman needed a bandaid after the fight and Trayvon was in a body bag. He had no cause to kill this kid.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Martin had a right to fight for his life, if in fact he had a chance to do so.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)they should be able to shoot the clerk by the Zimmerman defenders' logic.