Air Langhi, there is no point in discussing with you as you want him in prison regardless of the facts. While many of us are having a good discussion and are sorting through a myriad of facts that seem to change pretty quickly, you are in the camp that has decided the outcome and will not listen to rational discussion unless it supports your revenge lust.
The basic fact also remains that if Martin hadn't gone to buy Skittles, then there is no story. Both have equal weight.
Rape and murder are not held to ther same standards so that's an invalid analogy. It doesn't abolish his right to self defense ...but it does raise some very serious questions if he had the right to use deadly force. Don't confuse self defense and deadly force. You CAN have one without the other.
Martin buying skittles did not aggravate the situation. If he indirectly provoked a racist man for simply being black then there is no argument here. Zimmerman getting out of his car and chasing him down did. His actions were directed towards initiating some sort of conflict or altercation between himself and Trayvon. How do you not see that?
Both had the right. Zimmerman the right to get out of his car, and Martin to purchase Skittles. Krosfyah's point is irrelevant.
is it smart to get out of your car and follow someone who is not guilty of any crime if the 911 dispatcher has already told you not to follow and the cops are coming?
Okay. Zimmerman had the right to get out of his car, but he lost his right to self-defense when he ran towards the "dangerous/suspicious person" and attempted to confront him. What did Martin do to provoke the situation? By running away? He saw Zimmerman as suspicious too. Funny how he was running away and Zimmerman was chasing after him. Trayvon was running away from harm and Zimmerman was looking to cause harm.
Are you a lawyer? How do you know he had the right? The authors of the law in question have said themselves that the law was not intended to be interpreted to cover this case.
Smaller guys wins fights all the time. Don't forget that Martin was also taller and in much better shape than Zimmerman. Playing defense in b-ball is not fighting. I guarantee that if you commit a flagrant 2 foul on a guy 100 lbs heavier, you will definitely get his attention. If only it were so easy to think clearly in a fight. You must see things before they happen like this guy: While I can sympathize with your position of anger towards Zimmerman, your moral outrage has clearly muddled all logic when it comes to breaking down a physical confrontation.
What? This is exactly the argument made in Zimmerman's defense. We don't know that Zimmerman was attacked, but we can't prove that he wasn't so we can't prove that he wasn't acting in self-defense. Isn't that what the police chief was saying? Likewise, we don't know that Martin was attacked, but we can't prove that he wasn't so we can't prove that he wasn't acting in self-defense. So, if you're only justified in using force if you're first endangered, you enter an endless chicken-and-egg loop. Zimmerman is only justified in shooting Martin if Martin was an imminent danger to him. Martin is only justified in punching Zimmerman if Zimmerman is an imminent danger to him. We know Martin was a danger at some point because he punched Zimmerman. We know Zimmerman was a danger to Martin because he was stalking the kid with a gun. So, who was the danger first? The way the police chief wants to interpret Stand Your Ground, neither party has a duty to retreat and neither is responsible for the harm they cause the other. If you want to admit this is an idiotic way to enforce the law, we can look forward to having a trial.
The first paragraph is factual ...with a slight correction. He lost the right to use deadly force as a form of self defense once he pursued the suspect. So again, Zimmerman started it.
I have been talking about proportionality from the beginning of this thread, and unless Martin really pounded Zimmerman to a degree that it was a threat to Zimmerman's life, I still think Zimmerman shooting Martin was at the very least not proportional. That's incorrect.
No, again, this is not correct. Whether he had a right to use deadly force has nothing to do with whether he pursued the suspect or anything, but with whether Martin posed a deadly threat to him. You have been making a lot of very incorrect legal statements here. I recommend that you leave that to the lawyers. You can state your opinion, but every opinion you stated on the law has been incorrect.
