Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin's family for $100 million.

[rjs330]

Oh wow... You know this how, exactly?

Just demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah, that's great. Nothing in there indicates who initiated the fight. You don't just magically wake up in mount position raining punches (if you did, my fights would go a lot better); something has to precede it - a push, a struggle, a fall - something. When you say, "So, no Zimmerman did not attack Martin.", you're making things up. You don't know that. Zimmerman is the only person alive who witnessed the beginning of that fight. All we know is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, <something> happened, Martin wound up on top, and Zimmerman shot him.

There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. All you have is Martin pounding Zimmermans head. Zimmerman can defend himself. If Martin was not pounding Zimmerman's head he wouldn't have been shot. I certainly hope you are not suggesting Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself.

 

[Desk trauma]

There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

No one, other than Zimmerman, knows who initiated violence. His injuries were consistent with being on the losing end but tell us nothing about how the fight began.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. All you have is Martin pounding Zimmermans head. Zimmerman can defend himself. If Martin was not pounding Zimmerman's head he wouldn't have been shot. I certainly hope you are not suggesting Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself.

As the tv lawyers would say, you're assuming facts not in evidence. There's zero evidence of anybody starting the fight. It could have been Martin; it could have been Zimmerman. A tussle with pushing, shoving, and grabbing wouldn't leave much evidence and any evidence it did leave would likely be masked by where the fight ultimately wound up, which is with Martin on top, punching Zimmerman. The evidence does not show that Martin started the fight; the evidence only shows that Martin ultimately wound up with the upper hand. The evidence as to who started it is inconclusive.

As to whether or not Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, that depends. I suppose laws could differ by state, but my understanding is that, typically, you don't get to claim "self-defense" if you're the one who started the fight in the first place. If Zimmerman started the fight, then no, I don't believe he ought to be able to claim self-defense, even if he was on the losing end of the fight.

 

[rjs330]

No one, other than Zimmerman, knows who initiated violence. His injuries were consistent with being on the losing end but tell us nothing about how the fight began.

Thus he had a right to defend himself because he was on the losing end.

 

[rjs330]

As the tv lawyers would say, you're assuming facts not in evidence. There's zero evidence of anybody starting the fight. It could have been Martin; it could have been Zimmerman. A tussle with pushing, shoving, and grabbing wouldn't leave much evidence and any evidence it did leave would likely be masked by where the fight ultimately wound up, which is with Martin on top, punching Zimmerman. The evidence does not show that Martin started the fight; the evidence only shows that Martin ultimately wound up with the upper hand. The evidence as to who started it is inconclusive.

As to whether or not Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, that depends. I suppose laws could differ by state, but my understanding is that, typically, you don't get to claim "self-defense" if you're the one who started the fight in the first place. If Zimmerman started the fight, then no, I don't believe he ought to be able to claim self-defense, even if he was on the losing end of the fight.

And as you say if he wasn't the one who started the fight he had a right to defend himself. So it's a MOOT argument who started the fight because we have no evidence who did. And apparently in Zimmerman's case the evidence is he had a right to defend himself regardless of who started the pushing and shoving.

So what's your verdict in all of this? Since you have ZERO evidence on who started the fight you must rule on the evidence you have. Which is Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin. You have Zimmerman following Martin, when asked not to. You also have Martin being angry at being followed. Either one of them could have ostensibly grabbed the other. There is no evidence either way. So to assume Zimmerman grabbed Martin first is wrong. To assume Martin grabbed Zimmerman first is equally wrong. All you have is Zimmerman being beaten and defending himself. Self defense in this case? Yes he has a right.

People can have serious bodily injury from being beaten. Which allows you to use deadly force if you are in fear of that. In this instance the evidence is clear.

 

[rjs330]

No one, other than Zimmerman, knows who initiated violence. His injuries were consistent with being on the losing end but tell us nothing about how the fight began.

So you MUST rule on the evidence at hand. You may not assume. The evidence is he was being beaten and had a right to defend himself.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And as you say if he wasn't the one who started the fight he had a right to defend himself. So it's a MOOT argument who started the fight because we have no evidence who did. And apparently in Zimmerman's case the evidence is he had a right to defend himself regardless of who started the pushing and shoving.

So what's your verdict in all of this? Since you have ZERO evidence on who started the fight you must rule on the evidence you have. Which is Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin. You have Zimmerman following Martin, when asked not to. You also have Martin being angry at being followed. Either one of them could have ostensibly grabbed the other. There is no evidence either way. So to assume Zimmerman grabbed Martin first is wrong. To assume Martin grabbed Zimmerman first is equally wrong. All you have is Zimmerman being beaten and defending himself. Self defense in this case? Yes he has a right.

People can have serious bodily injury from being beaten. Which allows you to use deadly force if you are in fear of that. In this instance the evidence is clear.

There's a difference between having evidence that proves Zimmerman was in the right and not having sufficient evidence to prove that he was in the wrong. You seem to keep making the leap from the evidence being inconclusive (which means that you can't prove he was wrong) to him automatically being right. If he started the fight, he didn't have the right to claim self-defense. We just can't prove that.

 

[Desk trauma]

Thus he had a right to defend himself because he was on the losing end.

Only if he did not initiate the violence. You don’t get to claim self defense if you assault someone and kill them when the fight turns against you.

 

[Desk trauma]

So you MUST rule on the evidence at hand. You may not assume. The evidence is he was being beaten and had a right to defend himself.

No, there is only evidence that he was losing a fight. Without knowing if he initiated violence I cannot say if he was in in the right.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What happened was Martin got tired of Zimmerman following him. They had some words. He then grabbed Zimmerman z because he's bigger and got him on the ground and started pounding on him.

The part that's worth considering here is that Martin's actions of "taking action" is justified under the exact same "stand your ground" logic that Zimmerman used as a defense.

Under weakly written "stand your ground" laws, one only needs to "feel" threatened in order to use physical means to address that threat. A high school kid being followed (against his wishes) by an adult who's 'playing cop', who's trying to confront and detain him when he has no authority to do so, certainly was within his rights to "stand his ground" against Zimmerman.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

What happened was Martin got tired of Zimmerman following him. They had some words. He then grabbed Zimmerman z because he's bigger and got him on the ground and started pounding on him.

There was no reason for Zimmerman to be stalking his next prey. Zimmerman was just looking for someone to kill. There was no reasons for Zimmerman to be following anyone. Zimmerman's a coward, he started trouble with a teenager, and couldn't finish it, with out a gun. And you're defending Zimmerman, the looser , coward . It make's no sense to most people.

 

[Foamhead]

I'm for defending the Constitution and the rights outlined therein. Just like like I'm for defending your right to free speech no matter what kind of mistaken silly argument it may espouse.

No, you just love guns more than people. No one is fooled by appealing to constitutional purity.