Posted on 07/21/2017 8:35:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Once again you fail to understand I am arguing from a pure legal standpoint. A law can be poorly written and be terrible and unjust, but it would still be the law. The Dred Scott case is an example. The ruling was 100% correct from a pure legal standpoint. It was however 100% inhumane and morally wrong. It is why we have jury nullification.
When someone violently bashes you head against concrete- they are trying to crack your skull open- there’s no question that ‘probable harm’ was being committed- likely with the intent to kill- George didn’t need to stop and calculate just how much brain damage he was enduring at the time-
All George had to do at this point was correctly decide his life was in imminent danger and respond in self defense— This wasn’t some weakling kid- this was a violent punk physically bashing George’s head against the cement with cruel intentions- This wasn’t just a minor tussle or shoving match or slap fest- ANY time someone bashes someone’s head against a hard object it’s a very serious crime and likely to cause brain damage at the least- death at most-— George was screaming out in fear for his life- This kid meant him serious bodily harm- that was made more than clear in the trial
Only a “lawyer” could try to argue that a possibility something will happen equates to no (i.e. zero) probability it will happen.
I asked the question can a person put himself into a dangerous situation and then use deadly force?
“People don’t understand you have to follow the law”
quote of the day
that was Martin’s problem all along, of course.
>I asked the question can a person put himself into a dangerous situation and then use deadly force?
What does that even mean? Zimmerman could have started a fist fight with Martin but the moment Martin start cracking head into the cement Zimmerman could have shot him for fear of his life. As it was Martin attacked him, smashed his head into the ground, and then tried to take Zimmerman’s gun from him. If he’d gotten it free without a doubt Zimmerman would have been dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqtB9UXZpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFOCjyc5gzc
Look at the above situations. It is an example of when a person is 100% right in self defense, but escalated the situation. In one situation the person could have done better to leave the area and was eventually forced to use deadly force. The other person was very mentally unstable and the other the CCW was a hothead who picked a fight that turned bad for him.
That's the argument of the ignorant.
LOL! Don't hire your friend to defend you. He obviously doesn't know crap about FL law.
Head wounds don’t count? Please.
I'm not aware of anything in the trial record that would support that interpretation. There will always be a question about what happened when Martin confronted Zimmerman. We have Zimmerman's account, but without any other witnesses, there is no corroboration. It is certainly possible that Martin said something to escalate the encounter, but there is no evidence of this. Nor should one speculate based on Zimmerman's mixed record since the trial. Based on the evidence available, self-defense was the only verdict an impartial jury could have reached. Indeed, Zimmerman should never have been charged. The initial judgement of the local police and prosecutors to treat the case as self-defense was correct. Charges were only brought belatedly as a political response to mob pressure, and the jury was correct to find for Zimmerman.
I hope your lawyer friend has occasion to advance this theory of the case at a feminist convention, which will undoubtedly applaud his support for convicting George Zimmerman. He should then note that the same logic would apply to a women who is being beaten bloody by a rapist. He will get a chance to subject his theory to a personal field test.
The lawyer is a moron.
During the tussle, Martin had discovered that Zimmerman was armed and was determined to shoot him with his own gun. Instead, Zimmerman took out the trash.
Martin jumped Zimmerman, not the other way around.
I cannot underestimate the intelligence of the "lawyer".
GZ was going back to his vehicle when he was sucker punched and assaulted. GZ did nothing wrong and had as much right to be walking in that neighborhood as his attacker.
You said "I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate ..."
How did he do that?
Martin attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around!
You liberal retards never cease to amaze.
No charge whatsoever was justified, moron!
It's not what Martin said, it's what he did that got him killed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.