(1) You assumed again. I thought we weren't going to do this. First, let's play your game. Let's assume that the weapon Zimmerman carried was a gift to him from King Carl Gustaf of Sweden of Sweden in International Waters on a gambling ship off the Barbados and declared under a nonexistent, but assumed, International Treaty that deemed all pre-WWII handguns given by International Heads of State to be relics and not handguns. Let's further assume that it was a Wembley Mark VI British Service Revolver, which was on the list of banned weapons in Florida, except that this handgun was one of the rare Mark Vi pieces made in the 1920s by Enfield, and not Wembley, and had currently been deemed by the Florida legislature as a 'relic,' and not a firearm, and was due to be presented to the Florida State University Football Department Museum of Handguns and Free Shoes the following week. But let's assume that after that designation, Zimmerman's uncle, without Zimmernan's knowledge, had the Wembley rechambered from the original .455 to 45ACP, destroying its value as a relic. And let's assume that due to a typographical error in the Department of Justice office, the name Trayvon Martin appeared on a Homeland Security report as a terrorist report with a 'shoot to kill' mandate, and there's evidence that Zimmerman subscribed to Homeland Security reports but not that he had specifically read the report with Martin's name on it. Let's also assume that Martin was packing a combination speargun and genuine police whistle with the DNA on it of 250 protected manatees and Amelia Earhart.How would that change your analysis?
Second, reports of Martin's girlfriend's account of the conversation she heard on the phone have Martin confronting Zimmerman, don't they? Just as Zimmerman says?
Then, you've said you're assuming 'assault with a deadly weapon.' Florida doesn't have such a crime as 'assault with a deadly weapon.' Florida has aggravated assault.
You can keep making assumption after assumption, and keep making generalized statements about laws without specifically referencing the laws that would pertain in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but why? I apologize for the frustration, because on other topics, I've enjoyed reading your posts and I don't mean to convey any ill will.
You are correct. My basic point is that we don’t know how the confrontation started.
Although the girlfriend’s claim of a verbal discussion preceding a physical confrontation does put a dent in the notion that M attacked Z from behind without warning.
I believe there are possible scenarios where Z would not be covered under the present FL laws of self-defense. Is one of those what happened? I have no idea. Unlike a good many around here, I don’t claim to know what happened.
In the final analysis, it probably doesn’t matter much what the law says or what actually happened. Z will be tried, first by the state and then, if needed, by the feds, as a sacrifice to the gods of political correctness. Those out to get him really don’t care about the law or what happened. Their outrage is based on ethnic and ideological solidarity.
Of course, the authorities can make this whole nightmare go away by sticking Z in with the general population.