“When you ‘stand your ground’ and shoot an aggressor, you have to be darn sure you did not pick the fight.”
Small point, but since so much has been flung back and forth about Stand Your Ground in this case, I thought I’d point out that if Martin was pinning Zimmerman to the ground as he and an eye witness testified, he had no ability to retreat and therefore can assert regular-old self-defense as opposed to Stand Your Ground self-defense.
“You don’t get to kill the guy just because he is winning the fight you engaged in.”
Yes you do, if the other guy attacked you. You don’t mean a “figh you engaged in”; you mean a fight you started. And in order for you not to be able to assert self-defense, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you started it. I don’t think they can do so in this case. And certainly they can’t prove the depraved mind required for murder 2.
“That is all the prosecutors have - to try and make it look like (racist, angry, mean, awful) Zimmerman was picking a fight by ‘stalking’ little skittles boy until Zimmerman got the fight he was egging (it was skittles boy who was standing his ground againt the big bad stalker man) on so he could shoot Martin.”
Yes, you can make following sound more ominous by calling it “stalking” and confronting sinister by dubbing it egging on a fight. But following and confronting aren’t illegal, and you’ll need more than words to use them to show Zimmerman had no right to self-defense.
“Unless the prosecutor has evidence we don’t know about, this is a political show trial steeped in race hate and hatred of the second amendment’s right to self defense.”
I want to believe there’s something more, and that prosecuters aren’t willing to throw their careers away and open themselves up to malicious prosecution charges for the sake of politics. But it’s happened before, and perhaps we have a new Nifong.
Well, it isn't really that cut and dried, either. There is a principle of proportionality, too. If I use "fighting words" to provoke you, or grab your elbow to keep you from walking away, then you hit me over the head with a brick, I most certainly have not forfeited my right to self-defense - with or without "stand your ground" laws.
In this case, you could substitute "hit with a brick" from my hypothetical to "punched in face, knocked head on pavement and pinned on ground to pummel."
We know from the documents released, and from sworn testimony by the police, that there is no evidence Zimmerman started anything. Still, to satisfy the speculations of some on this thread, let's suppose he did: what level of provocation would he need to have engaged in to forfeit his own right to self defense against the actions of Martin, which now seem to be pretty well established?
I can only think of one possible level of provocation by Zimmerman which would not leave a mark - brandishing his gun. And I am certain that is why the prosecution earlier implied that Zimmerman did just that. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory.