Zimmerman Legal Question

[Talisker]

Okay, so let's say what happened to Zimmerman happened to a cop. The cop was not trying to enforce the law, he was not using professional training to surveil a suspect (I know Zimmerman was, but bear with me here, it's a thought experiment). The only thing the cop was doing was getting jumped, under exactly the same circumstances as Zimmerman was jumped.

It seems to me that the ONLY thing the cop would have to say is that he feared for his life. Right? There would be no inquiry as to whether the cop's head got beat into the pavement enough, or if it hit the grass instead. There would be no discussion about whether the cop was enough of a wimp to have to use his gun. Nothing. The only question would be whether the cop feared for his life – or even if he feared that he was going to suffer bodily injury, or even if he just was physically attacked at all. If so, then the shooting would be deemed justified, end of subject.

Right?

So why ddoesn't the same legal standard apply to a non-cop? In a case of purely self-defense for a cop, subtracting police work, what is left? The right of a human being to defend himself from injury, harm or death, right? How are these actual facts different for a non-cop under the law? What is the justification for using a different standard for basic self-defense, and why can't Zimmerman's lawyer simply say that in an identical situation, a cop would be ruled as using jusitfiable lethal force, therefore as Zimmerman did the same, he is similiarly not guilty.

And please, no cynical comments about "how the world really works." This is a legal question - I'm looking for a legal explanation of exactly why this defense argument wouldn't be allowed by a judge.

In short, why aren't the purely self-defense standards and thresholds equal for both cops and non-cops?

[21twelve]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCvr9V2pig

Here’s a youtube with the audible and a transcript. The guy also added what he thought some background noises were. The F-—ing “coon” part is wrong - it is “punks”. In the Serino transcripts Zimmerman talks about punks.

Serino says something like “But that’s the problem George, this young man wasn’t a punk. He had a future. He was studying aeronautics. How does that make you feel?”

What I think is so interesting is the quiet demeanor of Zimmerman. The swearing is almost under his breath, and then the next sentence goes back to the mundane of figuring out where to meet the cops.

[Talisker]

The prosecution contends that Zimmerman, armed with a gun, profiled, stalked, confronted, and shot Travon Martin... In the second (prosecution) scenario, it is at least manslaughter.

I'm not seeing the lack of the same self-defense. Unless security watches and even public curiosity about unusual behavior is declared illegal or aggravating per se, there is nothing wrongful about being armed with a gun, profiling, stalking, and confronting someone where there is reasonable cause for these behaviors. As for the shooting itself, it doesn't even matter if those behaviors were wrongful, if they can't be used as a legal justification for St. Trayvon to physically attack Zimmerman. Once that attack takes place, Zimmerman is under no obligation to allow himself to be harmed or killed - none whatsoever. Thus self-defense trumps again.

[Yo-Yo]

An agressor loses the right of self defense.

[kiryandil]

An agressor loses the right of self defense.

An aggressor who is not wearing a magic blue costume loses the right of self defense.

Fixed it for ya...