The Trayvon Trial

Cad_sl said:

Actually no, who was attacked is not the same as who initiated the confrontation.

Lets go with one sequence of events: I follow you out to your car, tap you on the shoulder, and say "excuse me, I think you're trying to unlock my car. What are you doing?" and you've actually walked up to my car. You turn and jump on me, hitting me, thinking that I am trying to carjack you (reasonable under the circumstances?) and I lose this confrontation, but I happen to have my pistol. I defend myself from your attack (from my perspective, I am just asking you whats up and why you are approaching my car) which is quite brutal, you are on top of me on the ground hitting me. I shoot and kill you.

Who initiated the confrontation in this situation and who was the attacker? And don't say "this isn't what happened to Martin" because you're right. I just want you to analyze the situation.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I would say the guy who threw the punch is at fault. If the bar for assuming you're being attacked is you were tapped on the shoulder and asked a question we're basically saying we shouldn't talk to each other. If you attack somebody because you felt threatened but you weren't actually threatened, you eat the consequences of that.

*Refresh should be my friend

The law works in weird ways. You can't always apply common sense logic to it.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Really dude?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity andwho is attackedin any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Makes it pretty clear you're only allowed to use deadly force if you are the person being attacked. Who initiated the confrontation is pretty important.

Let's not forget that even if Martin did retrace his steps and go back to where Zimmerman was, it doesn't mean he started the fight.
Let's also not forget that if Martin was in a dominant position during the fight, that also doesn't mean he started the fight.

Unfortunately, it's very likely we will not be able to prove either way who started the fight, which in the end is the only thing that matters, legally.

Click to expand...

I cbf to read the entire thread, so I may be misreading your argument here...

The initiation doesn't matter, in the part you quoted it clearly reads " A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity " and last I checked because you think someone is following you around doesn't give you the right to start fighting them.

I really don't understand why anyone rational person would assume Zimmerman was the aggressor/started the physical fight. Ultimately it doesn't matter if he started the verbal confrontation, doing so doesn't waive your rights and give someone else the right to start kicking the shit out of you.

For Zimmerman to start the physical fight, you will have to assume he wanted to get into a fight, with little regard to another persons well being with the direct intent do bodily harm to this random person. If his intentions were to do harm to Trayvon, why the fuck would he start a physical fight carrying a gun, and not pull that gun out to do harm to said random person. I don't think there is anyone dumb enough to carry a gun around with the intent to start a fight, and instead of pulling said gun, they get within reach of someone he knows he's going to harm. And in doing so, give this random person the ability to see/reach/use said gun on himself.

If anyone's* argument is that Zimmerman pulled said gun initially, and Trayvon chucked norris'd his way within reach of said gun and knocked it out of Zimmerman's hand temporarily, and decided to beat Zimmerman up a bit instead of going for said gun, then let Zimmerman get said gun all the while Zimmerman was still on his back and lets Zimmerman shoot him, as Trayvon is in a "ground-n-pound" position. Then I say good day to you sir.

If A initiate a confrontation but B responds with disproportion, can A still claim the stand your ground thing? Or: when does a confrontation become unlawful?

.

Only if A gives up the fight while B continues it can A use stand your ground, I think. Like Cad said, it most likely depends on the state. Expounding on deadly force, isn't any attack above a person's neck considered deadly force?

Tanoomba_sl said:

I'm upset that the actions of a racist prick resulted in the death of a young man who had done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

You assume he did nothing wrong.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I'm upset that the actions of a racist prick resulted in the death of a young man who had done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Zimmerman is still alive and in court. He's not dead.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I'm upset that the actions of a racist prick resulted in the death of a young man who had done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Bah ignore the trolls on this comment. Its an understandable line of thought. Travyon Martin didn't deserve to die but that doesn't mean he made the correct decisions that night either.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I'm upset that the actions of a racist prick resulted in the death of a young man who had done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume he's racist? If a white kid had gotten killed in the same situation, this trial wouldn't even have shown up in national news for a second, but because the kid was black we all assume Zimmerman is some racist douchebag. Face the facts, racial profiliing is real, and we all do it. If you can say you don't look at a kid like that and put up your guard just a little bit, or you see a bunch of muslims boarding a plane you don't think twice then you are lying. Did the kid deserve to be shot? Given what we know, no I don't think so. Truth be told, only Zimmerman knows what happened that day.