Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 11:02:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest  (Read 18371 times)
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


« on: March 19, 2012, 10:06:08 PM »
« edited: March 19, 2012, 10:08:53 PM by ag »

How is the "attacker" defined here? We have an armed person who, it seems, got out of a car (or was he just walking by?) to attack another (unarmed) person - who, at that point, might have been (unsuccessfully) acting in self-defense. Is it being contested that Zimmerman was the first one to approach the kid, and not the other way around? Are there any witnesses?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2012, 04:42:57 PM »
« Edited: March 20, 2012, 04:48:16 PM by ag »

Once again, Zimmerman, by every account, came up, unprovoked in any way, to Martin and initiated the altercation. Zimmerman was armed, and, as his actions later would show, ready to use his gun. At that point, if I understand the Florida law right, Martin had every right to shoot Zimmerman dead in self-defense (mind it, it's not even obvious that Martin, unlike Zimmerman, had anywhere to flee - though, of course, that's irrelevant from the standpoint of Florida law). So, how would Martin striking Zimmerman with his bare hands (as there does not seem to be any evidence he was armed with anything more than an iced tea) change the calculus? Zimmerman attacked, Martin (perhaps) responded, Zimmerman got his gun and shot Martin. The self-defense argument seems to be unambiguously on the Martin side.

Or is the right interpretation of the Florida law that in every altercation whoever kills his/her opponient is, by definition, acting in self-defense? I would appreciate knowing that for sure: if that is, indeed, is the case (which seems to be the only explanation why Martin fighting Zimmerman would matter at all), I would do my best to avoid ever finding myself in Florida again, as a matter of personal safety.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2012, 09:59:10 PM »


Has there ever been a problem getting one in the South?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2012, 09:21:25 PM »

If this law is not decriminalizing most murders, I don't know what it does. Whenver anyone is killed without witnesses (and even in most cases w/ witnesses) it becomes simply impossible to prove that somebody acted illegally. It's "Shoot First, or You Will Be Shot Yourself Act". This is clear murder decriminalization - and most definite reason to do one's best to avoid ever going to Florida.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.