George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

[Ms Tree]

What evidence is there that Martin didn't throw the first punch, other than Z's bashed skull and broken nose ? Seems to me that if Z had his weapon out to begin with, he wouldn't have ended up with the ass whipping he received !

May be Zimmerman did not have it out but flashed it and threatened to use it? Martin could very well have thrown the first punch. No idea and apparently neither do you. All that was proven during the trial was that there was not enough proof to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ms Tree]

no the black person was on top off him attacking and got shot
Tree if you're trying to appear stupid in this thread you're way behind Dog

Awwwww. I was hoping to beat him. I guess I'll have to try harder. I'm sure you will let me know when I get there, you being the expert on stupid.

 

[muff daddy]

How does position prove who started the fight? Could positions not have been revered at some point during the conflict?

Martin had signs of a violent struggle/bruises and contusions to support your view?

Reasonable doubt to the charges against him plus evidence on Zimm's body and a total lack of it on Martins.

 

[Ms Tree]

Do all threats have to be violent? Perhaps a swing was taken and missed and then Martin started beating up Zimmerman till Zimmerman shot him? No witness so who knows.

 

[muff daddy]

Two people equally get into a fight and exchange blows and one gets the upper hand and now is devastating the other, no matter who initiated the struggle, the guy on the bottom has a right to use deadly force if the other is trying to overcome him.

 

[muff daddy]

Zimmerman could have initiated the struggle but if he is suddenly facing an overwhelming aggressor and feels his life may be in danger, he now has the right to use justifiable force to save his life. You can't deal with that?

 

[Ms Tree]

Two people equally get into a fight and exchange blows and one gets the upper hand and now is devastating the other, no matter who initiated the struggle, the guy on the bottom has a right to use deadly force if the other is trying to overcome him.

If I take a swing at you first and then get my ass whipped by you I have the right to claim self defense and kill you even though I started the fight?

 

[Ms Tree]

Zimmerman could have initiated the struggle but if he is suddenly facing an overwhelming aggressor and feels his life may be in danger, he now has the right to use justifiable force to save his life. You can't deal with that?

No I cannot.

 

[muff daddy]

If I take a swing at you first and then get my ass whipped by you I have the right to claim self defense and kill you even though I started the fight?

Suddenly you are in over your head and about to die, you have no expectation of life?

 

[Ms Tree]

Not one which does not involve jail time for murder.

I do not see why I should be able to start a fight and then be able to claim self defense when it does not go my way.

I start a fight with you. You feel threatened and try to kill be because you feel that your life is threatened. So if you kill me you claim self defense. If you turn around and kill me because you are losing a fight that you started then you claim self defense.

I guess it's a good way to lighten the load on the courts. No one would be guilty of murder.

 

[cltrat]

Awwwww. I was hoping to beat him. I guess I'll have to try harder. I'm sure you will let me know when I get there, you being the expert on stupid.

no expert but I do know it when I see it.
there are laws all over this country that allow one to defend ones self by deadly force while you certainly have a right to disagree with them,That does not make you right.
You don't like the verdict while you are not gasping at straws as bad as Dog. The fact remains that a jury found him not guilty so deal with it.He shouldn't have been charged to start with but that idiot Obama and his gun dealing AG had to stick their nose in a states business.

 

[muff daddy]

So then you would be willing to lay there and die for your stupidity?
Being the legal expert you are, did it ever occur to you that during a physical altercation that the aggressor/defender can go back and forth depending on the level of attack?
You lose your temper and "swing" at the other and he responds by beating the living crap out of you. You expected this level of aggression when you swung at him? Now you have no expectation of exercising your right to defend yourself?

 

[Ms Tree]

So then you would be willing to lay there and die for your stupidity?
Being the legal expert you are, did it ever occur to you that during a physical altercation that the aggressor/defender can go back and forth depending on the level of attack?
You lose your temper and "swing" at the other and he responds by beating the living crap out of you. You expected this level of aggression when you swung at him? Now you have no expectation of exercising your right to defend yourself?

Yes I do realize the ballance of power shifts, I thought that was clear in my example. You swing first I am going to feel threatned and try to take you out where you will feel threatned... and it goes back and forth till one dies and theother claims self defense.

What I am saying is that if you start a fight, while you may claim that you feared for your life I do not believe that you should be able to claim self defense after you kill me when you are the the one who started a fight. I do not know if the law would support such a claim as it would pertain to any survior of nearly any confrontation.

If I start a fight what I expect is irrelavant. If you think my swing could escalte into your death then you have the right to kill me (if I understand your argument correctly) and when I realize that my action scared the crap out of you to the point where you feel you need to kill me I become scared to the point where I feel I must kill you before you kill me. None of that makes a ny sense to me. I do not beleive the insigator gets to claim self defense. I would like to see case law that supports that POV.

 

[Ms Tree]

no expert but I do know it when I see it.
there are laws all over this country that allow one to defend ones self by deadly force while you certainly have a right to disagree with them,That does not make you right.
You don't like the verdict while you are not gasping at straws as bad as Dog. The fact remains that a jury found him not guilty so deal with it.He shouldn't have been charged to start with but that idiot Obama and his gun dealing AG had to stick their nose in a states business.

I never said I did not like the verdict. I said I did not like the law which justified the verdict. If you are going to accuse me at least get that part right. I believe it should have been handled the same as in the case that SW presented in the other thread. Scott was arrested at the time of the incident. From what I read in the linked article I think that if the law substantiated the verdict that the law is bad.

 

[muff daddy]

Thinking it could escalate and having it escalate are two entirely different things.
It would also depend of physical evidence on both people.
The survivor would have the burden of proof that he was in fear for his life no matter who instigated the action.