Yuku free message boards

Ol Badger wrote:

---

Bobadger wrote:

---

If Martin actually was the first party to react with physical violence, then that is where the incident started. If that is what happened, then Martin started the incident IMO.   

Seriously?  Some guy is following him, scares him to death (that phone conversation with the girlfriend is quite specific), confronts him, but if he tries to defend himself and gets shot to death it's his own fault?

I suggest you talk to your priest, minister, rabbi, or spirtual advisor, if you have any of those, and see whether you find a moral code in which that would be acceptable.

So you can start beating anyone that you assume is following you?   People carrying skittles can attack a hispanic man for monitoring the safety of his neighborhood, especially in areas plagued by buglaries and other crimes?    What phone conversation?   The alleged phone conversation?   The alleged scared to death?   Over actual evidence of a broken nose and beaten face (if medical evidence supports that).   What was Martin defending, the right to punch a hispanic man in a red shirt?    Why was Martin profiling Zimmerman as some sort of attacker?    Zimmerman was allegedly stopping to say hello and see what was up.

bhambadger wrote:

---

Bobadger wrote:

---

If Martin actually was the first party to react with physical violence, then that is where the incident started. If that is what happened, then Martin started the incident IMO. You can't just physically attack someone because they were following you. Martin wouldn't have been shot had he not physically attacked Zimmerman either. You can't just call Zimmerman the instigator because he followed someone.

And what would have prevented Martin from killing him and successfully invoking stand your ground? Maybe the fact that you can only respond with force if you are met with force first. In Zimmerman's account, Martin was the first party to react with force.

Again, I'm not saying Zimmerman's account is what actually 100% happened, but I'm just pointing out that we don't know. Ryebadger stated that Zimmerman accosted Martin and Martin responded with his fists in self defense as if it were a fact.

And yet you describe situations where Martin was stadning his ground and not giving him the same due as you did when you claim that Zimmerman was standing his ground.

Who followed who? As far as Zimmerman knew, Martin had done nothing wrong. There was no need to follow Martin, especially once he had called 911 and reported his suspicions to the police. So if I'm Martin and I determine that I am being followed, at that moment I am in fear and under the law have the right to defend myself. It wasn't Martin that caused the sense of fear, it was Zimmerman. Therefore, Zimmerman cannot have a claim to self defense. He is the instigator.

  

You are wrong, according to the law.   The argument about Zimmerman following Martin and instigating things is meaningless - and that is totally unrelated to stand your ground.    Fear isn't reason enough to stand your ground.   Getting your face beat in and head smashed on the concrete warrants self defense, regardless of which character is the aggressor.   The howls about Martin protecting himself are meaningless unless he was being beat.   The medical evidence at this point doesn't support that argument for Martin.    Zimmerman could have been the instigator (he clearly wasn't), but he still had a legal right to shoot Martin if he was being beaten.

I suggest you listen to the Dershowitz video.   

I think he nails it when he says this prosecutor went in guns blazing with the baseless 2nd degree murder charge, thinking she could get a manslaughter plea and play the hero.   I don't think there is a shred of evidence to support manslaughter, even though that charge made the most sense.    If the defense has any balls, they'll tell the DA to pound sand.   The state inventing a serious charge hoping for a plea deal stinks of politics.   I'd hammer this DA's lack of judgement and go to trial.