Results 31 to 40 of 88
-
05-20-2012, 07:36 PM #31
Agreed. But the one thing we don't know is who absolutely started the fight. I think for the most part that a lot of people have been going on the assumption that Martin actually started the physical confrontation because that's Zimmermans story. But I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman started the confrontation and Martin felt threatened enough to fight. Maybe he thought he could take Martin but found himself on the business end of a provoked beat down. In that case would he really have a right to a self-defense claim? I don't know I wasn't there. Unfortunately we'll never be able to hear the other side of the story and there doesn't seem to be any eyewitnesses to how the fight started.
I think the pictures alone may be great proof that it was self-defense. But we have to remember that just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.
-
-
05-21-2012, 09:23 AM #32
just because you're the one on the ground getting punched that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't start the fight.
yes sir, good point
-
05-21-2012, 10:29 AM #33
that's definitely a great point. However, even if a person starts a fight and he starts to lose, that person would still be able to defend himself if the person who didn't instigate the fight initially starts beating him to the point of where he felt his life was in danger. I get that it would be pretty deserved in such scenario. Even if zimmerman instigated and martin defended himself at first, at some point martin would have gone past defense and just beating zimmerman had zimmerman started calling for help and stopped fighting back. that's all hypothetical of course.
-
-
05-21-2012, 11:04 AM #34
Catch22 is that starting the confrontation does not equate to deserving being beaten to death (I am assuming bashing someone's head on concrete can kill them). Different states have different laws but here in WV if someone is agressive towards me I have the right to defend myself. If I knock them down and then climb on them and start beating the crap out of them my self-defense claim goes out and I am charged with assault.
My point is this. Even if Zimmerman was the agressor, Martin's actions of bashing his head into the pavement goes beyond the norms of self-defense on his part. It is logical to conclude that with Martin on top of him banging his head on the concrete that Zimmerman feared for his life.
It certainly changes things if Zimmerman assaulted Martin, but following him, asking him what he was doing, etc. do not equate to good cause for Martin to assault Zimmerman.
-
05-21-2012, 11:09 AM #35
I think the question is where self-defense (on Martin's part) would come to an end. If Zimmerman assaulted him first then Martin had a right to fight back. The question is, was holding him down bashing his head on concrete self-defense?
-
-
05-21-2012, 11:55 AM #36
+1
so many people are throwing out the claim that if zimmerman was following martin then he started the altercation and martin had a right to "defend" himself.
if zimmerman started the fight, that is a whole different story, but just following him doesn't qualify as starting the fight.
-
05-21-2012, 01:41 PM #37
As a member of the Community Watch in a private gated community his primary purpose is to question the presence of strangers.
A few days ago a lady was sitting in the entrance to my subdivison when I got home. I went over to her car and inquired as to why she was there. Turned out she was pulled over to talk on her cell phone. I apologized for disturbing her and went on about my business. As a resident (not even a Community Watch member) I had the right to do that. My asking her what she was doing did not give her grounds to become hostile or confrontational.
The idea that Martin had the right to be aggressive or confrontational because Zimmerman was following him or questioned him is ludicrous.
-
-
05-21-2012, 01:50 PM #38BANNED
Thats the thing, Zimmerman could have grabbed martin, threatened him or did something to provoke him and then do what he did and claim self defense and it all goes back to him following him after being told not to so. Zimmerman could have had a bad day, been in a bad mood or just feeling the a big man complex... I just think people have to have an open mind towards this whole mess as they are just as many arguments for either end but the fact that Martin is dead and cannot defend his action says alot.....
-
05-21-2012, 02:13 PM #39
see, the same people who talk about everyone having open minds are the very ones who come up with scenarios where zimmerman is completely in the wrong. all are speculation but apparently only one side is supposed to be open minded
-
05-21-2012, 02:21 PM #40
First the 911 operator told Zimmerman that he 'didn't need to' he was never told not to not follow him. It was more of a suggestion than a demand. And if Zimmerman felt strongly about what he was doing as part of community watch, as most should, he would still go about. What would you do if you were questioning yourself about a certain person around the neighborhood that you looked after? How would you feel if someone not around there said don't think you should do that and you listen but then hear about something bad happening the next morning? Now I don't know about you but as for me I would much rather do a little more investigating than think maybe I should mind my own business and if a neighbors house is broken into, if one of my neighbors gets hurt because of it so be it.
Yes we're only hearing one side but as more and more information comes out its starting to get much clearer with how things went down that night. The one thing I don't like is people still calling Trayvon a 'kid'. He was 17, I know and I hope others on this board would have been insulted at 17 if someone called them a kid. At 17 I was in school and working two jobs, I was paying my own bills, I was for sure old enough to know right from wrong
-
Originally Posted by duane1969 
