"If you swing at someone in Ohio, you're breaking the law unless you were defending yourself from an actual attack or have reason to believe you were subject to a pending attack.
Zimmerman could have acted like a bozo racist and I certainly am open to the idea that he was an idiot zealot. That doesn't make it lawful to swing at him in Ohio and I doubt if it does in Florida."
So if you are 17 and black and some psycho dude is following you with a crazed adrenaline filled look on his face, approaching you with racist rants and you fear he is going to attack you cause he is a whack job, you gonna let him swing first? IF (thats a big if cause I dont know the facts) the kid was scared shiitless casue he was being tracked down by a racist whack job and he decided to fight after intially trying the flight method, then it was OK for Zimmerman to kill him?
All I know is that if Zimmerman backed off initially and Martin did not attack, then he ain't dead. Clearly Zimmerman's actions started this chain and not vice-versa.
Let me change the facts for you. Your son is walking down the street minding his own fukkin business in an area of town he is not that familiar with. A black "thug" is following him with a menancing look on his face and asking him, "what the fukk you doin here cracker?" "Get the fukk outt here motherfukker." Your son starts to walk faster only to be followed faster till he is scared out of his wits and when the thug gets within arms length he drills him only to be plugged by the thug. You OK with that?
Sorry but I responded to this prior to reading your entire post. You went on to state:
"So you can't lawfully respond with serious physical harm to someone for his merely being a racist bozo (and again, I'm not saying that Martin did that, but prosecutors would have to prove that he didn't.)"
Actually, self defense is Martin's defense, something HE would have to prove. The prosecutor only has to show that Zimmermann killed him. Zimmerman has to prove his defense. If Zimmerman claimed self defense, the prosecution's counter to that defense would be that Martin feared for his safety by Zimmerman's actions and rightfully initiated force. However, the prosecutor could simply put on evidence that an unarmed kid was shot and then Zimmerman has to prove the facts for self-defense. If he is able to convince 12 that such was the case OK but he should be tried. Afterall self defense is a DEFENSE, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove it before a conviction can be had.
This message has been edited by dacow on Mar 28, 2012 7:44 AM This message has been edited by dacow on Mar 28, 2012 7:41 AM This message has been edited by dacow on Mar 28, 2012 7:26 AM This message has been edited by dacow on Mar 28, 2012 7:26 AM This message has been edited by dacow on Mar 28, 2012 7:25 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.