quote:quote:
That could just as easily be explained by the fact that Zimmerman sucks at fighting.
I don't think you really know what "sucks at fighting" is, if you think Zimmerman is the one that sucks. He's on trial, because he's still alive. I wouldn't necessarily call him "sucky" at "fighting".
quote:
Its pretty easy to see that an out of shape 30something having his head beaten into the ground by a 17 year old football player has a reasonable fear for his life. The question then becomes, who initiated the assault. Following someone is not an assault. Asking someone what they are doing is not an assault. The only evidence that we (as the public) have seen of an assault are the injuries to Zimmerman's face and head, and the corresponding injuries to Martin's hands. The only testimony we have as to what happened by anyone that was in a position to see the incident is Zimmerman's. The physical evidence that we have corroborates his account of the story. Other witnesses were separated by distance, walls of homes, and the weather, and did not completely see or hear what happened. I don't see enough actual evidence in anything that has been presented so far to cause me to dismiss Zimmerman's account of the confrontation.
quote:
quote:
it's not within your rights to get in a fight, lose it, then shoot the other person
Not exactly. You don't have the right to START a fight, lose it, and then shoot someone. If someone starts a fight with you, and you have a reasonable fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.
Its pretty easy to see that an out of shape 30something having his head beaten into the ground by a 17 year old football player has a reasonable fear for his life. The question then becomes, who initiated the assault. Following someone is not an assault. Asking someone what they are doing is not an assault. The only evidence that we (as the public) have seen of an assault are the injuries to Zimmerman's face and head, and the corresponding injuries to Martin's hands. The only testimony we have as to what happened by anyone that was in a position to see the incident is Zimmerman's. The physical evidence that we have corroborates his account of the story. Other witnesses were separated by distance, walls of homes, and the weather, and did not completely see or hear what happened. I don't see enough actual evidence in anything that has been presented so far to cause me to dismiss Zimmerman's account of the confrontation.
quote:
anyone who instigates verbally should not be able to use a self-defense argument
quote:
what does him being a teenager have anything to do with it?
he was 17, not 13
[This message has been edited by OEagg11 (edited 6/26/2013 5:05p).]
quote:
I'll take on all comers.
quote:
I'm too old to be fighting with children.
quote:
If you can't defend yourself in hand to hand combat against an unarmed, 170 lb teenager, then you are a p***y.
quote:
If you can't defend yourself in hand to hand combat against an unarmed, 170 lb teenager, then you are a p***y.
quote:
quote:
anyone who instigates verbally should not be able to use a self-defense argument
And there, you shall be forever outside the law. If you were right, simple thugs would run the world.
quote:
That verbal threat needs to be considered.
quote:
That's bulls***, Rob. I don't know where you're from, but if you are following someone and then they confront you, you can't claim "sucker punch". You had your eye on him the entire time.
quote:
That's why you have a court system to weigh the facts of each situation.
quote:
Like I said, I could verbally antagonize someone with the intention of lethally "defending my life" when he attacks. If verbal attacks aren't taken into considerations, then thugs already rule the day.
quote:
Like I said, I could verbally antagonize someone with the intention of lethally "defending my life" when he attacks. If verbal attacks aren't taken into considerations, then thugs already rule the day.
quote:
That's why you have a court system to weigh the facts of each situation. That verbal threat needs to be considered. To clarify, if the court deems that a person who has committed a supposed "self-defense" killing did make a verbal threat to instigate a physical fight. If the court deems that there was verbal aggression, then that person shouldn't have the right to kill with out consequence if he is physically overpowered and "feels as though his life is threatened".
Like I said, I could verbally antagonize someone with the intention of lethally "defending my life" when he attacks. If verbal attacks aren't taken into considerations, then thugs already rule the day.
quote:
I'm saying that the court should be able to over-ride a self-defense argument
quote:
If I tell you that you are going to die tonight, while I am straddling you on the ground and beating your head into the ground, which is what Zimmerman's statement says Martin said, than a reasonable person has a right to be in fear of their life.
