SVPD wrote:TheHammer wrote:
Even assuming that is true, look at it from Martin's perspect. If Zimmerman was following him and armed with a handgun, wasn't Martin thus exercising his own rights to defend himself via the "stand your ground" law? Maybe he felt that if he let up for an instant, this armed man who had been following him for some unknown reason was going to blow him away. That's how I'd view it...
He might initially have been exercising his right to self defense, but that does not extend to getting someone down and then beating their head in. It might if they already did something or said something that expressed the intent to use deadly force against you, but if they didn't you can't just escalate to deadly force simply because they are armed.
Assuming he drew his gun and the fact that he wasn't a cop I'd take that as an expressed intent to use deadly force. Second, Kamikaze Sith said that the "witness account" was that he was "beating their head in" however, that's NOT what the fuck the story he posted said... Specifically:
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
Where the hell is this "john" anyway? His side was reported back in February, and only then to a reporter. It also contradicts other reports on who was yelling for help. One has to wonder if this "John" was telling the truth, or if his side has been debunked at this point.
But lets assume that it is true... It only indicated that Martin was on top at the time he saw the struggle. It would be tough to imagine how Zimmerman got his gun drawn if he was in that situation, unless he had already drawn his gun and was battling with Martin for control of it.
The person who provokes the incident shouldn't be able to use a "self defense" excuse to get off scott free whenever they bite off more than they can chew. As noted, you could essentially kill anyone by simply provoking a fight with them, letting them win sufficiently that you are injured, then blasting them and claim you were fearful for your life. In those instances, the provocateur should at the very least be charged with aggravated manslaughter, or second degree murder - and I'd err on the latter.
First of all, unless I'm missing something, I've not yet seen where Zimmerman provoked the incident. He might have, but all that we're sure that he did was follow the kid, and then later, he shot him. There's a gap in there we're trying to ill in and so far have not been able to.
The alternative would be that Martin provoked the incident despite the fact that he repeatedely tried to get away from the guy following him. Zimmerman's stated reason as to why he got out of his truck doesn't make any logical sense. The
story he gave police was that he wanted to "check what street he was on". Firstly, its raining and he seemed to think it unusual for someone to be out walking in the rain. Second It's his neighborhood, why would he not know which street he was coming up to? Third, street signs are placed in such a way that they are visible so you don't have to get out of your vehicle to use them. It's an obvious lie. The truth is that Zimmerman was tired of this "fucking punks (or coons whichever you believe he said" and these "assholes always getting away". He had motive to attack Martin.
Following someone might be disturbing or alarming to them, but it isn't automatically a threat or an assault, nor a provocation. Furthermore, it's very dangerous to use "provoked the incident" as a standard. Does simple verbal provocation somehow justify the provoked person in beating the tar out of the loudmouth, or even killing him? The loudmouth can't defend themself at all without being guilty of assault or murder? I'd be interested to know if you therefore think it's ok for police officers to use any amount of force they want if someone "provokes" them?
Yes even if the incident is simple "verbal provocation" the instigator shouldn't be able to get off scott free if they end up killing the person they provoked. Obviously, if you really feel your life is in danger you gotta do what you gotta do and use deadly force. But there should be consequences nonetheless that will force you to use that line as a very last resort, or again you fall back to the same line where you could essentially kill anyone by provoking an incident.
And it would seem to me SVPD that in many instances cops do use whatever amount of force they feel is neccessary to stop an assailant. If they had an armed man down on the ground I don't think they'd stop until he was disarmed. Obviously Martin didn't get him disarmed, and until the danger was removed I believe he would be justified in continuing to defend himself. Unfortunately his defense of his life failed.
