Odds that Luigi gets off?

[Spider-Dan]

You don't think Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, so you don't "approve."
But you do think Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin, which is why I said you "approve" of his death.

And that's the difference here: it's not that you merely "understand" Zimmerman's decision (like you might "understand" Luigi's), it's that you agree with and support Zimmerman's claim that it was reasonable self-defense and not criminal homicide.  To say that's somehow not "approval" is splitting hairs.

[Sibster]

To say that Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justified is to approve of it.  

There are people who disagree with what the law says, but unfortunately the law is the law.   This statement is pure horseshit.   Based on what I've seen, a lot of what you write on here is as well.

[Spider-Dan]

There are people who disagree with what the law says, but unfortunately the law is the law.

If you disagree with the law, then say that.  I have yet to meet a single Zimmerman defender who has argued that the relevant laws themselves are immoral and should be changed.

And even if that is the case: to say that Zimmerman's actions were lawful evil is definitely not "approving" of them.
But that's not what y'all are doing.

[Sibster]

If you disagree with the law, then say that.  I have yet to meet a single Zimmerman defender who has argued that the relevant laws themselves are immoral and should be changed.

And even if that is the case: to say that Zimmerman's actions were lawful evil is definitely not "approving" of them.
But that's not what y'all are doing.

OK, here's what I think actually happened that night:

-Martin was going to the store to get some Skittles.   Like any teen, he was screwing around on the way there.

-Zimmerman saw Martin and like the racist POS he is known to be, started following him.  Even after he called 911 and was advised not to.

-At some point, Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked why he was following him in an aggressive manner

-A physical altercation ensued from there.  At some point, Martin got the upper hand on Zimmerman and out came the gun.


Again, I think Zimmerman is a scumbag.   He was a known racist and was abusive to his now ex-wife.   If he was losing the fight, he should've taken his beating like a man rather than pull out a gun.

But the question that remains unanswered is, who threw the first punch?

[Spider-Dan]

Those questions are all about determining why one does or does not think Zimmerman was justified, which is a different discussion.  My point is that if you think he was justified in using deadly force - in other words, if he obeyed the applicable laws and those laws are just - then you approve of his actions.

You can argue that Zimmerman committed a crime and got away with it (as many people say about OJ and Casey Anthony).
You can argue that Zimmerman followed the law, but the law is unjust (as many say about the slain CEO).
But if you aren't making either of those arguments, you are condoning/endorsing/approving his actions.

[Sibster]

Those questions are all about determining why one does or does not think Zimmerman was justified, which is a different discussion.  My point is that if you think he was justified in using deadly force - in other words, if he obeyed the applicable laws and those laws are just - then you approve of his actions.

You can argue that Zimmerman committed a crime and got away with it (as many people say about OJ and Casey Anthony).
You can argue that Zimmerman followed the law, but the law is unjust (as many say about the slain CEO).
But if you aren't making either of those arguments, you are condoning/endorsing/approving his actions.

Well, here's the thing.   Who threw the first punch?  If it was Zimmerman, he committed a crime.  If it was Martin, then Zimmerman was indeed following the law.   If it was the latter, the law was unjust.   A grown man has no business following a 15 year old boy around like that, let alone getting into a physical altercation.  Plus it's well known that Zimmerman is a POS who liked to start trouble.  Not to mention that I don't agree with the "stand your ground" law.  If you're attacked with fists, you need to respond with fists, not a gun.

Unfortunately, they can't prove who threw the first punch as the incident occurred with no witnesses.

[CF DolFan]

Throwing the first punch has no bearing. If I hit you with the first punch and knock you down and walk away, you have no legal right to shoot me. It 100% matters what is happening at the time of the shooting. Getting your head bashed into a concrete sidewalk over and over is a reasonable expectation to defend yourself and that was proven by both evidence to this head and an eyewitness account of seeing Travon on top of him out their window. Another testified to hearing Zimmerman's screams for help before the gunshot. Had Zimmerman survived and then shot Martin as he was walking away he would not have a legal right to shoot him and would be guilty of murder even if Travon threw the first punch.

[Sibster]

Throwing the first punch has no bearing. If I hit you with the first punch and knock you down and walk away, you have no legal right to shoot me. It 100% matters what is happening at the time of the shooting. Getting your head bashed into a concrete sidewalk over and over is a reasonable expectation to defend yourself and that was proven by both evidence to this head and an eyewitness account of seeing Travon on top of him out their window. Another testified to hearing Zimmerman's screams for help before the gunshot. Had Zimmerman survived and then shot Martin as he was walking away he would not have a legal right to shoot him and would be guilty of murder even if Travon threw the first punch.

Actually it does.   Let's say, Zimmerman threw the first punch and the two got into fisticuffs and at some point, Martin got the upper hand and was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.   Zimmerman should not be justified in pulling out a gun and shooting Martin dead because HE was the aggressor.

[Phishfan]

An aggressor can't invoke Stand Your Ground defense in Florida unless they have tried to retreat from the situation and the other party continues the violence.

[Spider-Dan]

An aggressor can't invoke Stand Your Ground defense in Florida unless they have tried to retreat from the situation and the other party continues the violence.

Of course, if you kill the other party then it's your word against a corpse's as to who was the "aggressor."

[Sibster]

Of course, if you kill the other party then it's your word against a corpse's as to who was the "aggressor."

And that's why Zimmerman got off.   Lack of evidence.   We'll never know what really happened that night unless someone kidnaps him and injects him with sodium pentothal (truth serum).

[CF DolFan]

Actually it does.   Let's say, Zimmerman threw the first punch and the two got into fisticuffs and at some point, Martin got the upper hand and was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.   Zimmerman should not be justified in pulling out a gun and shooting Martin dead because HE was the aggressor.

No, not always. Have you ever met an attorney? haha.  At the point Martin defended himself he has the duty to stop. He can't continue hurting Zimmerman just because. If Zimmerman punched him first but Martin was beating his head in that's two different things. You have to have reasonable belief you are in danger but can only use appropriate level of force to protect yourself.

Reasonable belief of danger. You must have reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily injury. The threat must be more than just words or a minor physical altercation.

Appropriate level of force. The force you used must have been in proportion to the threat posed. Deadly force likely won't be justified to defend against non-deadly force, for example.

[Spider-Dan]

No, not always. Have you ever met an attorney? haha.  At the point Martin defended himself he has the duty to stop. He can't continue hurting Zimmerman just because. If Zimmerman punched him first but Martin was beating his head in that's two different things. You have to have reasonable belief you are in danger but can only use appropriate level of force to protect yourself.

This logic doesn't make sense in an environment with Stand Your Ground laws that enable you to shoot someone in self-defense.  Even in WI (which has no Stand Your Ground law), Kyle Rittenhouse was able to legally kill two people because he was knocked down.

So if Martin was armed, he would have been able to legally shoot Zimmerman in self-defense if Zimmerman attacked him and knocked him down in any fashion.  (Of course, how this would play out in practice is another matter.)

[Phishfan]

Of course, if you kill the other party then it's your word against a corpse's as to who was the "aggressor."

Not in all instances.

[Phishfan]

This logic doesn't make sense in an environment with Stand Your Ground laws that enable you to shoot someone in self-defense.  Even in WI (which has no Stand Your Ground law), Kyle Rittenhouse was able to legally kill two people because he was knocked down.

So if Martin was armed, he would have been able to legally shoot Zimmerman in self-defense if Zimmerman attacked him and knocked him down in any fashion.  (Of course, how this would play out in practice is another matter.)

Being knocked down wasn't his defense. They grabbed for his gun. Do I think he was looking for trouble, of course but if I am legally carrying a gun and someone tries to grab it from me they are getting shot also.