Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.
No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".
If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.
All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.
My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.
|