I don't know exactly what happened that night, but I can certainly give you a scenario where his actions would not constitute self-defense, even if his head was being pounded into the pavement.
If Zimmerman assaulted Martin, a felony, he cannot later claim self-defense if he is losing a fight he started himself. Self-defense cannot be claimed in commission of a felony.
Otherwise, if a perp attempted to mug an innocent citizen, then won the ensuing gun fight, he could claim self-defense and walk.
I'm not claiming that's what happened last year, only that being in the process of losing a fight does not necessarily make lethal action self-defense under the law. Nor should it.
Well, in your premise Zimmerman would have had to walk up to Martin and assault him. Can you explain where you heard that theory? Nobody has charged that, not the police, the prosecutor, or the woman who is now being charged with falsifying the warrant that resulted in Zimmerman’s trial going on now.
In fact a detective just got off the stand saying that Zimmerman’s story seemed accurate.
The prosecutor has had amply opportunity to call any witness he wants, that could reveal your premise. Has he?
Will he? I don’t think there’s a prayer he will.
We’ll see. Could be you’re a sage.
I do appreciate the point you’re making. It’s a solid point. I don’t think it applies here.
Considering the evidence and witnesses have totally supported Z, it seems your comment is complete spin, so much so it’s speeding up the rotation of the planet.
Please stop before we all fly off.
So you’re saying that a guy in a restaurant accidently backs into another guy and spills his drink. The second guy gets right up in his face, nose to nose, and says “Who’s the whore you’re with”, talking about the first guy’s wife standing next to him.
The first guy pushes him back out of his face and he falls down. He then gets up and pulls a knife and runs at the first guy. The first guy pulls out his legal CCW pistol and kills the second guy.
With the first guy “throwing the first punch”, so to speak, you’re saying the first guy cannot now claim self-defense?
I don't believe the State has presented any such evidence have they?
Without them trying to present that claim, why would you even mention it as a possibility here?
DITTO. Freepers need to understand that, and many do not catch this fine point. Premise of the DA charge is if GZ did not follow TM, a whole chain of events would not happen resulting in gunplay. GZ only defense is he followed TM partly, and while returning to his SUV was confronted by an angry TM who turned, followed GZ back to his vehicle. Even at this point what GZ said back to an angry TM is important. If GZ did not answer TM angry confrontation with escalating words or manner he will be innocent. Why is the burden still on GZ? According to the DA GZ initiated the chain of events. If GZ can prove he broke the escalating chain of events that led to the fight and shooting, he will be innocent. Retreating back to the SUV is the first good step, responding to TM in a manner that indicated retreat and attempt to calm the situation will be the next step. Problem is only GZ survived to tell that portion of the story. MAJOR LESSON OF THE TM INCIDENT - If you want to carry a gun and play policeman, know the rules. Cops have a lower threshold they can shoot you. Even if they screw up, their buddies will cover it up. CCW do not have this luxury. Even if GZ wins he will face civil suits or the US gov can put him thru another trial on Civil Rights violations. Even if GZ wins the two trials, he will be financially bankrupt.
“If Zimmerman assaulted Martin, a felony, he cannot later claim self-defense if he is losing a fight he started himself. Self-defense cannot be claimed in commission of a felony.”
I’m pretty sure that you’re not under any obligation to allow yourself to be killed no matter what you did first if you’re not still an active threat.
What you say is false. A person can start a fight with force of violence. They are guilty of a crime, yes, but they don't forfeit the right to save their own hide if the other person escalates it to a fight to the death.
The felony provision has to be a felony independent of the fight. There is a ton of case law on that point.
-- Otherwise, if a perp attempted to mug an innocent citizen, then won the ensuing gun fight, he could claim self-defense and walk. --
That is false too. The person who initiates force (or threatens force) is a criminal, period. The mugger does not get off.
When this trial is over you will have exactly Zero proof that Zimmerman started this fight and you know it, so why introduce your feelings here?