The reason I ask is because I would think both parties agree that Zimmerman was clocked in the face by Traydmark™ , so what exactly is the prosecution trying to prove here? That Zimmerman should have allowed Traydmark™ to hit him again or risked Traydmark™ hitting him again?
How many punches must one receive before one is allowed to take action? To me ANY punch can be an attempt on ones life because I have read a few stories in the past where someone punches someone and the person they hit falls and cracks their head on the pavement and dies. So what is their argument here? This trial is insane.
Different states have different laws, but in Florida all that is required for justifiable use of deadly force is that the person holds "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." Further in the statute it adds the possible commission of a forcible felony as justification.
There are some reasonable caveats to that, of course. For instance, if a law enforcement officer enters a dwelling during performance of his official duties, a person obviously cannot shoot him (i.e. a gangbanger cannot shoot a cop who enters his house to arrest him). None of these exceptions would apply to the Zimmerman case.
If he is on top pummeling you, you have no way to escape- the next punch could kill you
I say justified self-defense- especially if Trayvon saw the gun and was going for it (as Z claims)
How many other people who knew or were around Saint Skittles are dead? Any unsolved burglaries or murders?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've taken multiple courses covering the law as regards self defense.
If somebody punches you AND STOPS or runs away, you do not have the right to use deadly force, because it is not needed to stop the attack. The attack is already stopped.
You do not have the right to use deadly force in revenge or retaliation, only to STOP an attack from proceeding further. Thus, if a big/strong/fit man hits, and looks like he will continue to hit, somebody smaller/weaker, and the force of the assault may reasonably be assumed to be able to cause death or grievous bodily harm, then you may use deadly force to stop the attack.
Trayvon, at the instant the shot was fired, was engaged in a serious beating of Zimmerman, which had caused head injuries, and could reasonably be assumed to be able to cause brain damage if it continued. Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and unable to escape. By accepted standards of self defense, Zimmerman was justified in firing in order to STOP the assault from proceeding further.
“So what is their argument here? This trial is insane.”
That is why no charges where brought initially. This trial is validating everything the police did from the start, until political pressure was brought to bear.
It is insane. They’re trying to make it appear that Z had no reason to fear for his life, that the injuries were minor and he obviously took things too far. At the same time they want to argue that for TM it was OK to initiate violence because he was “scared for his life” as somebody was following him.
It seems the two arguments conflict, either you’re allowed to escalate force in fear of your life or you’re not. There’s people who want it both ways, but only in TM’s favor.
Althought the laws of self-defense differ from state-to-state, under the facts that you have presented you would NOT have the right to use lethal force in response to "just" a sucker punch. Within the context of a sucker punch, lethal force may only be used to stop the attack or the threat of an imminent attack if the victim reasonably believes that his life is in danger or that he will suffer serious bodily harm.* If the attacker connects with "just a sucker punch" and then disengages, then the right to use deadly force ends with the disengagement.
*Note that "serious bodily harm" is much narrower than the "health of the mother" exception to the ban on late term abortion in that serious bodily harm generallt requires a lot more than mere discomfort, pain, or anxiety.