This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He said he was. That is sufficient.

I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.

Zimmerman is clearly guilty of murder unless he can demonstrate self defence as a legal defence, that's the same in the US as elsewhere.

Frankly, I think he's probably guilty of whatever passes for manslaughter in Florida on the grounds of diminished responsibility and should probably get about five years.

[rvg]

I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.

The reason I say that is that I would think if Zimmerman shot Martin while he was being beaten he would have had to struggle to pull the weapon and must therefore have had defensive wounds which reflect that.

Unless, of course, he approached with the weapon drawn - in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.

[rvg]

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.

Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.

That's what you think.

...in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.

Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.

That's what you think.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.

Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified.

Conversely, Martin had no weapon.

[rvg]

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.

Not to me. Bang. I'm not about to depend on the benevolence of some hoodlum who found it fitting to start a brawl. Bang.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.

In your opinion, perhaps not. It wasn't your call though.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.

That's quite alright.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.

Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified. Conversely, Martin had no weapon.

Fists can also be lethal. That's no excuse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?