This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[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?

[Whacker]

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?

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

I just love how you take every oppertunity to insult me.

You think I'm naive?

No - Martin could have beaten Zimmerman to death, but it was less likely than Martin being shot and killed. There are a plethora of problems with Zimmerman's story, but the biggest one is that he seems to claim that he followed Martin and then Martin spontaneously attacked him.

That doesn't add up.

As yet no convincing motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman has been brought forward other than Zimmerman starting an altercation and then Martin overreacting (or not, depending on where the gun was).

Being followed in the dark is creepy and that appears to have been what Zimmerman did, he followed Martin.

So far as I can see Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can prove that Martin represented a credible threat to his life, at the very least he is guilty of whatever you guys call voluntary manslaughter.

Just because Martin was still a threat does not mean Zimmerman's life was in immidiate danger - and the Police were already on their way by this point.

This case stinks - and it still looks the same as it ever did, there was a fight and one guy had a gun so the other guy went to the morgue.

[rvg]

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

Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

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

Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

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.

Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

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

Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

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

And Martin attacked Zimmerman. And he was likely high...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The burden is on the prosecution, not the defense. They would have to prove he was not in fear of his life.

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.

Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.

Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

Given the state of the hospitals and lack of professional law enforcement I live in fear that I might have to visit your country. A largely irrational fear, admittedly, but between the friend of Banquo's who got beaten up by New York Police for crossing the road and the Guardian journalist who nearly lost her arm to spider bites I don't trust my luck, which is bad.

Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.

Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

And Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."

Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?

What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?

[Xiahou]

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Well, let's see....

In Florida, a homicide case can be thrown out by a judge before trial because the defendant successfully invokes self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim in order to bring charges, rather than do so in the trial. The Florida state attorney leading the prosecution told ABC news that the self-defense law means it is "more difficult than a normal criminal case" to bring charges.

Understand, I think Zimmerman was overzealous and should have stayed in the car- that doesn't make him a murderer though. He probably wasn't charged initially because the DA's office knew that charges couldn't stick.

[rvg]

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.

No, it's the other way around. It's self defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.

Not necessary... he could have pulled a gun just as Martin was charging right at him.

And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.

Que?

Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."

Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?

Sure. The survivor gets the presumption of innocence. He beat Zimmerman to death in self-defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.

What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?

Nothing. Zimmerman said he was defending himself, and there's little reason to doubt him.