I see no evidence for that. I can't help but think that those who keep saying that in light of the evidence at trial are guilty of racially profiling Zimmerman.
Are you serious? Zimmerman's allegation is that Zimmerman walked over to where he was standing, jumped him, and started pummeling with blows. If true, that is an act of active aggression and initiation of force, not self-defense. An example of stand your ground would be if M. is was first attacked and chose to fight back. A person doesn't have a right to attack someone under SYG if they are merely being followed. Now....maybe M. attacked first, but I don't know of anyone in the case who makes that argument.
I think you mean Martin walked over, not Zimmerman. You miss my point. I was pointing to an irony in the complaint about stand your ground. If you believe the prosecution's account, then Martin did something like stand his ground. I don't say I believe that account. The prosecution neither carried its burden or proof nor impeached the self-defense account.
No irony. If some creepy guy followed me in his car, then got out and confronted me, and I thought (or saw) that he had a gun, beating him into unconsciousness, rather than trying to flee, might seem just the thing.
I don't agree with your account of the case. But that aside,the irony is that the pro-Martin side wants "stand your ground" repealed because in their (mistaken) view it let Zimmerman get away with murder.
I see no evidence for that. I can't help but think that those who keep saying that in light of the evidence at trial are guilty of racially profiling Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Zimmerman's allegation is that Zimmerman walked over to where he was standing, jumped him, and started pummeling with blows. If true, that is an act of active aggression and initiation of force, not self-defense. An example of stand your ground would be if M. is was first attacked and chose to fight back. A person doesn't have a right to attack someone under SYG if they are merely being followed. Now....maybe M. attacked first, but I don't know of anyone in the case who makes that argument.
ReplyDeleteI think you mean Martin walked over, not Zimmerman. You miss my point. I was pointing to an irony in the complaint about stand your ground. If you believe the prosecution's account, then Martin did something like stand his ground. I don't say I believe that account. The prosecution neither carried its burden or proof nor impeached the self-defense account.
ReplyDeleteSorry. Not enough coffee. I missed the irony at first glance and agree with you.
ReplyDeleteThe word irony was in the title but not in the text. My bad?
ReplyDeleteNo irony. If some creepy guy followed me in his car, then got out and confronted me, and I thought (or saw) that he had a gun, beating him into unconsciousness, rather than trying to flee, might seem just the thing.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your account of the case. But that aside,the irony is that the pro-Martin side wants "stand your ground" repealed because in their (mistaken) view it let Zimmerman get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteA greater irony is that he was retro-actively sentenced to death for it with no due process.
ReplyDelete