Reply to Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]With that being said, I still find fault with the logic that Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot an unarmed person even if that unarmed person was kicking his ass. Zimmerman went out looking for a fight. If he got it, which it sounds like he did, and couldn't handle it, that's his own fault for engaging a person he was specifically told NOT to engage. At no point, even if Trayvon WAS kicking the shit out of him, was he within his rights to shoot him. He was the aggressor, he had a weapon and clearly could see Trayvon was not. Being kicked does not = being in fear for your life. He knew the police were coming as HE has called them. There was no excuse to shoot a boy HE hunted down and engaged. Even assuming the theory you suggest is correct, a teenage boy does not deserve to lose his life because someone with a hero-complex tracked him down, picked a fight, and then realized he was possibly outmatched. If George Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked by Trayvon Martin, it was his own fault, and shooting the person who he FORCED into a fight was not "standing his ground." [/quote]Here's what Florida's aggressor statute says:

776.041Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: 
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or 
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: 
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or 
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I understand that you think it shouldn't be so, but subsection 2(a) clearly permits the use of force by someone who "provokes the use of force against himself" if the force being used against him is "so great that [he] reasonably believes that he . . . is in imminent danger of . . . great bodily harm" and cannot reasonably escape.  An eyewitness claims he saw Z on the ground with T on top of him, hitting him.  Apparently, Z's physical condition supports that story.  That certainly appears as if Z could have been afraid he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm and could not escape, thereby permitting the use of force (even deadly force), notwithstanding that he was the aggressor.  It's all there in print.  You can find fault with the logic all you want - I do too, it's an absurd law that never should have been passed - but finding fault with it post-facto doesn't change it, and it's juvenille to stick your head in the sand and pretend reality is what you want it to be, rather than what it really is.  I hope other facts come to light that alter the situation, and I may very well be missing something important - if so, please tell me what it is.  And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that, " a teenage boy does not deserve to lose his life because someone with a hero-complex tracked him down, picked a fight, and then realized he was possibly outmatched."  Of course T didn't deserve this.  But that changes nothing about the analysis of the effect of the law and the eyewitness testimony now out in public.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics