Dangerousman wrote:What makes you say Trayvon was "unfamiliar with his surroundings?" Wiki article states, "Martin had visited his father's fiancée at Twin Lakes several times."
So, okay, you don't like the concept of "presumed innocence" even though it dates back to Roman Law, is contained in among other things English Common Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a cornerstone of the American justice system.
Sorry, but you can't use the fact that Zimmerman had a gun as part of your theory that Martin had a reasonable fear unless you can show that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. There's been absolutely no evidence that he knew about the gun until either the moment he got shot, or immediately beforehand at the soonest.
Absolutely false that the Florida law only requires an "arguable hunch that something was going down" in order to shoot someone. You can't defend that statement in the slightest because it's simply not contained in the law. You might want to check how the term "reasonable belief" is defined in self-defense laws. I suggest before you argue how bad you think a law is that you familiarize yourself with it.
I see you have chosen to subscribe to the prosecution's absurd insinuation that a person is not justified in using deadly force unless they have already suffered life-threatening injuries. Well, there would be a self-defense law that absolutely no one would follow!
Yes, reasonableness and imminence ARE an issue for Zimmerman. I think if your head is in the process of being slammed into concrete, that's "imminent" enough to satisfy any reasonable person. Imminent means "about to happen" but if you want to re-define the word to mean "in progress?" Okay, in this case it WAS in progress.
You're really all over the place here so I'll just respond in kind.
Fine, he knew the area like the back of his hand because he visited three times. Happy? That's a very, very small part of the larger reasonableness inquiry. You can have it, and still lose.
You've completely butchered the concept of presumed innocence, so that's not even worth addressing.
I think it's funny though that you would argue that it was unreasonable for Mr. Martin to believe that the adult acousting him could be carrying a firearm, because the adult who acousted him was, in fact, carrying a fucking firearm. You don't seem to understand the difference between reasonable belief and actual knowledge, which is a recurring theme in your post.
What is reasonable belief if not an arguable hunch? Please, enlighten me with your legal knowledge. I know quite a bit about the law in general, and about self-defense law in particular, but I'm always willing to learn more. Are you sure that you're not thinking of the old standard required for an affirmative defense, like self-defense law used to require before we all went coward in the 90s? Because that was a pretty good standard, it worked quite well for hundreds and hundreds of years, and it seems to be the standard you want to apply to Mr. Martin (though, oddly, not to Mr. Zimmerman).
You also either don't understand or you're deliberately mischaracterizing the prosecution's position on the likelihood of death or great bodily harm. No, you don't have to be half-dead before you defend yourself, but you also can't shoot a teenager just because he popped you in the nose. Again, this is a product of your failure to understand what reasonableness means in the law.
I don't think this situation happened at all like Mr. Zimmerman describes. I continue to believe that Zimmerman delivered his own head wounds with his firearm after he shot Mr. Martin and realized his terrible mistake. That's why the wounds are so superficial, clean and discrete. That's why there's no DNA under Mr. Martin's fingernails. That's why Mr. Martin's hands and knuckles weren't scuffed up. That's why Mr. Zimmerman lied to the cops about his knowledge and understanding of self-defense law.
This guy knew exactly what he did wrong when he shot a kid for punching him. We'll see if he knew enough to get away with it.