Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak
I don't believe Treyvan intended to kill Zimmerman, but he might have killed him anyway. He certainly wasn't stopping, even after Zimmerman started screaming for help. He kept on pounding away.
|
According to FL law, Martin had every right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. He was stalked and confronted. And had every reason to fear for his life. We now know what he did not. Martin had more reasons than he knew to fear for his life.
Nobody knows who was calling for help. But we do know who the aggressor was. 'Shorty' created the entire problem. And deserved to have the crap beaten from his body.
Martin died because he was doing what FL laws says he should do. Use as much force as possible when one fears for their life.
If Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, would he have acted intelligently? Probably. Instead he foolishly did what he had done so many times previously. So many times, he saw a black man and reported him as a suspect criminal. Zimmerman repeatedly acted on his emotions. Assumed based only on observation and speculation rather than think rationally like an adult.
Zimmerman's previous actions imply he saw black men as criminals. Is that illegal? If not, then we have one example of reasonable doubt.
I'm not exactly sure which part constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. Jurors are not talking. Required details are not specific. Not even listed here. We really need to hear the jurors interviewed. Curiously, they all have refused.
It's no longer a question of what is fair. Fair (and legal under FL law) is for Martin to seriously harm or even kill Zimmerman. Fair is irrelevant. Only relevant question is what is legal. Will Federal charges be filed against the gun for violating a human's civil rights?