Martin was on Zimmerman hitting him. That is when the self defense came in.
In the Dunn situation, Dunn did the aggression when he assaulted the car. Up to that there was no physical threat from the teens as what I've heard. So there is no connection between the cases except race.
If one just uses race, then all of us white guys are predators on black guys. Is that what it is. Are you and I racists killers in the closet
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Well sure, if you read rags like The Blaze, they'll publish "witness accounts" that will elevate Zimmerman to role model stature.
The facts are that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Zimmerman got out of his car and — against the instructions from the PD dispatcher — followed Martin through the complex. And if Martin decided to stand his ground and knock this vigilante wannabe on his ass, he deserved to be shot?
With all die respect, Dave, if you think Zimmerman was justified in shooting, I worry a/b you having a gun.
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Originally Posted By: MrB
Well, Zimmerman was thought not to have initiated the confrontation as he was the one upon whom the physical contact was first put upon.
In the case of Dunn, he was (apparently) never physically confronted. He thought he saw a shotgun. One that was even by his own admission never fired*. It may have never existed. The STYG law affords him the benefit of the doubt because of what he perceived, not of what actually may have been the case. Which is, of course, an issue.
I wrote a lot more here, but in writing the footnote below, I realized that it was really the issue:
*Although, let me clear: if I truly thought someone had pointed a shotgun at me, I probably would have taken whatever actions I thought would have stopped what I believed was going to happen, including shooting them first. BUT (and this is important!), I would also have been willing to accept the consequences if I had been wrong. The problem with SYG laws is that even though you truly thought you are endangered, if you are wrong your are legally entirely without responsibility.
It simply leads to vigilantism without consequences ...
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.