In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

How in the world are they supposed to EVER convict someone of murder, then, barring the most blatant pieces of evidence?

It ALSO says that you are criminally responsible for his death if he makes it clear that he wants to surrender, even if he attacked you first. I don't even understand what that means, though. Who the hell is going to take the word of the guy with a gun that just jumped them? I wouldn't.

Aye, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals. But these are things that I wonder about with the case, because of all the gaps that have to be filled in. Little things like whether Martin saw a gun could really change the dynamic of the situation to me. There's no evidence one way or the other, so it remains to be seen.

I would. You're statistically more likely to be injured or killed if you're confronted by someone with a weapon and don't comply, and you're far less likely to survive if you actively fight back. Confrontation should be your last resort.

"Give me your wallet or die!"
"Yelp, here you go. Enjoy."

Sure, I'd fight back if I didn't know the reason and the gun was an unknown variable, but once it was introduced I sure as hell would stop. I might still get shot, but the chances of being shot are much higher if you do continue. To put it simply, if I'm gambling with my life I'd rather bet on Red than 32. Even if it's only a 50% chance, it's still higher than the alternative.

Yeah, I was thinking that they had a weapon, but I otherwise had them disabled. They're trying to surrender, but I'm the only thing keeping them from actually using the weapon on me. Chances are I'm not going to take that leap of faith.

Quick and dirty example, I have them pinned to the ground, and the gun is still holstered or something. Or maybe it's beneath them/ just out of reach/whatever. I can't grab the gun without letting them go, but neither can they. To be fair, I actually have no clue what I'd do in the situation, but I don't see myself just taking their word for it and backing off. And I definitely don't know any way to continue to disable them while getting the gun away.

Just seems ridiculous that the law requires you to accept their surrender or lose your ability to claim self defense. When there's a weapon involved (and you aren't in complete control of it), I'm not entirely sure you ever can truly believe their intention to surrender.

If you've got them pinned, then you roll them on their stomach and scream in their ear to stretch their arms out, palms up, and put their feet shoulder length apart with their big toes and heels touching the ground. You do that because if they try to escape they'll be completely off balance and you can react much faster than they can. At that point you'd draw their far arm back holding their thumb, followed by the closer arm, and cuff them. Barring actual police action for a civilian I'd say that would be a pretty good time to open up a line of communication to find out what's going on.

After all, if anything really is clear about this case it's that 99% of it was because of misunderstandings and a complete lack of communication. I'm more likely to fight back against someone when I've got a rifle, forty pounds of ceramic plates and at least three people similarly geared against someone in a mandress and AK47 than I am walking to the gas station to get a hot dog.

Like I said, it's about going with the safer bet.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 5:19pm by lolgaxe

Wesley Snipes says, "Always bet on black.". I don't know who to believe. [:sad:]

I always joke about not knowing any black people because everyone I know who claims they are are actually varying shades of brown. But Wesley Snipes? That guy is black.

When there's no evidence of self defense. I think the problem here is that people continue to ignore the most critical part of this. Zimmerman's description of the sequence of events, the physical evidence at the scene, and at least 3 different eye witness reports all were in agreement and supported his claim of self defense. Zimmerman doesn't get to start just claiming self defense. Self defense has to be the clear determination at the scene (and it was, overwhelming, in this case).

Once that has happened *then* the burden falls on the police and prosecutors to find evidence that the shooting fails to meet the requirements of self defense.


As I keep repeating over and over, the facts of the scene itself at the time the police arrived all pointed to a legitimate case of self defense. When you've got three witnesses all saying that the shooter was on his back with the other guy on top of him punching him just prior to the shot being fired, that puts the whole thing into the self defense category. At that point, you have to show sufficient evidence to change that assessment. So far, no one has. And frankly, none of even the speculative ideas floating around in this thread are sufficient to do so.


If we'd just found Martin dead with Zimmerman standing over him, with no witnesses and none of the physical evidence (No bloody nose, wound in the back of his head, grass stains on his back, etc) then it's quite certain Zimmerman would have been charged with manslaughter. But the evidence at the time is very very powerfully in support of self defense. As I've said before, this is nearly as perfect an example of legitimate use of a concealed weapon in self defense as you can get. If you asked 100 experts on self defense laws to list their top 5 scenarios in which lethal force is justified for self defense, they'd probably all list this exact situation (shooter on his back with an assailant on top of him continuing to beat him, with no sign that anyone was running over to help) as number 1 or 2 on their lists.


It's really that clear. And that's why the police correctly did not press charges.

That's not clear.