idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My favorite part of this discussion is that there's no room in gbaji's mind to believe that Zimmerman wasn't protected by a self defense law...
Of course there's room for the possibility. The difference is that I'm not basing my assumptions on emotion or rhetoric, but looking at the facts that we can determine about what happened and how the law actually applies. I have repeatedly stated the precise conditions under which Zimmerman would not be protected by self defense law. Those conditions are:
1. He must have started the physical fight.
2. He must have had the opportunity to flee and chose not to.
I believe I stated that somewhere near the beginning of this thread. I have additionally backed that up with direct links to the law in question and quotes of the exact portions of that law from which I'm deriving those conditions. The problem is that instead of responding to those conditions which arguments that Zimmerman violated them, I've gotten a barrage of arguments like "But Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him!" and "Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun in the first place", etc.
Either argue that I'm wrong about the conditions for self defense applying as I've stated them *or* argue that Zimmerman violated those conditions. If you want to argue about completely different things, that's fine, but then don't claim that your arguments somehow counter mine. Cause they don't.
...and no room in his mind to even accept the chance that Martin was.
Except that I have directly addressed this exact question numerous times. Show me where in the law you are allowed to jump on top of someone, pin them to the ground, and pummel them in the face as a protected act of self defense. Can you do that? I've shown exactly how the law says that Zimmerman's act of pulling the trigger at the time he did, is covered by the law. If you want to argue that I'm treating them differently, then try showing how the law protects Martin's actions at the time Zimmerman fired.
Can you do that? If you can't, then perhaps it's *you* who are acting in an irrational and biased way. I'm just looking at the law and applying it to the facts as we know them. How are you deriving a position on the issue? Flipping a coin?
Edited, Jul 11th 2013 5:40pm by gbaji