Oracle, read what you quoted of me closer:

Meaning if they can prove that Martin stopped the assault, he will be charged with something.


Ethically right or not, it's legal, provided the robber has forcibly entered your home or place of residence.


I don't think you are understanding what "Stand Your Ground" means.



It doesn't matter what he said originally, I don't expect everybody to be completely fluent in the law book. He still has the right to defend himself, even if it's not writting under Stand Your Ground, it's written elsewhere. As I said like 15 times in this thread, if the witness saw Martin stop, Zimmerman is fucked. If not, Zimmerman walks.


Court cases are pretty damn expensive, and he can't go to work or anywhere in public thanks to a rather large bounty on his head. I don't think he's trying to get rich quick or some shit like that.

I understand what Stand Your Ground means. I also understand that the rhetoric of the law says something different. It says that force is allowed for the use of self-defense should a threat be perceived, and there is no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat means that, if there is an option to retreat from danger, a.k.a. not engage the perceived threat, which is what Zimmerman did, then you are not required to do that under this law. Under this law, you are legally allowed to hunt down your perceived threat should you choose to. The wording is so vague that I could literally pursue what I perceive to be a threat, and if that pursuit causes my perceived threat to react violently to me, say in self-defense, then I'm legally allowed to shoot him. THAT is why this law is flawed, and THAT is why it needs a revision.

This also touches an interesting paradox. Since Zimmerman went out of his way to pursue Trayvon, Trayvon would be in the right to engage Zimmerman violently should he perceive him as a threat according to the SYG law, and he would certainly perceive a man following him in the middle of the night as a threat. Now both individuals are perceiving each other to be a threat, and are both in the right under the law to attack, and possibly kill, the other. See the dilemna?

Now that one of the individuals are dead, who's in the right? Is Zimmerman still safe because of SYG, or does SYG contradict itself in this scenario, as Zimmerman is now the criminal, and Trayvon is a citizen who followed SYG and it ended poorly for his favor?


This also explains why I'm not following SYG laws in my analysis of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, right or wrong. Zimmerman, in almost any other location, would be guilty of murder, and a perpetrator of vigilantism. According to SYG, he's clean as a whistle. Pretty fucking bullshit if you ask me.

Let's turn the tables here, since it's pretty much pointless for us to be on the defensive as of now due to recent events.

Why should Zimmerman walk and how did the Stand your ground law not play out here at all? (Key word: At all)

Here is some new evidence of when Zimmerman arrives to the police station. He claims that Trayvon attacked him yet there are no marks on the back of his head or nose or anywhere really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OiLQjUcOU

Just because he looks like he MIGHT be high or drunk isn't really a reason to shoot him either. This case might just be racially driven. Oracle brings up a good point too. Having a strange man following you during a a rainy dark night is not something you think of as safe. SYG should be fixed a lot comparing to what happened here, it is such a shame he had to die over the law being contradicting.

First, UNDEAD21, if you want to look intelligent when arguing, you better have something to support your opinion.

mrLOLface, that is the new evidence I was talking about in my past posts (Which means it's not new at all). Someone here was trying to say that he got patched up, but how the heck can someone get patched up in a matter if minutes and look perfectly fine without any bandages?

...