Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkutron5000
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If, at this point Martin felt threatened, wouldn't he have been within his rights to defend himself? When can you begin using "self defense" as a legal defense for violence? Do you have to be physically assaulted first and self defense is fighting back? Or could other actions lead you to feel threatened enough, that without being physically hit, you could strike the other person and have a valid claim at self defense? I'm nowhere near being a lawyer so I'm generally just interested in the answer, and not making a claim on what may/ may not have happened in this case.
|
he'd have an uphill battle arguing that zimmerman's pursuit constituted what he appraised as an imminent threat to his safety or well being. but theoretically, yes -- martin could make a case that he was defending himself. depending on the exact facts of what transpired, it would be possible for either or both of the parties to be acting in self defense.
however, whether or not martin was acting in self defense is immaterial. either martin or zimmerman could have reasonably responded to a perceived threat that did not actually exist. the question in this trial is whether or not you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not acting in self defense. you can't. whether it's a case of insufficient evidence, genuine self defense, or tragic misunderstanding is mostly unknowable.