So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Rhambuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

street justice

When the system has failed, one has no other option.

[Rhambuk]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When the system has failed

when did it work?

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Rhambuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

when did it work?

The first time it was ever used for someone who was not a white male landowner.

[Hasbinfat]

The system does work, it's just that it is designed to serve white upper middle class Americans and the ultra-rich, at the cost of everyone else. As a member of group #1, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Vote Republican

[Hailto]

Have you ever carried out street justice before HBB?

[Funkutron5000]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, from a legal standpoint, it doesn't.

the fact that he was carrying a weapon does not in any way impact his rights before or during the confrontation. he was within his rights to follow martin, armed or not. he was within his rights to ask what he was doing, armed or not.

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.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Funkutron5000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you have to be physically assaulted first and self defense is fighting back?

Yes, atleast that is my interpretation of self defense laws.

[Hailto]

Calling all the young lawyers to make informed input on this.

[kotton05]

The thing is if someone is threatening you... The courts will look at if you exhausted all means of getting away/avoiding the situation.. Only then will capping a mother fucker be ok and self defense.

On the other han

The castle law allows you to shoot someone on sight in your home. Sad fact is you better kill the intruder otherwise you'd get sued lolz

[Daldolma]

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.