I am shocked - Alan Dershowitz chimes in on the Zimmerman case

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Likely it was the fact that Martin was on top of him, beating him.

Could Martin have been acting out in self defense by jumping Zimmerman if he reasonably believed he was in grave danger?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Could Martin have been acting out in self defense by jumping Zimmerman if he reasonably believed he was in grave danger?

Sure! Does that preclude Zimmerman's rights of self defense? It seems reasonable that through a misunderstanding of intentions, two opposing parties can both have the right to defend themselves, unless there is a law that defines the limits of taking pre-emptive measures that might cancel such rights.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Sousuke

[웃 910]

I am so scared of Zimmerman...If I ever see him I will be sure to kill him!!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure! Does that preclude Zimmerman's rights of self defense? It seems reasonable that through a misunderstanding of intentions, two opposing parties can both have the right to defend themselves, unless there is a law that defines the limits of taking pre-emptive measures that might cancel such rights.

That's why what happened leading up to the altercation matters or should matter in determining who is culpable for the death of Trayvon Martin. Some here think he was responsible for his own death, if we are to assume that Martin did in fact jump Zimmerman, and I'm saying that if he did so out of self defense, then no, it is Zimmerman who was responsible, because Zimmerman instigated the altercation. I support the idea of a person being able to defend themselves when they reasonably believe their life is in danger, but that should apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they are carrying a gun or not. Take Zimmerman's gun out of the scenario, and for the sake of the argument, say Zimmerman was jumped by Martin, then Zimmerman fought back and killed Martin with his bare hands. Would that make any difference to those who think Zimmerman acted in self defense? And if not, why not, if Zimmerman was the one pursuing Martin? You could do the same by imagining if both parties were carrying a gun. If Martin had felt his life in danger from Zimmerman pursuing him and saw that he was carrying a gun, perhaps reaching for it, would he not have had the right to shoot first as an act of self defense?

What is troubling is the amount of bias by many who presume Zimmerman's innocence based on eye-witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman stated to the police that Martin was trying to grab Zimmerman's gun and therefore he was justified to shoot, but if Martin saw the gun prior to any physical contact, and knowing that he was unarmed, what else could he have done to defend himself?

Edited April 16, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

.... but if Martin saw the gun prior to any physical contact, and knowing that he was unarmed, what else could he have done to defend himself?

You run from an armed person, not physically attack them. It's obvious Trayvon had an anger management problem.

[luckytxn 2,265]

That's why what happened leading up to the altercation matters or should matter in determining who is culpable for the death of Trayvon Martin. Some here think he was responsible for his own death, if we are to assume that Martin did in fact jump Zimmerman, and I'm saying that if he did so out of self defense, then no, it is Zimmerman who was responsible, because Zimmerman instigated the altercation. I support the idea of a person being able to defend themselves when they reasonably believe their life is in danger, but that should apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they are carrying a gun or not. Take Zimmerman's gun out of the scenario, and for the sake of the argument, say Zimmerman was jumped by Martin, then Zimmerman fought back and killed Martin with his bare hands. Would that make any difference to those who think Zimmerman acted in self defense? And if not, why not, if Zimmerman was the one pursuing Martin? You could do the same by imagining if both parties were carrying a gun. If Martin had felt his life in danger from Zimmerman pursuing him and saw that he was carrying a gun, perhaps reaching for it, would he not have had the right to shoot first as an act of self defense?

What is troubling is the amount of bias by many who presume Zimmerman's innocence based on eye-witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman stated to the police that Martin was trying to grab Zimmerman's gun and therefore he was justified to shoot, but if Martin saw the gun prior to any physical contact, and knowing that he was unarmed, what else could he have done to defend himself?

Then why the deceit? Up to two weeks ago Zimmerman was a crazed racist WHITE who stalked and shot down an honor role black teen that did nothing but walk down the street. The police high fived the killer and let him walk. The media even was deceitful and edited the calls to show he was racist. Then when details came out it showed nothing of the kind happened. Both were wrong in my opinion. Just because Zimmerman got out of the vehicle doesn't mean that Martin had a right to beat him senseless. The man didn't even pull his weapon when he was hit or laying on the ground and Martin jumped on him hitting him. Only after Martin started banging his head on CEMENT did he pull his weapon and fired one shot.

Makes no difference if Zimmerman came out of the car. Makes no difference if he even started ####### with the kid or even if he grabbed him.When the kid started beating him Zimmerman was allowed to defend himself. They both could have avoided this. Zimmerman is being railroaded now because of the media still.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That's why what happened leading up to the altercation matters or should matter in determining who is culpable for the death of Trayvon Martin. Some here think he was responsible for his own death, if we are to assume that Martin did in fact jump Zimmerman, and I'm saying that if he did so out of self defense, then no, it is Zimmerman who was responsible, because Zimmerman instigated the altercation. I support the idea of a person being able to defend themselves when they reasonably believe their life is in danger, but that should apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they are carrying a gun or not. Take Zimmerman's gun out of the scenario, and for the sake of the argument, say Zimmerman was jumped by Martin, then Zimmerman fought back and killed Martin with his bare hands. Would that make any difference to those who think Zimmerman acted in self defense? And if not, why not, if Zimmerman was the one pursuing Martin? You could do the same by imagining if both parties were carrying a gun. If Martin had felt his life in danger from Zimmerman pursuing him and saw that he was carrying a gun, perhaps reaching for it, would he not have had the right to shoot first as an act of self defense?

What is troubling is the amount of bias by many who presume Zimmerman's innocence based on eye-witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman stated to the police that Martin was trying to grab Zimmerman's gun and therefore he was justified to shoot, but if Martin saw the gun prior to any physical contact, and knowing that he was unarmed, what else could he have done to defend himself?

In the United States, we have the right to confront anyone whom we think may be breaking the law. That does not mean we have a right to violence against that person. Therefore, if Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes I agree he is responsible for his death.

However, if there are no physical marks on Trayvon other than the gunshot wound, it would likely proclude such an argument.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the United States, we have the right to confront anyone whom we think may be breaking the law. That does not mean we have a right to violence against that person. Therefore, if Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes I agree he is responsible for his death.

However, if there are no physical marks on Trayvon other than the gunshot wound, it would likely proclude such an argument.

I don't see how you can separate the circumstances leading up to the confrontation and state unequivocally, that if Zimmerman didn't lay a hand on Martin and Martin jumped Zimmerman, it could NOT be an act of self defense. Remember, the Stand Your Ground laws give you the right to use lethal force with a gun if you reasonably believe your life is in grave danger. You don't have to wait for someone holding a bat, for example, to strike you with that bat before you use lethal force. So why would it be any different for Martin? Because he didn't have a weapon besides his fists? Based on all the circumstances, Martin could have reasonably believed his life was in grave danger and acted accordingly. If Martin felt he had no other option to defend his life than to jump Zimmerman, he did nothing wrong, if we all support the Stand Your Ground law.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't see how you can separate the circumstances leading up to the confrontation and state unequivocally, that if Zimmerman didn't lay a hand on Martin and Martin jumped Zimmerman, it could NOT be an act of self defense.

No I have actually said the opposite (in this thread or the other..I can't remember at this moment). Martin under FLA law may have been acting in self defense but that does not automatically take away Zimmerman's right to self defense in the same situation.

Do you agree that Martin may have committed to a first strike at Zimmerman and yet Zimmerman's response was also self defense?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No I have actually said the opposite (in this thread or the other..I can't remember at this moment). Martin under FLA law may have been acting in self defense but that does not automatically take away Zimmerman's right to self defense in the same situation.

Do you agree that Martin may have committed to a first strike at Zimmerman and yet Zimmerman's response was also self defense?

I think Zimmerman believes he acted in self defense, I just don't buy it. If he was concerned about his own safety, he would've never pursued Martin and never would have gotten out of his vehicle. That's like me jumping into a lion's cage with a gun, then shooting the lion for coming after me and claiming it was self defense. At some point, Zimmerman needs to be held accountable for his actions that led to the death of Martin, even if he shot Martin as an act of self defense (assuming that he was reasonably in danger of grave bodily harm, which is unlikely). I say unlikely, because I've seen a lot of patients who've been in fights and their head injuries typically require them spending a week or longer in the ICU. There's no way Zimmerman could have walked away from the altercation had he suffered significant head trauma. In fact, a lot of the patients with head trauma have to be intubated (on a breathing machine) initially. Zimmerman walked away with minimal injuries at best.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think Zimmerman believes he acted in self defense, I just don't buy it. If he was concerned about his own safety, he would've never pursued Martin and never would have gotten out of his vehicle. That's like me jumping into a lion's cage with a gun, then shooting the lion for coming after me and claiming it was self defense. At some point, Zimmerman needs to be held accountable for his actions that led to the death of Martin, even if he shot Martin as an act of self defense (assuming that he was reasonably in danger of grave bodily harm, which is unlikely). I say unlikely, because I've seen a lot of patients who've been in fights and their head injuries typically require them spending a week or longer in the ICU. There's no way Zimmerman could have walked away from the altercation had he suffered significant head trauma. In fact, a lot of the patients with head trauma have to be intubated (on a breathing machine) initially. Zimmerman walked away with minimal injuries at best.

Again I do not think a person should be held responsible for following up a situation in their neighborhood whether there is a possiblity of danger or not. There is no law that forbids it or requires one to forfeit their rights of self defense. Also it important that the person fears that they may experience grave bodily harm, had he laid there longer he may have received a Bryan Stowe type injury.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Again I do not think a person should be held responsible for following up a situation in their neighborhood whether there is a possiblity of danger or not. There is no law that forbids it or requires one to forfeit their rights of self defense.

I disagree as it is counter to the idea of self protection. You don't go out and purposefully put yourself in harm's way in the hopes that you can simply use your gun to neutralize any threat. I mean, if you want to do that, join the police force.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I disagree as it is counter to the idea of self protection. You don't go out and purposefully put yourself in harm's way in the hopes that you can simply use your gun to neutralize any threat. I mean, if you want to do that, join the police force.

I think there is something very fundamental to the laws of this country that you can stop and talk to a person in public day or night without violence. They have a right to ignore you of course.

We have to start there, if there is a fear of doing that, we are already too screwed to worry about the interpretation of the law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think there is something very fundamental to the laws of this country that you can stop and talk to a person in public day or night without violence. They have a right to ignore you of course.

We have to start there, if there is a fear of doing that, we are already too screwed to worry about the interpretation of the law.

I agree, but you walking up to me in the middle of the day on a busy street and asking me what I'm doing here is going to get a different response from me than if you were following me in your car while I'm on foot at night. I'd be more than a little miffed to say the least and probably have a sh!tload of adrenaline running through my veins the moment you decide to chase after me on foot.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And what multiple witnesses claim, assuming we are getting accurate info on this case...

Multiple witnesses? I thought there was one single witness to back up that account. Did that person multiply?