Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
This is exactly it. The counter of "Martin jumped him after" doesn't absolve him in my eyes. He initiated, and ended up shooting someone. That deserves jail to me.
I feel that when you initiate a confrontation, the self-defense justification goes out the window. If Martin had opened his passenger door, jumped in and started pounding on him, that would be a totally different story.
|
That's simply not the way it works.
You also have to define initiate. A neighbourhood watch captain questioning a stranger on private property does not equate to initiating a physical confrontation. Certainly not to the extend that you can break someone's nose and continue to assault them while they are on the ground.
Even if he had initiated a physical confrontation, that does not give you a right to pummel somoene. You're expected to stop once the threat has been ended. And by threat, it has to be imminent harm. Someone following you, in itself, does not count as a threat that you are allowed to respond with physical violence too. Particularly when you are a guest on private property.
Perhaps Zimmerman did more than simply follow Martin, but, if that's the case, it still has to be proven in a court of law.
Edit: To put it more simply, there always has to be some proportionality in response. If one party escalates things the other has the right to self-defence regardless of who the initial aggressor was.