These have been exactly my thoughts about the trial.
Why do Florida’s stalking laws not apply to Martin?
Why does he have no right to throw a punch in reaction to a perceived threat, when Zimmerman is allowed to use a gun in self-defense?
“This murder trial, in and out of the courtroom, has been boiled down to one question: Was Zimmerman in fear for his life and thus justified in defending himself by shooting and killing Martin?
It has been framed this way — in terms of Zimmerman’s mortal fear — since the shooting in 2012.
Zimmerman’s assumptions led to death, prosecutor argues
Some people have forgotten that Zimmerman was not even arrested initially. It took more than a month for the special prosecutor to bring the second-degree murder charge. And if not for mass protests across the country, he might not be the defendant in a murder trial at all.
The question that has not surfaced in the courtroom — the elephant in the room — is this: Did Martin fear for his life after being followed and confronted by a stranger while going to the store to buy candy and a soft drink? Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?
Zimmerman didn’t identify himself and never said he was part of the neighborhood watch group.
Think about it: We’re told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.
The phrases “stand your ground” and “self-defense” have been repeated endlessly by anchors, pundits, analysts and experts, but rarely applied to Martin.
How could this be? Why is this other question ignored? Surely it will come up as we approach the trial, I thought. But it hasn’t. What’s going on here? How can the Florida law apply only to Zimmerman and not to Martin?”
Lila asked, “Why does he have no right to throw a punch in reaction to a perceived threat,”
Who said he doesn’t?
Throwing a punch is worlds away from beating someone to death.
Seems to me that Trayvon Martin could have walked away, but chose not to.
What’s the difference between a ‘fight’ and an intent to kill?
“imperfect self-defense.”?
“A Punch is worlds away from beating someone to death”…people have been killed with one punch before. So you are saying George Zimmerman can fear his life so much that he can kill, but Trayvon Martin cannot? That makes no sense. If anything the two self-defense claims would cancel out.
So who would be the aggressor. A kid walking away minding his own business, not bothering anyone? Or a person walking up behind someone in the dark and rain, who happens to have a gun in his back and doesn’t announce himself?
If someone walked up anybody else like that without announcing him or herself they would perceived as the aggressor.
Why does Trayvon have to walk away from something when apparently he was already walking away from George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman had to come up to him.