Eric_Boyer;4471588 said:
The family that actually lost something I understand. They have a reason to lead with emotion, they lost someone they loved.
You people don’t have the same excuse to ignore logic, reason, and the law.
The only one that is ignoring logic, reason, and the law around here is you.
To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification,
one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. The threat of damage or loss of property alone is not enough.
Avoidance
Being aware of and avoiding potentially dangerous situations is an emphasis of self defense. Attackers are typically larger, stronger, and are often armed or have an accomplice. These factors make fighting to defeat the attacker unlikely to succeed. In order to attack, an aggressor must have three elements in place: desire, distance, and decision. If any one of these elements can be removed, an attack can be avoided without resorting to physical self defense.[7] When avoidance is impossible, one often has a better chance at fighting to escape, such methods maybe referred to as 'break away' techniques.[8]
If Zimmerman felt the kid was dangerous, why did he follow him? Why did he chase him down, corner him, and interrogate him, when he already called for the authorities to investigate the situation and they told him not to follow the kid?
Now tell me, which is more likely to be able to claim self defense in this story: The 140 pound, weaponless kid, that has been cornered with no avenue of escape or the 240 pound, armed man, that has cornered the kid and could easily back away or run from the situation?
