Nonetheless Florida law http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/
which reads:
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman and, believing that he was in in imminent danger, attacked Zimmerman.
With this in mind, it is subject to interpretation how you apply this law - who had a greater reason to feel to be imminent danger. This jury decided that it was the white guy challenging the black guy, not the other way around.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>wrote:
> Wojtek writes:
>
> This is actually what baffles me about this case. How could a
>> reasonable person draw a conclusion that a person who originally
>> stalked and challenged another person can become a victim.
>>
>
> This happens all the time. You're not stupid enough to stalk and
> challenge people, but it turns out that just beause you are being stalked
> and challeneged doesn't mean you aren't capable of inflicting grave bodily
> harm yourself.
>
> Z is clearly a stupid man; but that's still not a crime.
>
>
> To reiterate - the conclusion that Z was a victim because he was
>> injured by M during a scuffle that Z started is based on a
>> fundamentally false logic of the variety that X who killed his
>> parents deserves leniency because he is an orphan.
>>
>
> I think you would do well to at least read the wikipedia article on the
> principle of self-defense. It generally conatins no reference at all to
> how you found yourself in the threat of imminent grave harm. So while your
> grasp of the obvious about orphans is superb, it has no relevance to this
> issue. I feel quite certain that this is the source of your mind being
> boggled by the outcome of the case: you're simply not working with the
> information needed to make a relevant decision.
>
> /jordan
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."