rationalskepticism.org

purplerat wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

purplerat wrote:Given that narrative of events any person in Martin's situation - first being stalked by a stranger in a car then after running away being chased/followed - would be well reasoned to be in fear of their safety. Keeping in mind that Florida self defense law only requires that a person reasonably believe they are in danger (even if they are in fact mistaken) and there is no duty for Martin to retreat. Even had Martin actually been committing a crime I believe those standards would still have applied. Zimmerman should have been aware of that and known that he was setting up a situation that could very well end in bloodshed. The fact that he decided to go about as he did anyways while carrying a lethal weapon further adds to his culpability.

If we take all that as a given, then I don't see how Zimmerman could have been convicted. Even if he provoked a fight, he still has the right to defend himself once the fight has started. He may be "culpable", but that would only be relevant in a civil case, which may still happen. It's not enough to secure a criminal conviction.

I agree. I think the jury got it right given the evidence presented in the case.

It just really bothers me that the law as written appears to setup such situations in which it's kill or be killed because the legal system will reward the killer and of course the other person will be dead. It just seems like if under such a set of laws if you end up in a physical altercation you should do all you can to kill the other person because if you don't they might kill you and would be legally justified in doing so. That just seems really fucked up to me.