Originally Posted by wrightme

If his self-defense claim is valid, it isn't murder.

don't confuse the issue with facts now

Originally Posted by wrightme

If his self-defense claim is valid, it isn't murder.

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

Technically he will have gotten away with killing someone, not murder.

Technically, he won't have "gotten away" with anything. He will have justifiably defended his life from an attacker.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

So, in other first world nations, if someone physically assaults you, you are expected to just take it and if you die its o.k.?


WOW!

If Zimmerman's version of events is true then this is pretty cut and dry self defense.

I'm not really seeing how you guys are thinking otherwise.

Of course, Zimmerman could be lying.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

So you should put him in prison just because you think they did something an you can't prove it? I think that says a lot about your justice system. Pretty scary.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

So, are you saying that other countries don't allow their citizens to defend themselves?

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

Actually, the law of self-defense in Canada is very similar to the law in the US (as one might expect because they are both derived from the British common law). Here's the basic Canadian statute on the use of deadly force to defend against an unlawful assault:

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

Originally Posted by BushmanLA

If Zimmerman's version of events is true then this is pretty cut and dry self defense.

I'm not really seeing how you guys are thinking otherwise.

Of course, Zimmerman could be lying.

+1 That's it in a nutshell.

Glad to hear the first world nation of Canada is onboard with the concept of self-defense, even if some of their citizens may disagree with it.

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

of course the fact is it is extemely unlikely his self defense claim would be valid in any other first world nation outside of the US. Not that it matters, but in my opinion that doesn't speak well for American justice.

No other nation anywhere in the world has such strong defenses of individual rights including the fundamental right to kill in self defense.

That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

Especially in a world where relativistic arguments like how many do what elsewhere are considered to be anything but inherently flawed when it comes to the defense of the negative rights of innocent individuals.

Should it be found George initiated a physical assault, then Martin will be the innocent.

Originally Posted by wrightme

BS.

Unless you are speaking of the part where Zimmerman accused him of the criminal act of assault and battery; but we know that isn't what you meant.

BS.

Zimmerman accused Martin of being a drug-crazed criminal "" who shouldn't get away.

So, again. When does Trayvon Martin get his trial? Oh, that's right. He wore a hoody and may have once put gold foil on his teeth. GUILTY! "God's plan."

God forbid Martin tried to do exactly what Zimmerman said Martin had already attempted; tried to get away. God forbid Zimmerman pursued his own stated desire that Martin not get away.

Originally Posted by wrightme

If his self-defense claim is valid, it isn't murder.

Better yet, if his self defense claim is upheld it will indicate Martin was engaged in attempted murder, the necessary corollary to a valid self defense claim.

Originally Posted by Neil Morse

Actually, the law of self-defense in Canada is very similar to the law in the US (as one might expect because they are both derived from the British common law). Here's the basic Canadian statute on the use of deadly force to defend against an unlawful assault:

Be my guest trying to find a similar case in Canada or anywhere else outside of the US where a guy chases after a guy, starts getting beat up then kills him and gets away with it on self defense grounds. Ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Better yet, if his self defense claim is upheld it will indicate Martin was engaged in attempted murder, the necessary corollary to a valid self defense claim.

Not true. There is no requirement that the assailant actually be attempting to murder someone for that person to have the right to defend himself with deadly force. You're getting a bit carried a way here in a way that actually diminishes your earlier statement about what you call "the fundamental right to kill in self-defense." If Z's self-defense claim is upheld by a jury, it will only indicate that they had at least a reasonable doubt about whether he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury at the time he shot Martin. Whether Martin was actually engaged in attempted murder is not the standard.