gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,
If he had a crowbar, some spray paint and other tools, you and everyone on his defense would say "He was about to commit a crime. Why else would he have those tools?" Am I right?
If he had a crowbar, some spray paint and other tools, you and everyone on his defense would say "He was about to commit a crime. Why else would he have those tools?" Am I right?
Sure, but that has no relevance to the question of whether Zimmerman was justified to use his weapon in self defense. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that he was about to commit a crime. Assault is a crime, yet does not require a crowbar and other tools. Theft is a crime, yet does not necessarily require those tools either. Your statement is like one huge logical fallacy burrito.
The question is whether Zimmerman acted in self defense when he shot Martin. The only relevant questions therefore are whether he had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of grave injury or loss of life *and* (if he started the fight) whether he had the opportunity and ability to escape (after the fight started) but chose not to. According to the law, those are the only considerations to make. Everything else is really just window dressing, which may or may not influence a jury when they make those determinations.
You're assuming that I'm confusing the two together. I've said several times over now that no one knows if the shooting was justified. That wasn't my point. My point was that you have no evidence that Martin was about to commit a crime, yet you label him as someone about to commit a crime. Based on what? That's the dictionary definition of prejudice.
Technically, Martin could have been about to do *anything*, but unless there is some sort of proof, then you can't label him as someone about to commit a crime. If I'm not mistaken, Zimmerman was concerned that Martin might have been responsible for some of the recent crimes that had taken place. There's nothing wrong with Zimmerman thinking that, but there was no evidence on Martin to support that he was about to do those aforesaid crimes.
The point being that you can't say that Martin *was about* to commit a crime with no evidence. The opposite could just as easily argue that Martin *was about* to go donate his kidney to a dying friend in the hospital. Unless there is any proof to support any claim, you can not make any argument.
Edited, Jul 11th 2013 11:40am by Almalieque