UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, no.The thing that we need to substantiate is who initiated the assault, pursuit is not assault.
who initiated the use of force is irrelevant. by pursuing martin, zimmerman clearly provoked the situation. if he had sat tight, as advised, and use of force was initiated against him, that would be one thing.
but that is not the case. zimmerman provoked the use of force, and so we must now look at the two exceptions.
exception 1: 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;
since it was not the case that zimmerman exhausted every possible means of escape and was also not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (neighbors reported finding him nonchalantly standing over martin's dead body), his first exception is out the window.
exception 2: 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.
since there were screams for help right before the gunshot, rather than a retreat AND a call for a truce, exception #2 is out the window.
zimmerman provoked the situation and had no good reason to use deadly force after doing so. it's open and shut based on what scant evidence we have. no reasonable doubt exists to anyone who understands how to read the law.