Also, "no longer posing a threat" would mean he had posed a threat initially. Returning to his vehicle - he should never have gotten out of it and pursued him in the first place.
SonofRobbie, I think what you might be raising is the interesting possibility, that, theoretically, ad absurdum, the stand your ground doctrine might arguably permit two people who reasonably believe themselves mutually in danger from the other might both be lawfully justified in killing the other. Culpability wouldn't attach to either with it not mattering who was the intitial aggressor (there is, of course, much discussion about whether that was ever the intended application of the law, and whether "stand your ground" concerns have anything to do with the decision not to arrest Zimmerman, or whether that's a red-herring, etc., but be that as it may...) and it not mattering whether either had an opportunity to retreat (which is, of course, no longer an obligation with the "stand your ground" doctrine, although it has been in traditional justification jurisprudence, at least when the occurrence is outside the accused's home).
I am not jumping to any conclusion that that has anything to do with the facts in Sanford, far from it. But the possibility that both parties to an altercation - whether it results in death or not - might be exculpated by "stand your ground" principles is fascinating (of course when one of the parties is dead, that party can not be prosecuted (except metaphorically), so that person's exculpation is not an issue).
But it is certainly alarming that "stand your ground" might give rise to such an interpretation.
When looked at this through this old-fashioned rugged frontier prism, "stand your ground" makes me wonder, this:
"Also, "no longer posing a threat" would mean he had posed a threat initially. Returning to his vehicle - he should never have gotten out of it and pursued him in the first place."
That may well be true, but I don't think one should be lawfully justified in attacking someone who was once following him or her and has stopped doing so. If that person has retreated, that should be the end of it. The problem, however, is applying "stand your ground" to such facts, since "stand your ground" seems to have gotten rid of duty to retreat. If you have no duty to retreat do you have to bow down when the other person has retreated? I would think so, as there no longer is a reasonable threat to your safety. But the law is so insane, it is hard to apply common sense principles to it, especially when considering theoretical fact patterns that we can change at any second to make even more daunting.
Again, I am not suggesting that that is what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't know exactly what happened. My point with respect to this case is only infuriation with the investigation. I am not condemning George Zimmerman. I just don't understand how, given what we do know, (and here I'm not going to repeat what I've said on earlier posts), how anyone in their right mind could say there wasn't at the very least "probable cause" to suspect George Zimmerman of homicide.
"All our dreams can come true -- if we have the courage to pursue them." -- Walt Disney
We must have different Gods. My God said "do to others what you would have them do to you". Your God seems to have said "My Way or the Highway".
Yes but no bandage? If one had a bloodied nose, I would assume there would be blood on the t shirt. The one time I was attacked my nose was bloodied and by was there blood on the shirt!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
"Zimmerman, 28, suffered a broken nose, a gash to his head, and other injuries, according to Sanford police reports. He traveled to the police station that night to give his account of events and then went home. Sanford police confirm that he did not warrant medical attention at the scene and did not seek medical attention until the next day."
I wonder when Zimmerman is going to file a lawsuit against the police department for recklessly putting his life in danger for failing to get him proper medical treatment for a broken nose.
And, not getting him a CT scan for his head injuries?
There's no reason to believe one would have been taken. There should be doctor or hospital documentation but anyone who leaks that would be in even bigger trouble than whoever leaked this video out of the PD.