Video of Zimmerman on police camera the night of the shooting.

[TeamsterDem]

172. I think you're misreading the law in 2 important ways

First, you're assuming that the law defines self-defense as individually-decided whereas actually it isn't. The actual law gives grants an automatic presumption of imminent peril only under a few defined scenarios, none of which apply to Zimmerman. And in fact, the law explicitly limits Zimmerman to stand your ground were he to have remained in his car, which he did not. Furthermore, the phrase "reasonably believes" does not mean that Zimmerman simply says "well I believed ..." but rather that reasonable OTHER people (law enforcement, the DA, and a judge or jury) agree that it was reasonable; there is no grant of reasonableness to every actor EXCEPT in a few pretty well-defined scenarios. As such, getting your bell rung simply isn't enough unless most people would've also "reasonably believed" that death or great bodily harm were imminent - from a kid 100 pounds lighter who wasn't armed.

In other words, Zimmerman was ripe for arrest even without this video because he never actually had a "reasonable" way to believe that Trayvon Martin, a kid 100 pounds lighter than he, who wasn't visibly or ultimately armed, could have presented such a mortal threat. He could CLAIM it, but a claim is just that, a claim. It doesn't mean it's reasonable. And in Zimmerman's case it wasn't then nor is now.

Second, what you're doing is basically beginning the chronology of events - or in terms of the way you've phrased things, the beginning point of the burden of responsibility - at the point where Trayvon allegedly hit Zimmerman. As a person who greatly values our system of laws, I must begin that process where the events actually began that night: At the point where Zimmerman began pursuing an unarmed civilian in violation of the police dispatcher. And I must also note that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon not just in a vehicle, but he also exited that vehicle to conduct a foot patrol in the area where Trayvon had eluded him. That would be menacing even for me, and I'm not a small minor; I too would seek to defend myself.

It almost doesn't matter that greatly in terms of the self-defense argument that Zimmerman appeared fine because irrespective of his appearance he still INITIATED the confrontation. So while it does appear to show that his version of events is seriously flawed, it is also evident that he initiated the events between the two because of course he pursued him in what a ton of people would view as an aggressive manner, especially given that he had absolutely ZERO legal or even reasonable authority to do so.

Even a bad law like the "stand your ground" one isn't AS broad as the media is making it out to be. It's overly broad, but not so broad as to support the idea that you can pursue someone to the point where most would "reasonably believe" you're menacing them, and then have the audacity to claim self-defense. In fact, if anyone should have been scared I would say that would've been Trayvon: Here is a minor child walking in the darkness with some large man pursuing him and finally confronting him with "what are you doing here?" The absence of Zimmerman's recognized and recognizable law enforcement status is key, as Trayvon knew he had a legal right to be where he was, but very likely assumed an imminent assault - perhaps he viewed Zimmerman's return to his vehicle as a means by which Zimmerman was going to retrieve a weapon - and he had a right to defend himself because of what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman was the aggressor in this: Even if he didn't throw the first punch, he did pursue and harass a minor child whose only crime was not dressing as Zimmerman saw fit and, of course, for not having been born into the race Zimmerman didn't view as a "fucking ****," or as a race whose members didn't "always get away."