It's probably not wise to start a post with "I'm not an attorney," as I'm opening myself up for attacks, but that's okay. I'm not an attorney and if my theory is faulty legally, then I'm for correction. I have asked attorneys and am not getting an answer that I am satisfied with, nor one that even seems logical
Maybe I should use an analogy first. Hopefully this won't confuse my point, but I think this may be the best way to explain my position.
If I were minding my own business, walking down the street, and a man pulls up in his car next to
me; I am going to be taken off guard. Maybe the man says something, maybe he doesn't. but imagine I look his way, and see a gun on the passenger seat and fear for my life. I know this is a bad situation, my gut tells me so and I'm afraid.
Now, I have no idea what this man wants or why he has a gun on the passenger seat, but I have a right to run from a perceived threat. I turn and run the other direction. Next thing I know, the man is out of his car chasing me. I am petrified, running away from him, luckily I have a taser in my purse. I vow that if this man catches me, I'm going to tase him and do my best to get away.
Suddenly, I feel a hand brush against my back, in my fear, I spin around and tase him. The man falls back, hits his head on the ground and is now bleeding. He looks at the blood, looks at me, takes out his gun and shoots me straight through the heart.
Cops come and ask my killer what happened. The man says, I thought she looked like my ex-girlfriend so I tried to chase her down. I just wanted to talk. She freaked out, tased me, assaulted me so I killed her in self-defense.
So what, intimidation, harassment, and stalking are no longer crimes? Now my case goes to court and everyone just forgets that this man chased me down while posessing a weapon? Instead, all they will say is, "He had blood on his head. She obviously attacked him. He did nothing wrong?"
This argument, is to me absurd. If it's legal, then please explain how, because in my opinion, I could understand the confusion if no one knew the man ran first, but since he admitted it; I honestly don't see the question or how he can legally claim self-defense.
Zimmerman told 911 dispatch operator from the beginning that he made eye-contact with Trayvon Martin, Trayvon started moving towards him, then turned and ran away. Obviously, Trayvon perceived a threat. If he didn't he never would have ran away. Not only did Trayvon run away from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman admitted he followed him.
I cannot comprehend how that factual truth was eliminated from the trial and the jurors' minds. I don't understand why anyone in the world is talking about Zimmerman's self-defense simply because he was injured after intimidating, harassing and stalking Trayvon.
We know that Zimmerman stalked and intimidated Trayvon because he admitted to as much in his 911 call. We know that Trayvon was intimidated, harassed and perceived a threat because he continually told Rachel Jeantel that Zimmerman was following him.
According to this logic, every woman chased or followed should stand there a helpless victim, because to flee from a perceived threat will get you nowhere.
This is the most absurd logic I have ever heard, and while many pundits are going on and on about how Zimmerman's nose was broken and his head was bleeding, none of them are talking about the fact that Zimmerman made eye contact with Trayvon Martin then Trayvon ran away from him, and Zimmerman admitted to following him.