Who does acts of aggression not thinking it is "self-defense"?

[richardhutnik]

Kasz216 said:

richardhutnik said:

forest-spirit said:
I find it kinda hard to call it self-defence when you're the aggressor.

Stand your ground law, that is at work in the Martin-Zimmerman case, can claim this to be so.  People claiming self-defense end up saying they acted preemptively, to defend themself or get "justice".  It is interesting to find out if more evil has been done in the name of "righteousness" than it had been by selfish reasoning.

Doesn't seem relevent, since the guy did have brusings so clearly the gunshot happened AFTER a physical confrontation.

I Imagine you tuned out of that story right when they said they had police videotape that showed he didn't have bruising, and right before the enhanced footage showed he did, and the lack of injuries was due to grainy video footage.

 

Also, the stand your ground law wouldn't of held up anyway considering he pursued.  The gun did exactly what it was supposed to do... protect someone in self defense.  However he did something he wasn't supposed to, start an altercation that caused such a situation in the first place.  (all allegedly of course).

Zimmerman was involved with neighborhood watch.  Case can be said he pursued, because he felt houses were threatened by robberies, and he got tired of it.  He presumed Martin to be a criminal based on what he saw and operated out of that.  I am sure Zimmerman felt threatened by what was going on overall, which led him to be more aggressive than he would of been otherwise.  And you likely had Martin also feeling threatened, so it led to an altercation with someone dead.  Feeling threatened led to extra aggression.

Stand your ground is said not to apply for Zimmerman though.  At least Jeb Bush I believe said the law didn't apply.