Yes Martin would be justify to defend himself. I can't believe the idiotic answer Nick, Eric, and BigK gave. Let's deal with what facts we know:
There are the 911 recordings that clearly depict Zimmerman, who is half Jewish (I could care less if his mother is not Jewish, his father is, hence, Zimmerman, and if we are to "believe" Jewish is a race than Zimmerman is half Jewish, since someone mentioned he's Spanish but totally excludes the other half of him is inaccurate), stalking Martin. Martin was trying to get away from his follower and managed to do so in the beginning but Zimmerman found him again; all this was on the 911 tapes and good that they played it early on for enough people to hear so they can't deny it later.
When someone is stalking me and catches up with me after I tried to get away from him, I'd be a fool to think his actions are anything but ill intended. And if he already has a gun out, which mostly is the case, I'd fight for it. The point is "Stand your ground" is predicated on who was intended to do the other harm. Here, Martin is clearly defending himself against the aggressor, the agitator Zimmerman. Zimmerman may claim he later was defending himself and if both claims the same then you have to eliminate that claim and filter down to the next motive of action. Why was Martin defending himself from Zimmerman? This is the only next level down to consider.
When you give both people the right to defend themselves, then whose life was at risk first: Martin with Skittles and a can of ice tea or Zimmerman with his brazen badge and 9mm gun? Martin would be acting in the first order of self defense as he was the not aggressor nor the one with the gun. I don't care what badge you wear, there's only a human behind the mask and humans are designed to be fallible. When you strip away all the colors, ethnicity, place yourself in Martin's position, there is no way you could say, given both argue the self defense, and removing the stand your ground law, that Martin was the aggressor--and there's lays the distinction, Zimmerman's aggression vs. Martin's response.
If that's what happened, then yes.
However we don't know the actual events. Did Zimmerman confront Trayvon, or did Trayvon hide in the bushes and pounced on Zimmerman? Who started the confrontation. Did Zimmerman have his gun out? At what point was Zimmerman or Trayvon considered the aggressor?
There are too many unanswered questions here. Most of them I hope will be answered during the upcoming trial. However I think some - such as when can you declare 'self defense' - may have to be answered by the jury.
If that happened then sure, but Zimmermans gun was concealed and Zimmerman did not initiate hostile contact. Trayvon martin had no wounds on him other than the gunshot, while pictures and video confirming Zimmerman's wounds have surfaced. This would mean that Trayvon inflicted Zimmermans wounds first, and was therefore the aggressor, and Zimmerman was perfectly justified in shooting him.
That would depend on his (TM's) activities. If T. Martin was violating the law and GZ caught him and then TM attacked no, there is no justification. If T. Martin was acting within the law and GZ attacked him then yes there is justification. This is assuming there is a conceal carry law and both parties are legally carrying. The sticky part is how do we know who the true aggressor is? There were two people there and one is dead. The dead one is not automatically innocent. His age and skin color are not an issue. Whether he was acting lawfully or unlawfully is.
And to head off the poor little child argument; look around your local high school when you get a chance. 17 year old boys aren't tiny little weak babies. Most of them are built like full grown adults.
And what evidence do you have that Zimmerman initiated any contact with Martin?
No, because Trayvon is the one that initiated the attack. Zimmerman simply did what he had to do to prevent himself from being killed.
So.. because Zimmerman is hispanic it was OK for Trayvon to turn and violently assault him without any real provocation? Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, if that's what happened... But it isn't.
If you follow someone with a gun and then initiate hostile/ violent contact,...wouldn't this kid have been justified in killing his aggressor?
