How so please? Quote the specific passage(s) of Florida Law which do so, contrasted to other states. I am of Ohio so an Ohio R.C. quotation would be proper I think, or your own home state.
No policeman told him not to, as I understand it. Certainly no police officer ordered him not to, which would be all that would matter.
Again, that argument need not rely on this specific case to be advanced. If a person is ordered not to do something by the police, and does it anyway, and someone else dies, that is not proof of murder. In fact it is likely to be utterly irrelevant.Whether or not it was in this specific case, one can make arguments with respect to. The state did so argue, the jury did not find it compelling.
Again, which laws are those and how should they be changed? I deal in facts and specifics, if you wish to sway me, cite those laws, explain why those laws are themselves flawed, and suggest how if at all you think they should be replaced. None of this should ever require the mention of Zimmerman or Martin, they need only be hypothetical arguments.
Using the link provided by HR, the only thing the laws require are that use of force be justified by a person "reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; "
From the way I see it, Martin has every right to use force against Zimmerman since Zimmerman is actively pursuing Martin from the time Martin entered the community. Both from his car and then on foot, Zimmerman is being aggressive in his determination to stop the "fucking punks" from "always get[ting] away".
The jury, and yourself and others here, have determined that Martin has no right to self-defense if he believes his life is in danger for whatever reason. I can point to the inherent and institutional racism in the US as the main culprit in determining that Martin's actions are automatically suspicious despite the fact that he did nothing other than walk home from the store, but of course that is the rather large elephant in the room. Somehow it is perfectly fine for one citizen to actively pursue another but be absolved of causing the pursued to fear for their safety.
This is the glaring error in the law, and one of the reasons it should be changed. I should not be justified in shooting you dead if, through my own actions, I inserted myself into a situation which led to deadly force being applied against you. Actively pursuing someone the way Zimmerman did to Martin should have been grounds for a manslaughter conviction. Unfortunately, the jury did not agree this time, but I can completely agree that occasionally a guilty person will be set free as long as the process is applied fairly. In this particular case, the law was not applied fairly, even if the process was.
