Go look at all the posts about self-defense.
Christ said to turn the other cheek, take a blow, without immediately responding in kind. He didn’t say to allow yourself to be killed. There is in fact a difference. How many blows was Zimmerman supposed to take? He’s screaming his head off and his attacker isn’t letting up. 2, 5, 10, 25?
I don’t know if you caught the post a while back. There is a legal concept that the aggressor can change during a fight- you are allowed to defend yourself as long as there is a threat. When the threat ends, your right to defend ends because its not defense anymore.
So, despite all the evidence and testimony, let’s imagine Zimmerman attacked first, Martin defends himself and in one punch knocks out Z… Martin can’t continue and tap dance on top of Z. He’s out cold, he’s no longer a threat. If Martin continues he becomes the aggressor.
Now let’s say instead of knocking him out, Martin only stuns Z who turns and runs away screaming. Martin can’t pursue and re-engage him physically. He can’t chase him, and start pummeling him again and claim self-defense. When Z ran he was no longer a threat (there is a state which allows pursuit in these circumstance if its necessary for the safety of the initial victim. Hard to imagine where that would be the case).
Ok so far?
Now in something closer to the actual scenario, Martin and Z end up on the ground with Martin in the dominant position. If Z covers his head with his arms and yells I give up, I give up!! Is he no longer a threat? If so, Martin legally should stop.
In the actual scenario, we have Martin on top of Z (admittedly still struggling ineffectively), but with Z screaming for help for an extended period of time. Is it reasonable for Martin to be in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death at this point? If not, then his claim to self-defense isn’t valid or legal. He shouldn’t have continued to pummel Z after the point Z in no longer a threat- ETA: regardless of how it started.
