re: Where is the national outrage and screams of racism for this victim?

quote:

---

Wrong again. Yiu should read a law book.

---

I understand the equal force rule you are relying on but it is not that simple. One could also argue they feared for their life so the force was necessary. That's what Zimmerman did.

From ChatGPT

quote:

---

In Texas, self-defense laws are similar to Florida’s but have some unique aspects. If a situation like the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case happened in Texas, Zimmerman would likely rely on Texas' self-defense and deadly force statutes, which include elements of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws.

Key Texas Self-Defense Laws:
No Duty to Retreat ("Stand Your Ground")

Texas law (Penal Code § 9.31 & § 9.32) allows a person to use force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect themselves from another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

If someone is in a place where they have a legal right to be, they do not have to retreat before using force.

Use of Deadly Force (§ 9.32)

Deadly force can be used if the person reasonably believes it is necessary to:

Prevent another’s use of deadly force.

Prevent aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or robbery.

The force does not have to be equal, but it must be proportional to the perceived threat.

The Castle Doctrine (§ 9.31(a))

Applies mainly in a person’s home, vehicle, or workplace.

If someone unlawfully enters or attempts to remove you from one of these places, the law presumes you reasonably feared for your life.

How This Would Apply to a Case Like Zimmerman’s in Texas:
If Zimmerman could convince a jury that he reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death, he would have a valid self-defense claim.

Even though Martin was unarmed, Texas law does not require force to be equal—only that Zimmerman’s belief in needing deadly force was reasonable.

If a jury believed Zimmerman provoked the fight or had an opportunity to retreat but didn’t, his defense could be weaker.

Overall, Texas law would likely have allowed a similar legal defense to Zimmerman’s, and the case outcome would depend on how a jury viewed the reasonableness of his fear and use of deadly force.

---

You are trying to make it way too simple. I agree with you it was murder but I also understand that IF the other guy swung first, then he is the instigator and the accused potentially has a self-defense claim.

Maybe so and probably deservedly so

All I am saying that if the other kid swung first then that changes things some if you get a good defense lawyer and a sympathetic jury. Just have to get a few middle aged white women, and in Dallas that won't be very hard.

Zero shot this dude gets off.

Z E R O

and Stout, this is Collin County, not Dallas.

So sad....someone was taken from us that was going to be such a positive for his community for a lifetime and society is left with a subhuman that we must feed and babysit for his lifetime

Cradle to grave.

Obama requests prayers and leniency for the young man who could be his son, but not the privileged white kid.

quote:

---

So sad....someone was taken from us that was going to be such a positive for his community for a lifetime and society is left with a subhuman that we must feed and babysit for his lifetime

---

I am 45 so when I was in HS and we had fights we never feared getting stabbed but it's a different world these days. I 100% started shying away from altercations when I was in college as much as possible when a friend of mine was beaten and thrown in a dumpster and left for dead. He had to have part of his skull removed. It was all over nothing, just like this situation seems to be.

If the story is true his defense lawyer can try to claim self defense all he wants. Not gonna be a valid argument though. That's like saying if someone bumps into you or pushes you you can pull out a gun and shoot them cause you might have fallen down cracked your head open and died. That's not how self defense works.

quote:

---

Also, throwing a punch doesn’t allow him to escalate it to killing him, especially since there is evidence of first degree murder.

---

There's a lot to unpack in this sentence alone.

First, throwing a punch most definitely can get your arse removed from the gene pool. I'm an old man who doesn't like pain. Take a swing at me and I will unload a good portion of an 18-rd magazine's worth of ammunition into your arse. When you swing an arm at me I can reasonably assume you mean to do me bodily harm and I have no idea exactly how much bodily harm you intend to inflict, so I'm gonna put an end to it fast.

Second (and a jury will have to come to a conclusion on this), was the knife being carried with the intent to use it to commit murder, or was it being carried for self defense should the need arise? If he was carrying it for self defense and the need arose (as it obviously did to some degree) -AND- he did not instigate the altercation, then he acted in self defense. However, if he came with the intent to take part in that altercation and willingly availed himself to it, then that is another thing entirely and a case for premeditated murder can be made.

There's a lot to this story that remains unclear for the time being. I suppose it will be a good while before we get an update on this.

quote:

---

so why did he have a knife on him though?

---

Exactly. Who brings a knife to a sporting event? Only someone looking for blood. Fry him.