[Peace-discuss] Organize!

[Laurie Solomon]

The victor in this case was the defendant.  Only the victor is the defendant 
and on trial; the victim is not formally or officially on trial despite any 
attempts to bring in the victims biographical history or actions.  Martin 
did not win the battle; he is not on trial to be found guilty or not guilty. 
Nor is Martin  the entity being represented by the prosecution; it is the 
State that the prosecutor represents in the trial.

Remember we are talking in the context of the legal system and the trial, 
not in terms of social/cultural/or ethical terms.  To confound the 
referents, not only results in confusion concerning the meaning of terms 
being used but is an entirely different topic of discussion wherein both 
this trial and most of the points being entertained are not very relevant 
since they only have significance within the legal system.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Karen Medina
Sent: July 16, 2013 11:55 AM
To: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Organize!

Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:
> Karen,
> [...] for that argument to even be considered in a court, Martin would 
> have had to be
> the winner of the battle and Zimmerman the dead loser, where Martin would
> have been the one on trail.  I think it would be hard for a victim to make 
> a
> relevant self-defense argument or for the prosecution to make such an
> argument on behalf of the victim in prosecuting the defendant.

So only the victor can claim self-defense.
It is not a question, it is a statement.
So, who typically is the victor?

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss