Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#27 Jul 01 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I'm kinda half following the mostly out of curiosity about how it turns out in the end.

They convict, his lawyer sucks, every person on the jury lied about not having followed the news coverage. He *obviously* can't get a fair trial. I don't know enough about the case to determine if think he should be found guilty, but he's clearly going to be. The outcome a fair and an unfair trial can obviously be the same, but again, no idea what that should be. Seems like a douchebag, but that's rarely reason to put someone in prison. Well, Dane Cook, probably, but not most people.

Spoiler.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Jul 01 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just so we are clear; when Zimmerman exited his car with a gun to chase down Trayvon he became the aggressor. What happened after that, no matter what, is all on him because....wait for it...he was the aggressor.


There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you. I guess one of the things that amazes me about this case is how inconsistently people tend to apply these sorts of comments based on the person (and apparently the presence of a firearm). So Zimmerman is wrong to use his gun to defend himself against someone who's in the process of beating his face in, but it's perfectly ok and reasonable for Martin to attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him?

That's a ridiculous double standard. We could also argue that Martin had even more opportunity to avoid the situation. He could simply have talked to Zimmerman and explained that he was walking to his fathers house, right? Everyone is making such a big deal about Zimmerman allegedly profiling Martin, but the evidence suggests that it really was the other way around. Martin's girlfriend's testimony was particularly harmful to the prosecution in this regard. She basically said that Martin made assumptions about Zimmerman based on Zimmerman appearing to be white and older than him. On the flip side, the police recording shows that Zimmerman reacted to Martin's actions and didn't know Martin's skin color until well into the call (meaning he absolutely did not profile on race).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jul 01 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you.


Nope. You know there is pbulic access to laws, right? You don't have to just wing it based on your Law and Order viewing education:


FL- 782.02 The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

This will be important to you later, because the defense will be arguing it along with FL 776.041 because even this terrible lawyer won't make the technical mistake of leaving the opportunity for "maybe he wasn't attacked but could tell he was going to be".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 Jul 01 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Everyone is making such a big deal about Zimmerman allegedly profiling Martin, but the evidence suggests that it really was the other way around. Martin's girlfriend's testimony was particularly harmful to the prosecution in this regard. She basically said that Martin made assumptions about Zimmerman based on Zimmerman appearing to be white and older than him.
This part does tend to be the profile of murder/rapists. Just sayin'.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#31 Jul 02 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
The defense would probably argue that because Martin profiled Zimmerman as such that it it became an unfortunate scenario of escalation between the both of them that it ended the way it did.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Jul 02 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Zimmerman made all sorts of bad decisions that ultimately ended up killing an innocent man. Perhaps his intentions were not to kill Martin, but he was certainly out to confront him.

If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law and others like it gain momentum, you can almost guarantee you'll see more and more of these dorky wannabe heroes, vigilantes, that don't have a clue what they're doing and freak out the first time they're confronted with an alleged situation.

Regardless of what happens in court, gbaji, your defense of his actions is pretty despicable.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Jul 02 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law

Not related to this case in any way. Does exist in Florida, I guess, but tying it to Zimmerman was a news cycle contrivance. This case could have happened anywhere in the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Jul 02 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law

Not related to this case in any way. Does exist in Florida, I guess, but tying it to Zimmerman was a news cycle contrivance. This case could have happened anywhere in the US.
Sure, the legalities are the same as they might have been a generation ago. However, the whole idea of stand your ground - that the law is behind you if you choose not to run from crimes being committed against you or other innocents but to instead stand and confront the violater, likely contributed to Zimmerman ever putting himself into the situation.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#35 Jul 02 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Sure, the legalities are the same as they might have been a generation ago. However, the whole idea of stand your ground - that the law is behind you if you choose not to run from crimes being committed against you or other innocents but to instead stand and confront the violater, likely contributed to Zimmerman ever putting himself into the situation.

Probably not. Hard to say based on media accounts, but all signs appear to indicate an insecure guy with an authority complex who wanted demonstrate his power. Not a new development as minor personality disorders go. The laws in question are bad policy and ill conceived, but that doesn't mean every unfortunate event is caused by or linked to them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#36 Jul 02 2013 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you.


Nope. You know there is pbulic access to laws, right? You don't have to just wing it based on your Law and Order viewing education:


FL- 782.02 The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

This will be important to you later, because the defense will be arguing it along with FL 776.041 because even this terrible lawyer won't make the technical mistake of leaving the opportunity for "maybe he wasn't attacked but could tell he was going to be".


You're looking only at the wrong part of the law genius. Try looking At Fl 772

Specifically:

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


776.13 applies to home defense, which doesn't apply. However, the first portion *does*. If Zimmerman believed he was at risk of great bodily harm or death and believed that using his firearm was the only way to prevent it, it's self defense. It does not matter where they are. All that matters is that Zimmerman (or a "reasonable person") believed he was at great risk.

Now. As I've repeatedly stated. Even if the prosecution can convince the jury that Zimmerman started the fight, then this part of the law applies:

Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.



See where there are two "unless" cases (It's almost like I actually read this law ahead of time). We don't know if Zimmerman initiated the physical fight, and if he did, we don't know if he made a good faith effort to retreat afterward. However, we absolutely do know that the last witness to see the two prior to the shot (just seconds before the shot) saw Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, pinning him to the ground and "raining down blows" on him. Zimmerman yelled for help and the witness told them he was calling the cops instead of helping. Zimmerman meets unless condition "a" right there at that moment. And that was the last third party observation prior to the shot being fired.


Which is why I keep saying this is a problem for the prosecution. Even if they can convince the jury that Zimmerman started the fight (which is a huge if), they then have to also convince the jury that Zimmerman was able to escape from Martin but chose to shoot him instead. Which is precisely what I said earlier. The way the law is written, if Martin starts the fight Zimmerman is not obligated to retreat if possible to avoid use of lethal force. If Zimmerman starts the fight then he is obligated to attempt to retreat, but he may still use lethal force if he does retreat and is pursued or if he's unable to retreat at all.

Try reading the entire section of the law next time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jul 02 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.

What the jury needs twofold. One, should Zimmerman be held liable for creating the circumstance, by following Martin, that ultimately led to Martin's death. Two, was Zimmerman's use of lethal force justifiable specifically with regards to a murder charge.

These are two separate charges. Zimmerman can be guilty one one, both, or neither.

It may very well be that the jury agrees that, once in the situation, Zimmerman's use of force was acceptable. They may also agree that his part in creating the situation was inexcusable.

It's also fully possible that they could rule that following Martin was acceptable, but using lethal force was not (possible clearing him of the manslaughter charge, but not the second degree murder charge).

And then of course, they could rule him guilty on both counts, or innocent on both counts.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#38 Jul 02 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.

Quote:
What the jury needs twofold. One, should Zimmerman be held liable for creating the circumstance, by following Martin, that ultimately led to Martin's death.


Wrong. That's what the audience at home cares about, largely because it's far more dramatic than the actual instructions the jury will be given about the legal claims being made by the prosecution and defense, and what relevant legal conditions need to be met in order to satisfy those claims. Zimmerman following Martin is utterly irrelevant to the charges being considered against him. Following someone doesn't equate to assault. Period.

Quote:
Two, was Zimmerman's use of lethal force justifiable specifically with regards to a murder charge.


Correct. And the law I linked to and the two portions I quoted from it are the means by which the jury will make that determination. They will look at the law which actually tells us when use of lethal force in self defense is justified and then they'll look at the version of events they believe happened based on the testimony and evidence in the trial, and they'll make a determination.

At the risk of repeating myself, no where in that law does it say that if you follow someone and that person attacks you that you may not use lethal force in self defense. Following isn't mentioned anywhere. The closest you can get is the part about "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself", but no jury in the world is going to interpret merely following someone as equivalent of provoking the use of force against himself. Attacking someone meets that criteria. Threatening someone meets that criteria. Merely walking into proximity of another person does *not* meet that criteria.

Quote:
These are two separate charges. Zimmerman can be guilty one one, both, or neither.


Huh? He's being charged with manslaughter. It's possible for the jury to decide he's not guilty of manslaughter but is guilty of negligent homicide (or whatever the specific charge is in Florida). He can't be guilty of both.

Quote:
It may very well be that the jury agrees that, once in the situation, Zimmerman's use of force was acceptable. They may also agree that his part in creating the situation was inexcusable.


Which is where the potential for negligent homicide comes in. Again though, the criteria for that is taking an action which a reasonable person should know would result in risk of loss of life to someone else. I don't think any reasonable person thinks that following someone to talk to them meets that criteria. Unless, of course, they can convince the jury that Zimmerman followed Martin with the specific intent of assaulting him or otherwise forcing a physical confrontation, knowing that he was armed and that if Martin fought back sufficiently, he could kill him with his weapon.


But that's a huge stretch, and I don't think the prosecution has come remotely close to proving that.

Quote:
It's also fully possible that they could rule that following Martin was acceptable, but using lethal force was not (possible clearing him of the manslaughter charge, but not the second degree murder charge).


Er? I think you're confusing the charges. He's not up for premeditated murder. He's up for 2nd degree murder (also known as manslaughter). That's the intentional killing of someone else without prior intent. So you run into someone, get into a fight with that person, and then kill that person. That's manslaughter. That's the specific charge to which self defense applies.

The lesser charge would be something like negligent homicide, which is knowingly taking an action which you should know would put another persons life at risk. So building a concealed pit trap in your yard would result in negligent homicide. Leaving your infant child in your car on a hot day is negligent homicide. It's a stretch, but you could argue that if Zimmerman knew Martin would react a specific way if he followed him, and knew that this would result in a confrontation which could result in Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense it could be considered negligent homicide to follow him. But that's a bizarre argument because it would require prior knowledge of Martin and would at that point possibly border into the premeditated homicide category, not the much lesser negligent homicide. I'll again assert that most reasonable people don't assume that following someone will inevitably lead to a physical confrontation with a risk of great bodily harm or loss of life. And anything more direct would fall into the manslaughter area.

Quote:
And then of course, they could rule him guilty on both counts, or innocent on both counts.


Um... No. They can't. They can rule him innocent, but he can't be guilty of two different degrees of homicide for the same death. It's either one degree or it's not any. It can't be two different degrees at the same time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jul 02 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.


Doing what the dispatcher told him not to do. You are forgetting that most important part, Zimmerman is not a cop and had no right to stop, approach, question Martian. His duty as a neighborhood watch member stop at calling 911 or the dispatcher as he did, anything else was beyond his authority. Just because it was his house development doesn't mean jack. Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
____________________________
.
#40 Jul 02 2013 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
How would you know they had a badge if you ran from the person in the dark? The world you live in has an awful lot of hindsight in it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jul 02 2013 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
How would you know they had a badge if you ran from the person in the dark? The world you live in has an awful lot of hindsight in it.


Some one that identified them self's as a officer would make a effort to show it. I have been stop a few times walking home at night as well and those officers made a a big point to make sure I knew they were the police.
____________________________
.
#42 Jul 03 2013 at 4:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation.


Right. They do assume they'll get shot if they visit their stepmother though, I mean that's a reasonable expectation.

The most amusing thing to do with Gbaji's current line of quasi plausible argument is just to imagine him making it for a case of the black kid shooting Zimmerman. You know, he legally has the gun instead and kills Zimmerman. Logically the argument should hang together just as well. Let's try it. Ahahahahahah hahaaha ahahahahah ahahahah. Good times, good times.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Jul 03 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:

And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation.
Most people learn by kindergarten that talking to strangers carries some risk of an unwanted confrontation. Zimmerman knew this. He also knew he had his loaded pistol on him.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#45 Jul 03 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Oh look it's either varus or someone pretending to be varus. Lets see how many posts you get before you get banned.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#46 Jul 03 2013 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Where my fiddy dollahs?!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jul 03 2013 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
bluffrat75 wrote:


You're an idiot if you don't think having your head banged repeatedly on the sidewalk is justification for defending yourself with deadly force. But hey your white guilt tends to block any semblance of rational thought.
Try it.

Stealthily follow some white woman around. When you finally approach her she'll attempt to defend herself and push you to the ground - then you shoot her. Let us know what the court decides about your justification.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#48 Jul 03 2013 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Where my fiddy dollahs?!
s - l - o - w - l - y and quietly. You'll scare it off again.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#50 Jul 03 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh look it's either varus or someone pretending to be varus.
Is it already that time of the month? Whose turn is it to fully engage this time?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Jul 03 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.


Doing what the dispatcher told him not to do.


The dispatcher has no authority to tell Zimmerman what he can or cannot do. The dispatcher did not say "You can't follow him", or "It's against the law to follow him", or even "If you follow him and he attacks you, it'll be your fault". I can't find a transcript at the moment, but IIRC the dispatcher told him something like "We don't need you to do that". It's a CYA for the police. Zimmerman has every right to follow Martin if he wants to.

Quote:
You are forgetting that most important part, Zimmerman is not a cop and had no right to stop, approach, question Martian.


One out of three isn't bad. Zimmerman cannot legally "stop" Martin, but he has every right to approach him and question him. Martin has every right to ignore or evade him as well, of course. But to argue that Zimmerman somehow committed some grave offense simply by following Martin and is therefor completely 100% responsible for everything that happened after that point is completely wrong.

Quote:
His duty as a neighborhood watch member stop at calling 911 or the dispatcher as he did, anything else was beyond his authority.


But not beyond his right to do as a normal concerned citizen. You don't need police powers to walk up to someone and talk to them.

Quote:
Just because it was his house development doesn't mean jack. Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't.


I wouldn't run away though. I *have* been approached by the equivalent of the nosy neighbor in a complex before. It never once occurred to me to flee though. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Martin ran *before* Zimmerman even got out of his car. Zimmerman was sitting in his parked car, watching Martin walking up the street towards him and reporting to police what he saw. At some point, Martin saw Zimmerman in the car talking on his phone, but instead of just walking on by like a normal person, he ran away. Then Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him. You can clearly hear this on the recording of Zimmerman's phone call.

The actions of Martin far more match that of someone who was up to no good, was perhaps scoping out the neighborhood or looking for something to vandalize/steal, and then when he realized that he was being watched, he didn't think "there's some creepy guy who might be a murderer", he almost certainly thought "There's a guy who might be part of the neighborhood watch, and he saw me poking around the houses along the road, so I'd better run before he gets a good look at me".

Speculation on my part? Absolutely. But who runs away just because they see someone sitting in a parked car on the side of the road? Not someone innocently walking home from the store.



Quote:
Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.


Wrong. They have every right to follow and question you. They don't have the *authority* to require you to stop and answer their questions though. The bigger point is that someone else following you does *not* give you the right to attack that person.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 84 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (84)