The central point about Trayvon Martin-completely missed by the Zimmerman defenders all along

[kpete]

And here’s the central point about Trayvon Martin, completely missed by the Zimmerman defenders all along
Posted on April 19, 2012

Crump said it was not clear that Martin threw the first punch but, argued that even if he did, Zimmerman’s actions launched the entire sequence of events. “Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground,” Crump said. “We believe that Trayvon went to his grave not knowing who this strange man was that was approaching and confronting him.”

via: The Daily Beast

If 17-year-old Trayvon didn’t have the right to stand HIS ground, defend himself from an ADULT MALE STRANGER who was approaching HIM, who began menacing him, a stranger with a gun who actually shot HIM to death within a few minutes of their meeting, WHO DOES?

No one.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/new-account-zimmerman-told-cops-trayvon-s-last-words-were-okay-you-got-it.html
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/04/19/and-heres-the-central-point-about-trayvon-martin-completely-missed-by-the-zimmerman-defenders-all-along/

[freshwest]

1. The main point all along. No to two sets of laws. SYG is for victims, not stalkers!

[Skittles]

2. CORRECT

Trayvon is dead because of the actions of Mr. Zimmerman - heck, he was STALKING Trayvon - and THAT is why he should have been arrested that same night

[Iris]

3. Exactly. That and there should have been an investigation from the get-go

as there would have been if a 17-year old white boy ended up dead on the sidewalk.

[zbdent]

121. and if Zimmerman was a black man "standing his ground" ...

[Iris]

123. You KNOW he would have been arrested on the spot.

There's a case in Georgia against a black man who was using the castle doctrine. It seems that these really are laws written for white people.

God damn. What year is this? 1943?

[Ecumenist]

4. BAM!! Yes, that's is exactly what they seem intent on ignoring. I was always taught to do

whatever I had to to escape a dangerous, ATTACKING stranger as a child. That's what kids are taught. He screamed for help and fought. What was he supposed to do? What would ANYONE do upon finding themselves in the same situation?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

6. +1

[nevergiveup]

5. I have never understood

why Trayvon defending himself against this gun carrying stalker would be a plus in Zimmerman's defense. I have also always thought that maybe Trayvon was on this guys back attempting to pin him down and at the same time screaming for help. The guy was much larger and he had a gun. Trayvon knew he was not going to win this fight.

[doc03]

9. Zimmerman was much larger 5' 10" and 170# vs 6' 3" and 160#, I don't think so. Also 10 years older

[marshall gaines]

28. 6'3''?

you have bought into all the racist apologists explanations of 'poor' zimmerman standing his ground against menacing martin. you sicken me.

[Iris]

61. I hate that meme

especially since I can't even imagine how SKINNY 160# is on a 6'3" male frame.

[Daalalou]

64. Martin's nickname was Slimm. nt

[Iris]

67. Says it all.

[rhett o rick]

85. So tell us what you think, if you dare. nm

[brush]

108. 10 Years older?

Ten years older? Don't you get what you're saying? A 28-year-old is a fully developed adult with adult strength, not a skinny 17-year-old who is still growing into his body. Athletes at 28 are considered just entering their prime at 28 so get off the 10 years older crap. That's a huge advantage to a grown man with a gun purposely stalking a skinny teen. And the grown-up, allegedly with adult judgment and decision-making skills (not), ends up killing the teen who doesn't even know who the hell this possible pervert following him is. I hope zimmerman rots in jail. Probably won't though once he's released into the general population of whatever penitentiary he ends up in. He'll be lucky if he ends up being some con's biatch. I doubt it though. I have a feeling there will be some con waiting to show him the terror Travon Martin experienced, times 10. Maybe it really will be him screaming for help then.

[marble falls]

115. So the gun wasn't an equalizer after all .....

Zimmerman started it and ended it. Trevon never stood a chance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. I Don't Get It

A twenty seven year old is at his physiological peak. He's certainly not at a physical disadvantage in any athletic competition, including a fight.

[doc03]

7. Is there any evidence that proves Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon?

[Vincardog]

10. Only all of it

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Yes

911 Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Ya

911 Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

Also, Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being following by some strange man. She told him to run.

I'd certainly call that evidence of stalking.

[doc03]

13. No the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" and

Zimmerman said OK. That sounds like he very well could have agreed not to follow him. Doesnt OK mean you agree.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. LOL!!!

You're funny. What about the girlfriend?

[doc03]

18. What about the girlfriend? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

22. The girlfriend said Trayvon told her he was being followed by some strange guy

Also, did you see where the altercation took place?

A good ways away from where Zimmerman parked his car. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon shortly after he got out of the car. How do we know? You can hear the beep beep of the alarm over the 911 call.

How in the world did Zimmerman get from his car all the way there if he wasn't following him? If you look at the paths, Trayvon was on a clear path home.

[Daalalou]

63. And where was Zimmerman after his 911 call?

His call ended at 7:14. Martin's call to his girlfriend ended at 7:16. The shots were fired at 7:17, after about 40 seconds of screaming. That means that Martin had 20 or 30 seconds to track Zimmerman down and attack him, if we're to believe Zimmerman's story. (You can't really sneak up on someone while you're TALKING ON THE PHONE).

But Zimmy, OTOH, had at least two minutes before the shots rang out. What was he doing during that time? Where was he? If he was truly heading back to his truck as he claimed, why hadn't he arrived? And why did the shooting take place no where near his truck, but rather in a backyard closer to the home where Martin was staying?

[Ecumenist]

17. Are you serious? You can hear his laboured breathing AFTER he's told that... But of

COURSE Trayvon brought this on himself because it makes PERFECT sense that he went back after a strange man he DID NOT KNOW . He also told his girlfiend that he was being followed but your right, EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING that is clearly shown by the recordings and phone records are lying EXCEPT Zimmerman and you and your ilk. What was I thinking? Silly me

[Quixote1818]

21. But the prosecutors said according to their evidence he continued to follow Trayvon

Just use your common sense here. Zimmerman: "These ass holes, they always get away." Then Zimmerman is heard breathing hard running after the kid and told to stop. Zimmerman: "He is headed for the back entrance".

So what seems to be going through Zimmerman's mind based on what he has said? Number 1. He doesn't want the "ass hole" to get away. Number 2. The kid is headed toward the back entrance of the gated community and he wanted to prevent the boy from getting there and getting away.

Also, call records show for a fact Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend up until one minute before he was killed. Do you think he was stalking Zimmerman while chatting on the phone with his girlfriend? Who would do that?

Also, Zimmerman's father said Trayvon confronted him at Zimmerman's SUV. Absolute bull shit! No way this happened. Zimmerman's story is all over the place.

[uppityperson]

23. Not always. "ok" can mean "I heard you", not "I will do what you say"

[JDPriestly]

164. It can also be a polite way of saying, "Shut up. I've heard enough."

It doesn't mean much in the context of the call -- not much one way or the other. But the fact that Zimmerman asked the 911 operator to have the officers call Zimmerman when they arrived at the development, suggests that Zimmerman did not plan to stay near the clubhouse where he was when he first called 911.

[brush]

109. Stalking

But you're conveniently ignoring the previous poster's hard fact that his girlfriend's cell phone records back up that Martin was being followed. There's no doubt that zimmerman was following the kid, and with a loaded gun. The kid ended up dead, that equals a 2nd degree murder charge.

[marble falls]

116. I wish the dispatcher had been more authoritative but I think Zimmerman would ....

ignored a more direct "Do not follow him" command. Trayon was in Zimmerman's sights before the pistol was pulled.

[Kennah]

166. 911 dispatchers usually aren't cops

A 911 dispatcher telling someone to do something does not carry the weight of law, BUT, it does contribute to dismantling Zimmerman's mantle of innocence because it seems clear he pursued Trayvon Martin.

SYG means STAND Your Ground not SEIZE Your Ground.

Pursuit could imply aggression and negate any claim by Zimmerman of self defense.

OTOH, SYG could become very significant here because Trayvon Martin also had a right to stand his ground and defend himself against someone pursuing and attacking him.

[whopis01]

135. Have you never known someone to say one thing and do another?

What he said on the 911 call doesn't prove anything one way or another. The actions that he took are what matter.

According to what he said, Zimmerman had been following Martin up to that point. And Martin had seen him at that point.

It does appear that Zimmerman quit following him at some point in the transcript - shortly after the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". For a period of time he is talking calmly and clearly like he is standing in one spot.

However, later he sounds mad that he can't see him anymore, saying "I don't know where this kid is". And it sounds like he is moving around while talking.

One interesting bit at the end is when the dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police by the mailboxes, Zimmerman first replies "Yeah that's fine" and then asks that they call him to find out where he is when they arrive. Which makes it sound like he is still going to be moving around the neighborhood.

I wouldn't say that is all that clear either way from the transcript - but I think what it is going to come down to is this - Initially (by his own admittance) Zimmerman was following Martin around and initiated interaction with him (from a distance - but interaction none the less). Then later there is a confrontation and Zimmerman shoots Martin. The question is going to be whether or not these are viewed as two separate incidents or part of the same, extended interaction. If they are viewed as one incident, then Zimmerman started the ball rolling. If they are viewed as two separate incidents, then it is not clear who initiated the second incident.

[backtomn]

68. I don't think that it helps the argument much

I don't think that "stalking" implies something done for a few minutes. Also, "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as 'it is illegal for you to do that', but either way, the dispatcher has no authority to tell him not to follow someone. It is also not illegal to "confront" someone, so how that is defined in the case is very important.

Was bothers me most is that people from both sides lack the humility to acknowledge that they don't know the whole story. Did anyone see the affidavit from the prosecutor? You are not going to convict anyone with that....so there obviouly has to be more. I will wait until it is public knowledge......all of it.

[doc03]

69. Amen n/t

[HarveyDarkey]

82. All of it?

Will Trayvon's tesimony be included? No, wait....

[brush]

110. Gun

How about a neighborhood watch guy carrying a loaded weapon and confronting and killing an innocent person? Nothing wrong with that? You're kidding, right?

[Blue_Tires]

114. But Martin wasn't doing anything illegal

So why is this stranger following him at night? Why is this stranger treating him like a criminal and reporting him to 911?

[Skittles]

158. teenager goes to the store for Skittles and iced tea and winds up dead

do you not see the problem here???

[tblue37]

173. You might want to correct your typo,

because it confuses your point. You wrote:

". . . he was being following by some strange man."

Someone might read it as Trayvon following the strange man.

[DevonRex]

12. Zimmerman's own account whe he's on the phone with 911. He was told not to leave his car. He ignores

that instruction and follows. Martin tells his girlfriend a guy is following him. He tries to lose him. Zimmerman runs to catch up. The 911 operator hears his labored breathing and asks if he's following after him. When he says yes the operator says "we don't need you to do that." he ignores that and keeps following, which is how he ends up shooting a child with candy in his pocket.

[doc03]

16. Zimmerman said OK, in my understanding of English that meant he agreed with the

dispatcher not to follow him. Also under his breath he said these guys always get away, that sounds like he may have been frustrated because he was told not to follow him and thought he would get away.

[Leftist Agitator]

24. You have an interesting interpretation...

However, Zimmerman's continued heavy breathing after being told to desist from pursuing Trayvon indicates that he most likely was doing so because he was in fact still pursuing Trayvon.

[Quixote1818]

26. Just because he told the dispatcher "ok" do you really think he stopped?

This is a guy who got into a fight with a police officer who was going to arrest his friend. He has a history of disregarding authority because his Dad always gets him out of binds.

He also has a history of violence against women. Trayvon had ZERO history of ever being violent. Had never even been in a fight before. We also know Zimmerman lied about being near death getting his head pounded into the ground and his face pummeled upon.

Why are you so eager to believe Zimmerman? This is a strange guy who constantly calls 911 and is violent and at 27 hasn't got his life together. He has a lot of problems.

[uppityperson]

29. "OK" doesn't always mean "I will follow your directions"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ok?s=t

K? ?[oh-key, oh-key, oh-key] Show IPA adjective, adverb, interjection, noun, plural OK's, verb, OK'd, OK'ing.
adjective
1.
all right; proceeding normally; satisfactory or under control: Things are OK at the moment.
2.
correct, permissible, or acceptable; meeting standards: Is this suit OK to wear to a formal party?
3.
doing well or in good health; managing adequately: She's been OK since the operation.
4.
adequate but unexceptional or unremarkable; tolerable: The job they did was OK, nothing more.
5.
estimable, dependable, or trustworthy; likable: an OK person.
adverb
6.
all right; well enough; successfully; fine: She'll manage OK on her own. He sings OK, but he can't tap dance.
7.
(used as an affirmative response) yes; surely.
8.
(used as an interrogative or interrogative tag) all right?; do you agree?
interjection
9.
(used to express agreement, understanding, acceptance, or the like): OK, I'll get it for you.
10.
(used as an introductory or transitional expletive): OK, now where were we?
noun
11.
an approval, agreement, or endorsement: They gave their OK to her leave of absence.
verb (used with object)
12.
to put one's endorsement on or indicate one's approval of (a request, piece of copy, bank check, etc.); authorize; initial: Would you OK my application?
Also, O.K., okay.

Origin:
initials of a facetious folk phonetic spelling, e.g., oll or orl korrect representing all correct, first attested in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1839, then used in 1840 by Democrat partisans of Martin Van Buren during his election campaign, who allegedly named their organization, the O.K. Club, in allusion to the initials of Old Kinderhook, Van Buren's nickname, derived from his birthplace Kinderhook, New York

[AlbertCat]

42. Your interp may have flown....

... except for the fact that Trayvon is the one who is dead.. A small detail you seem to have not noticed.


Are you dense?

[DevonRex]

77. It shows he's a mf-ing liar since he did follow. Then

minutes later his breathing becomes rapid and heavy because he's actually chasing him - running. That's when the operator knows he didn't follow his instructions.

[pokerfan]

81. You're reaching

You also have things backwards. Listen to the tape. He said "these assholes always get away" before dispatch said "we don't need you to do that."

Nice try though.

[A wise Man]

111. You are quite......

"DELUSIONAL" very very much so!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LanternWaste]

159. Then it would appear your understanding of English is somewhat lacking...

"in my understanding of English that meant he agreed with the dispatcher not to follow him...""

Then it would appear your understanding of English is somewhat lacking and denies multiple meanings-- "Ok" may also mean, "I acknowledge what you said, regardless of whether I choose to follow your common sense instructions..."

[backtomn]

70. The dispatcher told him that he did not need to follow, but

the dispatcher has no authority to keep him from doing it. It is not illegal to follow someone or "confront" them. He cannot, however, start a fight so he can shoot someone. If the evidence shows that is what happened, Zimmerman will be in trouble.

[Ecumenist]

14. Really? wow. eom

[doc03]

30. I am not defending either one of them. When this case was brought to light we only heard

the Martin's side of the story. For one thing there was a total lie that the Martin's were not notified for 3 days,
well from what I have heard since it was 15 hours. Then you had NBC news that edited the 911 tape to incriminate
Zimmerman. So then we hear Zimmerman's side. He called the 911 dispatcher and was asked if he was following Trayvon and he said yes the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman said OK. Doesn't OK mean? yes
or affirmative? Couldn't he very well have turned and headed back to his car and Trayvon decided to confront him?
I wasn't there I don't know and none of you do either. I am not about to pass judgement on Zimmerman when I don't know all the evidence. That is for the court to decide.

[Quixote1818]

33. If he headed back to his car then how on Earth did they end up fighting so far from the car?

Please explain how Zimmerman got from his car to between the buildings half way to Martin's house? Are you suggesting Martin dragged him there? Give me a fucking break. Why are you so eager to believe the guy who was profiling an innocent kids trying to get home. It's mind boggling.

[Occulus]

62. "I am not defending either one of them."

Like hell you aren't.

[obamanut2012]

66. Trayvon Martin was dead, so pray tell how did he ever hear "his side"?

Hmmmm?

[JDPriestly]

101. Listen to Zimmerman's first 911 call a couple of more times.

I think you will hear what is going on.

We won't know for sure until the evidence is presented at trial, and even then, I expect that some evidence may be excluded that would be helpful to clarify what really happened.

The 911 call suggests that Zimmerman was near his car at the time of the call and that the car was parked near the recreation area at the front of the housing development. Zimmerman states that Trayvon was heading toward the back of the development. Trayvon's girlfriend said that Trayvon said a man was following him. I don't know whether Trayvon's statements to his girlfriend will be admitted into evidence.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, it is so important for everyone concerned that the trial take place. If Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, he needs to establish that as a fact. If he doesn't, the accusations will hang over his head for the rest of his life.

The various rumors about Zimmerman's account of the events do not make sense and make Zimmerman look like a liar, but then they may just be rumors.

It may be that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was attacking him, but that a jury would find that in fact Zimmerman was the attacker. On the other hand, a jury might find the opposite to be true. Hard to predict. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt for the finding of guilty. But this case will depend on the outcome of the presentation of a defense. We know that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. That is pretty certain. What we don't know is whether Zimmerman can persuade a jury that he killed Trayvon in self-defense.

I think everyone already knows and agrees on what I am saying.

[CreekDog]

125. yes, why would you defend Martin?

one armed guy is alive and he killed one unarmed guy.

obviously you should care about both the same amount.

[marshall gaines]

27. what????

where have you been? Zimmerman told the 9/11 dispatcher he was going after him.

[doc03]

36. He said no such thing, the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman said "OK"'.

If I was the dispatcher I would understand "OK" to mean he agreed not to follow him.

[Quixote1818]

39. You still have not answered everyones other points

If Zimmerman stopped then how did he end up between the buildings half way from his SUV to Trayvon's house? It's impossible! Zimmerman ABSOLUTELY did not STOP get it?

[marshall gaines]

51. sickened

sickened by headinsanditis and no logic. man! disgusting

[Rex]

32. Yes he chased the kid through a few yards and shot him in the back.

I don't know if you consider that stalking, but he did chase him down (after getting out of his car) and shoot him.

[doc03]

37. Oh now he shot him in the back, that's news n/t

[abelenkpe]

44. Ok

I see you just have reading comprehension problems. Must be why you keep flipping Zimmerman and the dispatchers words around.

[marshall gaines]

52. no!!!!

No, he murdered him, shot front or back, doesn't matter. go vote for romney and leave thinking people alone.

[fascisthunter]

57. do you truly believe pretending you have a point will actually make it so?

You know, belief only goes so far.

[abelenkpe]

43. Here

Zimmerman:

We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman:

He looks black.

911 dispatcher:

Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]

911 dispatcher:

He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK.

Zimmerman:

Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]

911 dispatcher:

OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111?

Zimmerman:

That’s the clubhouse.

911 dispatcher:

He’s near the clubhouse now?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.

And he’s a black male.[1:03]

911 dispatcher:

How old would you say he is?

Zimmerman:

He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

911 dispatcher:

Late teens?

Zimmerman:

Uh, huh.

Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman:

OK.

911 dispatcher:

We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman:

OK.

These assholes. They always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]

911 dispatcher:

OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]

NOTE:

[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]
911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, what’s your last name?

Zimmerman:

Zimmerman.

911 dispatcher:

What’s the phone number you’re calling from?

Zimmerman:

407-435-2400
911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman:

Yeah.

911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:

Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK, do you live in the area?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, yeah, I live here.

911 dispatcher:

OK, what’s your apartment number?

Zimmerman:

It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

911 dispatcher:

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

Zimmerman:

Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …

Zimmerman:

Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]

911 dispatcher:

OK, that’s no problem.

Zimmerman:

My number … you’ve got it?

911 dispatcher:

Yeah, I’ve got it. 435-2400?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, you got it.

911 dispatcher:

OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]

Zimmerman:

Thanks.

911 dispatcher:

You’re welcome.

Call ends 4:07

--------------------------------------------
Zimmerman answered Yes to was he following Trayvon. He continued following him despite being told not to. Trayvons girlfriend was on the phone with him at the time. Trayvon told her some guy was following him. She told him to run. Trayvon was shot moments later. That is the evidence.

[Quixote1818]

47. What he says here suggests he still plans on following Trayvon

Snip:

It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is


What I take from this is Zimmerman doesn't want to meet the cops at his house because he wants to continue following Trayvon and prevent him from making it out the back entrance which happens to be right next to his Dad's girlfriends house. When he says "oh, crap" he is realizing that would prevent him from chasing Trayvon because he would feel obligated to head back to his house to meet the cops. He doesn't want to tie himself down so he can continue to chase Trayvon and beat him to the back entrance and prevent the "ass hole" from getting away.

[LAGC]

118. That just occurred to me, too.

Why would he be so afraid of giving out his address unless he thought there was a good chance the whole audio tape might be made public?

Might give the prosecutors more ammo for a Murder conviction... (Pre-Meditated)

[nclib]

50. He also told the police to call him when they got to the neighborhood.

At first he said he's meet them at the mailboxes.

"911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck.
...
911 dispatcher:

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, that’s fine."

Then he tells the dispatcher to have the police to call him when they get there and he will tell them where he is.

"911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …

Zimmerman:

Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?

911 dispatcher:

OK, that’s no problem."


That says to me that George wasn't going to stay at the mailboxes but was going to follow Trayvon instead.

[doc03]

53. Yea Zimmerman answered yes to "Are you following him?" You conveniently leave

out the following line "We don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman said "OK". In every line in the conversation the word OK seems to be understood as yes or affirmative. But when he says OK to that order it somehow changes it's meaning to
"no I don't care what you say I will follow him anyway." Like I said earlier we don't know all the evidence and both sides have been putting out all kinds of half truths and plain lies. I don't claim to know what happened I wasn't there and you weren't there either. I am just trying to see each side before I pass judgement. The last I checked this was still America and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I mean we were told it was 3 days before the cops notified the Martin's when it was 15 hours. Then we see all these family pictures of Trayvon were most of them are obviously from couple years ago. He is portrayed as this skinny kid that weighed like 140 pounds. Then we find out he was over 6 feet tall and 160 pounds. Zimmerman is portrayed as this 270 pound thug when in reality he is only about 170 and much shorter than Trayvon. Then on the other side the story seems to change every day. He supposedly had a broken nose but no blood on his shirt. Another DUer said he had broken his nose a couple times and one time there was very little bleeding. So maybe he did break his nose. In the video of him arriving at the police station it does appear he had some type of a bruise or lump on the back of his head. The cop obviously looked at something. Bottom line we may only have a fraction of the evidence "I don't know what really happened".

[rhett o rick]

87. You know that "then we find out" isnt proof? You should supply links

to verify your "then we find out" facts.

[SmellyFeet]

117. Interesting how you convienently ignore so much of the story to make Zimmerman appear innocent.

You should be embarrassed.

[EOTE]

163. Absolutely pitiful!

I truly have a hard time believing an adult brain could have such a difficult time recognizing facts. Did you hear his heavy breathing after that "OK"? He said that to acknowledge that he heard what the dispatcher said, NOT to say that he'd do what the dispatcher asked of him. I've seen some incredibly pathetic defenses of this murderous asshole around here, but yours has got to be the most pathetic of them all.

[marshall gaines]

54. excellent

just remember this kid was black and menacing with his skittle gun and arizona ice tea knifes so he, as a white man had all the right in the world to follow and murder this kid doc03. simple isn't it?

[fascisthunter]

56. lol.... yuh

guuu, guuu, guuuu-hilp!

[Cali_Democrat]

8. But you have to get into the mind of a Zimmerman defender.

From their perspective, young black males shouldn't be allowed to stand their ground. It's people like Zimmerman that have to stand their ground against young black males.

[Ecumenist]

19. Yep. Black folks are allowed to stand up for themselves and get all uppity, doncha know.

They're so transparent.

[Quixote1818]

38. Apparently a 27 year old with a history of violence and disregarding the law

who has fought cops and beat up his girl friend, can't hold down a job or decide what to do with his life, calls 911 every other day and was clearly stalking Trayvon and ended up KILLING him, SEEMS less threatening than a black kid with NO history of violence from a good middle class family. Un fucking believable! Had Trayvon been white NO ONE would be saying this kind of crap.

This kind of shit pisses me off to no end.

[Carolina]

49. excellent!

You nailed it. If the kid had been white and the killer a Black man with a history like Zimmerman's, his ass would have been in jail from the get-go. period, end of story.

This case continues to boil my blood.

Great post, Quixote1818

[Quixote1818]

79. Thanks

As a white person, I just don't get why this is so hard for people to grasp? It's so crystal clear to me and seems so hard to get for so many people. A lot of people who don't think they are prejudice don't realize how skewed their perception of reality is because the media has made blacks out to be so scary. I am sick and tired of it! Wake the fuck up people and understand that a lot of folks out there do have a prejudice view of the reality of blacks. This was a regular, good kid who wanted to be a pilot and who's Dad was affectionate with him in public. He clearly came from a very loving, stable environment. Would all these Zimmerman defenders be saying this crap if it was their kid was walking home with candy and murdered? Fuck no! They would be outraged beyond description! But oh no, it was a black kid so he probably was violent and intended to break into a house. He shouldn't have fought back. Well, fuck you ass holes out there for thinking this because you are prejudice and out of touch with reality.

[Cosmocat]

104. Dude!

I just can not for the life of me see how anyone can defend Zimmerman.

He very clearly is some pathetic loser with some real issues who has been protected by his father, the judge, from the consequences of his actions.

Just a tragic situation where this clown kills what appears to be a pretty decent kid. The locals who bowed to dad one more time for this twit are responsible for this turning into a freak show, and the justice that Martin deserves forever being tainted by the bizarre right wing spin machine into Zimmerman being some kind of victim and cult hero, and a decent kid who was simply minding his own business and got executed that night being painted in the sad way he is being painted by these people.

[brush]

112. Quixote1818 and Carolina

You both are spot on. And remember the Sanford cops first claimed that zimmerman's background was squeaky clean. That was the beginning of the cover up. That killer had several violent incidents in his past. If he had been held accountable to them before, maybe he wouldn't have ended up having a gun and killing an innocent kid.

[kpete]

170. Quixote1818

NO ONE HAS SAID IT BETTER

peace, kpete

[patrice]

20. "No one." Absolutely. right. on.

[99 Percent Sure]

25. +1

[myrna minx]

31. K&R n/t

[enough]

34. and another. (nt)

[stupidicus]

35. I have to disagree

it wasn't missed, it's just been ignored or excused with the introduction largely of BS making Martin the provocateur in effort to blunt that particular point.

As one who spends a lot of time reading and disputing the BS from the "man in the street" rightwingnuts on other boards and the garbage they post from their puppetmasters, I can attest to the fact that their efforts on this one follows the customary pattern -- introducing dishonest BS, dodging the facts as it falls apart, and almost always a retreat to mindless denials when they run outta turds to polish.

That's why I've long called them triple-Ders...lol

[Cosmocat]

105. I always want to believe that I can not longer be surprised

by the right wings ability to do the very thing you do.

it just happens time, after time after time.

It was Clinton's fault 9-11 happened, the Bush white house did nothing wrong in outing a CIA operative.

I just get to the point sometimes when I think they can no longer surprise me for taking on indefensible positions and never acknowledging reality.

But, they do.

This particular situation, they should have NO allegiance to Zimmerman, he is a pathetic fool who has gotten by in life being protectec by his father. There is NO reason to defend this clown.

But, somehow, in their bizarre, sick and twisted way, it is a fit.

And, they have VERY COMFORTABLY slipped into doing what they do to defend this twit.

[stupidicus]

138. I'll assume you meant

that they do what I said as opposed to what I do.

It doesn't matter what the issue is, by and large they use the same template to deal with it.

This is how Rosen's comment became a mortal sin, but Nugent was just spouting off, and Rosen's mortal sin was damning, but their actions aren't. http://dailykos.com/story/2012/04/19/1084821/-House-Republicans-Being-a-mom-isn-t-work-in-the-normal-sense-

It's how they defend all their lies and "both ways" BS. Offensive offense is pretty much the ONLY defense they know, which is why the rats' always try to get of the corner they painted themselves into with charges posed against them, as opposed to rebutting the charges. Take those examples, or even the hilarious "class warfare" charges they've posed -- they are all ludicrous and merely examples of, them charging their opposition in almost all cases, of things they are far more if not exclusively guilty of.

That's why they are so reliant on dodging and denials after introducing the dishonesty.

[Cosmocat]

179. Yeah

What you said they do.

It is a clear, obvious and repeated pattern.

[relayerbob]

40. Agreed wholeheartedly

Trayvon was being stalked by a man with a gun. Seems to me he had the right to do whatever it took to defend himself, fully consistent with Florida law. Glad people are saying it out loud, finally.

[subject]

41. It's called

"Selective enforcement" and it is illegal.

[pnwmom]

45. No, wait -- you only get to stand your ground if you have a gun in your hand!

[Vattel]

46. No doubt that "Zimmerman's actions launched the whole sequence of events."

But that doesn't mean that Zimmerman's actions were not legally justifiable self-defense. (Personally, I don't know whether Zimmerman committed murder.)

[A Simple Game]

60. All Zimmerman had to do was stay in his SUV and no one would have died.

The fact that he got out of his SUV, whether he pursued Trayvon or Trayvon pursued him is irrelevant, was the cause of Trayvon's death. That to me says murder.

[shimonitanegi]

71. Zimmy got a loaded gun

So, he might want to take care of Martin himself.
He already convicted Martin for a crime he didn't commit.
We know he said "these assholes always get away", "fucking punk"
We know Zimmy's violent history and why he got fired from his security job.

[Starry Messenger]

48. k&r

[doc03]

55. One thing obvious here if most of you all were called for jury duty on this

case I sure wouldn't want to be Zimmerman.

[fascisthunter]

58. really... it took a thread to make you feel that way?!

[marshall gaines]

59. I hope

I pray i'm on a jury to judge you one day for any infraction or crime. and you're right i wouldn't want to be this coward zimmerman either. I don't care whether your rationale makes sense to you

[caseymoz]

74. We're being unfair?

I presume if any details presented here are incorrect, or if any details exonerating Zimmerman or mitigating his actions are missed, they'll be corrected in court.

Additionally, only one about 1/3000 of us have any chance of being on such a jury. So what you're saying is as meaningful as saying to a Padres fan "I wouldn't want to be playing on St. Louis if you were a Cardinals fan." No, I guess you wouldn't.

[Cosmocat]

106. Seeing as the moron stalked and executed a kid minding his own business

I imagine he is going to have problems with ANY sentient person who might serve on his jury who is not a brain dead Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck follower.

[liberalmuse]

65. This cold-blooded murder could have been prevented...

if only Zimmerman would've put aside his paranoia and prejudice. But he chose not to. He should spend some time in prison for that, and I'm not one to advocate prisons. What a bloody shame.

[caseymoz]

72. Let's face it, SYG is an Old West throwback.

Two guys standing their ground saying "Draw!"

Not that it ever happened like that, which is one of the problems. What actually happened was worse.

[DirkGently]

73. Yes. It's the crux of the whole "SYG" problem.

What SYG did away with was a duty to retreat if you could safely do so, other than in your own home (no duty to retreat in your "castle&quot . What gets ignored is that the duty to retreat reduces the likelihood that the person "defending" is actually the instigator.

As it is, SYG allows someone (like Zimmerman) to pursue a confrontation, exacerbate it, then suddenly declare themselves in "fear for their life" when it doesn't go their way.

Great for people who go around carrying a firearm -- you never have to worry about starting something you can't finish, because guns will win every argument. Which is exactly what the facts in the Martin case suggest occurred.

[subject]

76. Sounds like

premeditated murder to me. At least that's what we call it in New York.

[DirkGently]

78. No reason it couldn't work that way. Provoke a confrontation. Get response. Fire. (nt)

[Cosmocat]

107. Someone here mentioned it, and I think it is at the heart

of the right wing championing the cause of this moron.

This is about gun owners having more "rights" than non gun owners.

That is what the republican party is about - pushing the envelope to take away rights from those that don't get in line with them, and expanding the rights of those in their world.

You got a gun in any kind of conflict, your rights are greater than the person who does not have a gun.

[DirkGently]

172. Thus the emphasis on "who" has a weapon, vs. what, where, how, etc.

That's part of what's so culturally compelling about this case. An entitled, self-annointed armed American "good guy," spots what he perceives as an example of his right to ferret out, pursue, and punish a "bad guy," which in his mind includes any black teenager walking around "his" neighborhood. We have been given the impression that nothing the police said could change his mind about finally having the chance to live out the vigilante fantasy of being some kind of pretend Old West marshal, cleaning up the town.

And then we see the predictable results of what happens when people start deputizing themselves and declaring that you don't need trained law enforcement "to protect you." You just need a gun.

It's also a really inconvenient worst-case scenario of racial profiling, which the right likes to say is justified, because, they know who the bad guys are. They're black. And they wear "hoodies."

Jesus.

[Skip Intro]

75. kpete, I'm saddened that someone of your stature here

insists on calling those of us who consider both sides and desire to wait for the facts to come out before reaching judgment rather than latching onto assumptions - those of us who appreciate due process - "Zimmerman Defenders."

No one knows the events of that night, who approached who, how it all happened. We only the climax. You choose to believe one version, and that is your right. But then you choose to denigrate those of us who do not make that jump and label us "Zimmerman Defenders."

Seems beneath you, man.

Just saying.

[Quixote1818]

88. Take away the death and the fight and lets just look at how it all started

Now if your child had been walking through a neighborhood and profiled and someone followed them half way to your house, how would you feel about this person? What occurred up to that point was no different from things like the Patriot Act. Someone assumed a person was guilty with ZERO evidence and invaded their privacy and changed the course of their life. How is that different from someone listening to your phone calls without a warrant? Trayvon's rights were violated on a basic level.

This alone is enough to piss me off and he is not even dead yet.

While we don't know exactly how the fight started or ended here is what we do know.

The police also seemed to see Trayvon as just another black kid who wasn't supposed to be in the area and put very little effort into finding out what really happened. Another trampling of Trayvon's rights as an American citizen.


So at the very least Trayvon's rights were trampled upon by both Zimmerman and the Police. Thats why so many of us are so pissed off about this. Zimmerman will get a fair trial now because there are a lot of people out there who don't pay attention to stuff like this and they will be on the jury. It may be hard to convict Zimmerman and he may very well go free but I am still going to hate that fucker and the police because Trayvon would still be alive had Zimmerman not seen him and Zimmerman would have been arrested right away had he been black. Thats a fact.

[X_Digger]

90. How is following someone down a street different than tapping your phone sans warrant?!? Seriously??

Now if your child had been walking through a neighborhood and profiled and someone followed them half way to your house, how would you feel about this person? What occurred up to that point was no different from things like the Patriot Act. Someone assumed a person was guilty with ZERO evidence and invaded their privacy and changed the course of their life. How is that different from someone listening to your phone calls without a warrant? Trayvon's rights were violated on a basic level.

I would be pissed as well, but at that point, there is nothing illegal. Zimmerman killed Martin, and is facing the consequences for his actions.

Until the physical altercation started (my guess is that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, or tackled him, etc.), no law had been broken.

[Quixote1818]

92. I agree it's not against the law to follow someone

but on a basic common sense level it's just wrong in my opinion, especially since Trayvon wouldn't know why he was being followed causing his adrenalin to sky rocket and his fight posture to kick in. Now had he seen him break into a house then things would be different. Also, I don't think you can detain someone if you are not a cop. Isn't that kidnapping?

[X_Digger]

94. It's morally reprehensible to profile, yes.

But I wouldn't put it on par with tapping your neighbor's phone.

Yes, if he tried to detain Martin, that would be kidnapping. If he did it with a gun, that's (if I recall) aggravated kidnapping. But we were speaking about the actions before the altercation, generally.

It's not smart to follow and confront a suspicious person (suspicious to Zimmerman meaning black), but it's not illegal.

[Quixote1818]

96. You are right that it shouldn't be put on par with tapping your neighbor's phone.

I was probably jumping the shark on that one. On the other hand, few innocent people end up dead after there phone was tapped so in this case the results ended up as tragic as they possibly could have. Still, in the vast majority of people following people they think are suspicious nothing happens so I get your point.

[JDPriestly]

102. The jury will have to decide whether following Trayvon was an aggressive

act under the circumstances. It may have been. It seems odd to me that a fight started.

Certainly, I do not have the right to follow another person and then confront them even verbally.

I cannot picture why Trayvon who according to his girlfriend was frightened would have started a physical fight if he did not have to. Maybe it happened, but Zimmerman will have to explain why Trayvon and Zimmerman met and how a fight started. Trayvon was ahead of Zimmerman at the time of the Zimmerman's first 911 call. We know that because Zimmerman admitted to the fact that he was following Trayvon.

So how did Trayvon and Zimmerman come to be in the same place at the same time so that they could fight, so that Zimmerman could shoot Trayvon. Just getting to the same place as Trayvon took some deliberate action on Zimmerman's part seems to me. But then we shall see how Zimmerman explains this if he does.

I am wondering whether perhaps Zimmerman is planning to try to get a plea bargain. That could be why he wants to speak to Trayvon's parents -- to see whether he can apologize, show remorse, get a lighter sentence and get the trial behind him. I am just hypothesizing and do not have any evidence for my hypothesis other than the fact that the news media says that Zimmerman wants to talk to Trayvon's parents. Why would his lawyer do that unless Zimmerman wants to take responsibility in order to get a lighter sentence? Anyway that is my guess.

[X_Digger]

124. There is generally nothing illegal about following and verbally confronting a person.

If you repeatedly did that to a person, it would be harassment, or stalking, yes.

[JDPriestly]

161. It might or might not be illegal depending on the circumstances.

Vigilantism, that is taking the law in your own hands, is illegal in most places.

We don't know what really happened in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.

But --

It might be considered illegal for a person who is not a law enforcement officer to follow another person while carrying a gun. It would depend on the facts and the jury.

Hypothetically, let's turn the facts in the Zimmerman case around. Let's say that a criminal with a gun followed an innocent person -- a victim. What would the victim who is being followed do? He might run, call 911 or if the criminal gets too close and he couldn't run anymore, try to get in the first blow. He might scream for help, and if attacked by the criminal, would instinctively struggle to get away. The criminal with the gun would gauge what kind of threat the victim was. And in his calculation, he would be aware that he had a gun and could shoot to "defend himself" if necessary. Let's say he does shoot and the victim, an innocent person, dies.

Now imagine that the person with a gun is not a law enforcement agent and has no authority to apprehend people other than that of a private citizen. He does not think of himself as a criminal, however, but rather thinks of himself as a crime-fighter. The self-styled crimefighter notices a person that he thinks might fit the description of a criminal who has been stealing in the neighborhood -- the suspect (or victim). The self-styled crimefighter follows his suspect (victim). The suspect looks around and then begins to walk very fast and maybe even starts to run. The person who thinks of himself as a crimefighter might interpret his "suspect's" running away as evidence of guilt. Let's say the self-styled crimefighter approaches the suspect (victim). What will happen next? Let's say that somehow a fight ensues and the crimefighter kills the suspect who it turns out is innocent.

Assume the details are pretty much the same except that in the first hypothetical, the killer is a criminal. In the second, the killer doesn't think of himself as a criminal but rather as a crimefighter.

If in both cases there is a fight before the actual killing, without a witness, how can you know who started the fight? In the first example, did the criminal start the fight simply by following the victim, his gun in his waist? Was it a crime for the criminal to follow his victim? Was that attempted theft or murder? How about the second case, was following the innocent victim less of a crime, less of an attempted murder because the second guy thought he was a crimefighter?

I know what my answers are. From the view of an objective observer looking at what happened in each case, the criminal and the unofficial self-syled crimefighter acted in exactly the same way. In my book that means that their acts should be judged in the same way

If you were the innocent victim in either case, you would not know whether the person following you was a criminal or a self-styled crimefighter. You would think of yourself as a potential victim, not as a suspect.

Our law is supposed to judge acts, not people. That is what is very confusing to many of us. If Zimmerman acted like a criminal, then he should be judged by the same standard as a criminal.

[X_Digger]

162. What would be the purported charge (for following and confronting)?

There really isn't one. There is no specific law against vigilantism, merely the inappropriate use of force. It's the action, not the motivation, that is illegal or not.

That's just as true for Sea Shepherd and the Guardian Angels as it is for the Minutemen.

[JDPriestly]

176. There would not be any charge if there had not been a fight, an assault or in this case, a killing.

Whether the person following another is a criminal or a would-be crimefighter, it's the fact that a fight or a killing results from the following or occurs after the following that raises a question about legality. So I agree that it's the overall action starting from the following through to the killing that is or is not criminal, was or was not justified as self-defense.

One question I have had in this case is, assuming Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman to be true, what was Trayvon Martin's motive in doing so?

Zimmerman reported in the 911 call that Trayvon Martin was running (presumably) away from Zimmerman's location near his truck. Assuming that fact is found to be true, then why would Trayvon Martin attack Zimmerman?

If you look at a map showing the location of the truck and of the killing, it does not look like Trayvon Martin was killed near the truck or near the location at which Zimmerman made his first 911 call. So, if Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, why?

One reason, one motivation could have been that Trayvon Martin felt endangered by Zimmerman's following him or reappearing in front of Trayvon Martin after Zimmerman had earlier followed him. That would mean that Zimmerman's following Trayvon could be considered one phase of the overall crime should the killing be found to be a criminal act.

Then there is the issue of opportunity. Who created the opportunity for the confrontation? I think that was Zimmerman based on the scant and possibly incorrect "facts" we now know.

To the extent that Trayvon Martin is shown to have had the opportunity to kill Zimmerman (for example during a fight between the two of them), it would likely have been because Zimmerman created the opportunity for the fight by following Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman may have some other explanation or evidence. It will be interesting to hear it.

Then the means. Trayvon Martin did not have any means to kill Zimmerman other than his bare hands. But Zimmerman had a gun which was the means with which he killed Trayvon Martin. And Zimmerman knew he had a gun -- even if he did not think of it when he first met Trayvon Martin near the location of the killing.

So I definitely think that whether or not Zimmerman's following Trayvon Martin in and of itself was a crime, whether Zimmerman did follow Trayvon Martin may hold the clues as to who had the means, the motivation and the opportunity to commit a crime and therefore would most likely be the aggressor.

It will be interesting to see what evidence Zimmerman shows that suggests that Trayvon Martin had the means, the opportunity or the motivation to attack and threaten Zimmerman rather than the other way around. That will be an issue in my opinion in determining which of the two was acting in self-defense.

If Zimmerman created the means, the opportunity and had the motivation to start the confrontation and ultimately the killing, but Trayvon Martin did not, then seems to me that Trayvon Martin was more likely defending himself in the fight and Zimmerman could be viewed as the aggressor regardless which one of them struck the first blow.

Assuming Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin attacked him to be true (just for the sake of argument), the fact that Trayvon Martin was aware that he was being followed would suggest that it was Trayvon Martin who was acting in self-defense.

This was a situation in which it may have been Zimmerman who had the means (the gun), the motivation (he thought he could catch a criminal) and who was the one who created the opportunity for the dangerous confrontation (by following Trayvon Martin).

So, while following someone would not always be a crime, it could well be found to be one of a series of acts constituting a crime.

That's how I see the possibilities in this case. But, we know very little about the facts. We don't know what witnesses might testify, how the facts that we think we know now may turn out to be quite different upon further investigation and at a trial.

Sorry if this is incomprehensible. It's very late, and I am tired.

I would not be at all surprised if Zimmerman pleads and tries to get a light sentence. He may be able to claim that he meant well when he created the situation that he created, but that would not change the fact that he created it. After all, the prosecutor is charging a depraved mind showing disregard for human life, not premeditated murder.

But, as I said, the facts at a trial will almost certainly be different from those that we are speculating about right now. Still, I think it is good I and others are thinking about this and trying to understand what is going on. Someday one of us may be on a jury, though I don't think that any of us will be on the jury in this case.

[rhett o rick]

89. How can calling people that are defending Zimmerman's behavior "Zimmerman defenders"

not be accurate? There is a great difference in those that want to wait until there are more facts and those that are "defending Zimmerman".

Granted we dont know all the facts, but here are some that we know for sure:
Trayvon was unarmed.
Zimmerman pursued Trayvon.
Zimmerman had a gun.
Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

I agree Zimmerman is innocent until proved guilty. And I will defend his right to a fair trial. But how can you defend his actions?

[Cali_Democrat]

91. Defend people who stalk, pursue and gun down unarmed teenagers...get called out

Seems pretty simple if you ask me.

[chervilant]

139. Indeed. And,

ignore option really condensed the responses to this thread...

[The Wizard]

80. Being stalked and pursued

by a stranger with a gun is the epitome of "stand your ground."
Zimmermann was the one committing a crime by stalking and imposing his insanity on the victim.
He's obviously mentally unstable and the police should have confiscated the weapon on the spot.
Some policemen have some explainin' to do.

[McCamy Taylor]

83. Psst. Stand your ground only applies to guns. The gun has a right to stand its ground

so that the NRA can sell more guns. The finger applied to the gun is immaterial (as long as it is not African-American or Muslim finger).

[Kablooie]

100. Actually, you're right. If he broke Zimmerman's neck no one would claim SYG.

If he shot Zimmerman, there might be a slight chance SYG could be invoked.
Since he was black it would have been unlikely to succeed, of course but it could have been invoked.

[X_Digger]

84. A person generally doesn't legally have the right to take a swing at someone following them, no.

Not even someone 'confronting' them with shouted questions.

Now if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, tackled him, or brandished a firearm, then yes, Martin would have been justified in using force.

[Quixote1818]

93. Stand your ground does give you the right to swing at someone you think is a threat

Snip: A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first.


A lot of people standing their ground in Florida and I guess whoever has the biggest weapon and stands there grounds last wins?

[X_Digger]

95. Only what a reasonable person would consider a threat.

A person following you, even confronting you with questions- does not rise to that level, no.

[Quixote1818]

97. I would think that would depend on the perception of the person who is being followed

We teach our children to fight back and scream for help if they are approached by a stranger. If he thought Zimmerman was a child molester and his adrenalin was pumping his fighting instincts are going to kick in automatically. For example when someone is scared by something they often throw a punch as a protective reaction. See here:

However, if Zimmerman approached him in a calm, professional manor and Trayvon threw a punch then that would not be right. According to the one blond witness, she described Zimmerman as not being "smooth" and "overly aggressive". Those are not her exact words, however she assumed Zimmerman probably went about approaching Martin the wrong way simply because she knows his personality.

[X_Digger]

98. I'm talking about the legal standard..

I certainly hope you wouldn't teach your children to swing at a stranger approaching them. That will land them in jail when the guy runs up to them to hand them their wallet that they dropped a block back.

I can hear the prosecutor in my head..

"What gave you reason to believe that the person asking you questions was going to kill you?"

"What gave you reason to believe that the person following you was going to cause you grave bodily harm?"

[polly7]

99. What if Trayvon had been a female walking alone at night and followed and approached

by someone leaving his vehicle to chase 'her' on foot, should she feel threatened? Would she have the right to strike out once he caught up with her? They always say ........ never let them get you in their vehicle. I think any person would possibly be terrified in such a situation, male or female, young or old.

[X_Digger]

128. Had Zimmerman grabbed her, yes. That would be justified.

Or if he pulled out his gun, or made threats. But just jumping out of his car and walking up to her, even shouting questions? No. That doesn't meet the legal standard.

Any good self-defense class (doesn't even have to be a 'gun' class) that covers the law will teach you this. You typically don't want a suspicious stranger to get within reaching distance, but until they do something illegal, you are not justified in using force. You might be terrified, imagining scenarios in your mind, but that is not the legal standard. Would a reasonable person faced with similar circumstances feel that death or grave bodily harm was imminent, or that a felony was about to be committed.

[polly7]

134. Really??

People will do what they think they need to in a fight or flight response when faced with what they perceive as a deadly threat. If I think I can't outrun someone and am in a state of terror, do you REALLY think I'm not within my rights to try to lessen that threat?

[X_Digger]

137. You being in terror is not justification, legally, no.

Would a reasonable person faced with the same circumstances believe that death, grave bodily injury, or a forcible felony was imminent?

What if the guy chasing you finally catches up to you and says, "Whew! Finally caught up to you. Here's the credit card you dropped three blocks back at the coffee stand."

You'd feel pretty silly for being scared, no? Your fear would have been unreasonable.

[polly7]

140. Why are you making shit up that didn't happen? nt.

[X_Digger]

141. We're already off in hypothetical land (your post #99)

I'm trying to explain the legal standard, and how 'being terrified' does not constitute justification for use of force.

[polly7]

144. My hypothetical didn't descend into yuk-yuk land. nt.

[X_Digger]

146. No, you wanted to spin a hypothetical that works for you.

I get it, I do.

However, it doesn't change the situation. If you physically assaulted someone who had been following you, and confronted you, you likely would be up on charges.

Take a self-defense class, if you don't believe me. My instructor was a semi-retired police officer. She made sure that we knew the law, and at what point force would be justified.

[polly7]

148. Do you really believe anyone terrified by a stalking, threatening nutcase with a gun would

care for one second how their actions would appear in court? Unreal.

[X_Digger]

149. Now you add 'threatening with a gun'.. don't move those goalposts.

Threatening with a gun would be a forcible felony, and would also justify force (deadly force in fact).

If you're going to use force to defend yourself, you damned well better know the law.

Please, take a self-defense course (it doesn't have to be a 'gun' class, either.) This is a large portion of the class. When, and to what degree you are justified in using force.

[polly7]

152. No, if you're going to use force to defend yourself, all you really have to know at the

time is to fight like hell.

What a load of bull* ...... expecting anyone in a situation like this to give a rat's ass what the law thinks.

Did the compassionate stalker put his gun away so as not to frighten Trayvon more? REALLY? Now, we're in la-la land.

[X_Digger]

153. You're assuming the gun was out at the time? That doesn't fit any narrative presented so far.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just supposition?

No, if you're going to use force to defend yourself, all you really have to know at the

time is to fight like hell.

Then expect to be arrested, and have the prosecutor ask questions like, "What indication did you have that the victim meant to kill you?", "What indication did you have that you were in danger of grave bodily harm or that a forcible felony was about to be committed?"

If all you have is, "I was terrified." then you can expect to be convicted.

[SATIRical]

165. Believe it or not, as humans, we are expected

to evaluate the situation and weigh consequences and decide if things are illegal, even when in an emotional state.

And don't forget, there is zero indication martin knew Zimmerman had a gun until the altercation began.

And let's also not forget that legally, Zimmerman was not stalking. Sure, its a scary word that is more fun to use than "following", but it is not legally accurate.

[chervilant]

142. What?!?

Unwarranted; perhaps. Unreasonable; no. Having endured centuries of sexual and physical assaults, women must be extremely wary of any male chasing us!

(In your absurd scenario, your 'good samaritan' male might be much more effective in his efforts if he shouted, "You dropped your card! I just want to give it back!&quot

[chervilant]

143. PS

Don't bother replying; I won't see it...

[X_Digger]

147. If you don't want to understand self-defense justification, feel free to ignore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. How Did Martin Know It Wasn't A Ped/Rapist Following Him In The Night?

.

[X_Digger]

126. He didn't. But until Zimmerman did something actually illegal, it doesn't rise to the legal standard

That's something about self-defense law that's getting muddied in this discussion.

Unless Zimmerman was waving his gun, making threats, or otherwise giving cause for a reasonable person to believe that death or grave bodily injury was imminent, or that a felony was about to be committed- there would be no cause to use deadly force against him.

The legal standard isn't, "I thought he was a ped/rapist.", "He was being an asshole.", or "I felt threatened." (much as commentators have claimed to the contrary.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. We Don't Know What Happened After From The Point Zimmerman Began Stalking Martin

One scenario is he physicallly tried to detain Martin, at that point Martin was in his rights to drop him.

[X_Digger]

131. That's my guess as well (tried to detain Martin).

In which case, that would be a forcible felony, and Martin taking a swing at Zimmerman would be justified, yes.

But until that point (attempted detention, tackling Martin, or threatening him with a gun), there seems to be little justification to use force.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. One Scenario Is Zimmerman Tried To Stop Martin But Martin Kept On Walking

And that point Zimmerman forcefully tried to detain him. The amount of force is of no moment. Zimmerman became the aggressor. Martin had every right to drop him.

[X_Digger]

133. In that scenario, force would be justified, yes.

And any defense relying on self-defense by Zimmerman would be disqualified.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

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.

[MattBaggins]

150. What about the next person Zimmerman confronts

Would they have reasonable fear for their life given his record?

[X_Digger]

151. Not legally, no.

Could every ex-felon justifiably be shot when they confront someone?

[Mattylock]

154. How about....

A stranger first following you in a car, at night, and then getting out of the car to pursue you, with a loaded gun on his hip? What level does that rise to?

[X_Digger]

155. If he were brandishing it, that would be a forcible felony. (and justification for deadly force)

If it were just on his person, concealed? Martin couldn't have known that, and therefore it doesn't figure into the reasonableness.

[Mattylock]

156. I would bet

that when they were having the argument two witnesses describe hearing, Trayvon got a look at that gun on Zimmerman's hip.

[X_Digger]

157. Possibly, but knowing someone is armed also doesn't make the apprehension 'reasonable'.

My guess is that Zimmerman tried to detain or prevent Martin from leaving- which in this case would be a forcible felony.

[SATIRical]

167. Has anyone indicated it was on his hip?

Most carry it in the small of the back or in a shoulder holster under a jacket.

[TorchTheWitch]

175. apparently it was in an inside-the-pants waist holster

Until this case i'd never heard of such a thing, but after doing a google search found out what it looks like and it does exist. It was first said very early on that it was a waist holster but it wasn't until later that it was apparently identified as this inside-the-pants thing.

[JDPriestly]

168. That would depend.

And that is for me the central problem with the Stand Your Ground law.

Normally, in the law, the decision as to whether an act is reasonable is left to a jury.

The Stand Your Ground law appears to take that decision away from the jury. I'm not sure how this case will work in terms of criminal procedure.

But the Stand Your Ground law will be carefully reviewed. I can't figure out how any person who understands how court procedure works could have voted for this law. It is incompatible with centuries of common law and most American law. It appears to leave the decision as to what is reasonable entirely up to the survivor of a gun duel.

In fact, I have been wondering. Does the Stand Your Gun law make the duel legal? Let's say that two people decide to hold a duel to decide some dispute. The one who survives can always say the other guy shot first but missed. Seems to me that legalizes duels. Basically, the Stand Your Gun law is a sort of pro-duel law.

Do you realize what this means? The Republicans have been undoing the New Deal and the Roosevelt era reforms. Now they want to take us back to colonial America and the days when men defended their honor the old-fashioned way.

Republicans will be encouraging sword-fights and jousting before you know it.

Somebody watched too much High Noon. (Love the movie by the way.)

[X_Digger]

169. It's the same 'reasonable man' test as before.

That determination as to reasonableness can happen at any level.. cops can recommend no charges, an SA/DA can refuse to charge, a grand jury can refuse to indict, a judge can throw out the case, or a jury can find justification.

This is the same as it was before SYG. Not every case goes all the way to a jury.

Your understanding of this law is incorrect. I don't blame you, pundits and talking heads have been misinterpreting the law since this incident got national attention.

[JDPriestly]

174. But in a case like this one in which the facts are uncertain and

reasonable people can hold different opinions, defining reasonable certainly should not be decided by the police or even just a judge but rather by a jury of peers.

There are too many obvious unanswered questions about what really happened. And Zimmerman's first 911 call suggests that he may have sought a confrontation. Maybe not, but there is a good chance he did.

I understand that not every case goes to the jury. I suspect that ultimately, Zimmerman will plead in this case in order to get a very reduced sentence. That's just my opinion.

[X_Digger]

180. Most 'uncertain' cases do in fact go to a jury (or at least a trial)..

If there's clear cut evidence one way or the other, no charges are filed, or a defendant pleads out.

Prosecutorial discretion is a good thing. It would be unethical for police and attorneys to file charges that they don't think they can prove.

re Zimmerman, a plea to the lesser included charge is my guess, too.

[ecstatic]

86. That's been my take all along

Nothing else matters!

[onlyadream]

103. I hope this is pounded into the jury

So simple and so true. Why is this missed by so many?

[sinkingfeeling]

119. Not according to these attorneys who appeared on NPR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=554127

[annabanana]

127. And as far as Zimmerman's "wounds". .

Wouldn't YOU fight like hell if you had a gun pointed at YOU??

[polly7]

129. If some creep had

been stalking me walking alone at night and finally caught up, you're damn right I'd fight, even without seeing a gun.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

136. "I believe that following someone is NOT standing your ground. It is invading theirs."

Patricia Evans, Author

[Uncle Joe]

145. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[just1voice]

160. Brainwashed paradigm: Zimmerman defenders vs. all others

When people are murdered a rational approach is to find out all the answers, such as when the Bush admin committed all the war crimes. The irrational approach is to constantly focus on tidbits of information, usually done on purpose to cover-up what actually happened.

I think most people would like to know what actually happened and if Zimmerman murdered the kid in cold blood, which he likely did, then he should receive the full sentence allowed.

Too bad it'll be a long time, if ever, before all the people constantly exposed to this tragedy's Nancy Grace journalism tactics get to hear the truth.

[solarman350]

177. zimmerman will bond out and there will NEVER be a trial

..but thanks for playing, "The "Justice" System according to Floor-ri-DUH.

[sfpcjock]

178. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence | CSPAN (Video)

Honoring the 32 people killed and 17 other wounded five years ago in the Virginia Tech shootings, and others. House Speaker, John Boehner, refused to meet with the group and played golf. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said, "To those who want to make this into some sort of crusade, I say take this elsewhere." Legislatures are currently bought by the American gun lobby.

Center to Prevent Gun Violence - CSPAN (Video)