George Zimmerman's father: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin

[shadowrider]

In a tragic incident this grievous, I want to have all the information I can get before I make a pronouncement on whether or not I think someone is guilty. We will never know exactly what happened. Facts will come out at trial (If it gets that far) that none of us will know.

This is NOT a defense of Zimmerman (As I'll likely be accused), but rather putting some information out there for everyone to consider before we hang him then give him a fair trial. This is also from the Orlando Sentinel, not some right-wing hate site or gun site looking to defend Zimmerman at all costs.

====================

The Sanford Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, did not instigate the encounter but has received death threats and moved out of his home, his father told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

George Zimmerman, 28, has not been arrested, something that has put him and the Sanford Police Department at the center of a firestorm. Critics say Trayvon, who was visiting family from his home in Miami, was a victim of racial profiling.

(SNIP)

Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.

That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315_1_robert-zimmerman-letter-unarmed-black-teenager

[rrneck]

1. To be honest

I already have all the information I need on this one. It will take a lot to change my mind. Zimmerman left his car to pursue someone after 911 told him not to (doing something he was not supposed to be doing). He trespassed on private property (a place he was not supposed to be) and initiated a confrontation unnecessarily. It will take some pretty unusual circumstances to exonerate him in my eyes after he initiated and exacerbated a situation that should have never have happened in the first place.

[shadowrider]

2. And I agree with you

This is simply info to see both sides, although we have yet to hear directly from Zimmerman.

[rrneck]

4. Good point.

It never hurts to have more information.

[pnwmom]

30. (self-delete)

I misunderstood something in the post.

[shadowrider]

31. Where, exactly, in my post, did I indicate otherwise?

[rfranklin]

3. That seems to be the case...but lawyers can twist the truth like pretzels...

let's hope eventually a jury sees through the bullshit.

[rrneck]

6. The media exposure will work in favor of justice.

A lot of people are pretty pissed off about this. Knucklehead's picture has been all over the news and you can bet the last thing he wants is to get sent to the wrong cell block. My fearless prediction: He will plead out as best he can to keep from getting locked up with all the wrong people.

[shadowrider]

7. My prediction

He'll fight it and only cop to a plea if it looks like conviction is imminent.

I'm afraid, however, the desire for blood will overcome an impartial jury (IF one can be found now) and the pressure will be overwhelming to convict.

[rrneck]

8. Could be.

It's funny how real life suddenly starts to look like DU. You assume responsibility to watch the neighborhood and carry a gun doing it, then get out of your car to question somebody on the street, you takes your chances.

[HockeyMom]

17. Trayvon's family has not only Federal Court

for Civil Rights violation, but Civil Court for Wrongful Death. Do you have any legal training? While it may not put Zimmerman behind bars, it can get some matter of statisfaction. Then there is the bigger issue of bringing national attention to a very broad law which criminals can hide behind.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. No civil court for wrongful death if Zimmerman isn't convicted.

FL, like many states, has civil immunity if the court finds that it was justifiable homicide

[safeinOhio]

78. My Prediction.

Zimmerman may well indeed get off because of this vague law. That will cause a backlash that will make repeal of all SYG laws a new movement that will succeed.

Be careful of what you wish for.

[gejohnston]

79. until

national attention is focused on someone is prosecuted for defending themselves from someone with a violent felony record.

[safeinOhio]

81. Only problem with that is that

"duty to retreat" covers that. If you can't retreat, you can shoot em.

[gejohnston]

82. if I understand correctly,

it is kind of up to the DA what he thinks reasonable steps are. It also depends on how accurately the media portrays it.
I doubt Zimmerman would be walking around free if this happened in Gainsville, Tampa, St. Pete., or even Ocala. Definitely not anywhere in Monroe County. The media is missing that part.

[aquamarina]

18. Exactly. That is it in a nutshell.

Zimmerman pursued when he was told not to. He became the hunter and the 17 became the hunted. After that nothing else matters. Any person who felt they were being pursued would fight back in any way possible. This crime would not have happened but for Zimmerman's decision to go after the kid.

[PavePusher]

55. There is no legal duty to follow the "orders" of a 911 operator.

The rest of your statement I agree with.

[provis99]

46. you can't convict a guy for murder simply for trespassing.

[rrneck]

47. No, but you can remove the stand your ground defense.

He wasn't where he was supposed to be. He was supposed to be in his car pestering the 911 operator. When he got out of his car he took the initiative and asserted a right he did not have - which was to declare property that didn't belong to him and which was not designated for his use to be available to him.

It's one thing to defend yourself from assault, it's another altogether to chase somebody down then claim you were just defending yourself. Nobody was in danger until Zimmerman put himself there.

If I'm reading it right...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

(2)?The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree,

[pneutin]

58. Some corrections...

1. Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin. At this point, the operator asks if he is following, Zimmerman replies yes, and the operator says "We don't need you to do that". We hear Zimmerman say "OK", and his heavy breathing stops after several seconds, and at this point, Zimmerman has lost sight of Martin. He continues to relay address info while (supposedly) heading back to his car.

2. Zimmerman lived at the same gated community, and so he had every right to be on that property and was not trespassing.

3. Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him before his death, claimed in her statement that Martin initiated the verbal contact. This corroborates Zimmerman's own account.

[rrneck]

62. According to the 911 tape

Martin turned and ran without saying anything.

911 audio here:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

He may have lived in the same gated community, but I doubt he owned every house in it. Those would be private property and the shooting occurred behind somebody else's house. The only property involved that belonged to him germane to SYG law was his car, which he left to pursue someone who had done nothing wrong (beyond perhaps trespassing). Even if Martin had been up to no good, he was running away and clearly not a threat to anyone or their property.

[pneutin]

63. I'm not disputing that he ran

I'm not disputing that Martin ran, and that Zimmerman did initially pursue him. But the tape, in my opinion, shows that Zimmerman at least halted the pursuit during the call. At which point Zimmerman lost sight of him, because he mentions this to the dispatcher. The debate now is how Zimmerman and Martin ended up within contact range after this 911 call. And there are no conclusive facts yet.

I'm not saying he owned every house, but just from the news videos, we can see that the struggle happened in the "common area" of the community, and not within someone else's property line. Both Martin and Zimmerman had a right to be where they were standing; neither were trespassing.

[rrneck]

64. I haven't seen news video

but a report I read a day or two ago said the final confrontation occurred in somebody's back yard. Be that as it may, Zimmerman had no business following him at all ever. If you listen to the tape you can hear the key/headlight chime when he opens the car door after he tells the police Martin is running. Even then, if he lost him as you say, why did he go find him? Zimmerman wanted to escalate the confrontation from the word go, and we have no idea how he stalked the kid before he called 911.

[pneutin]

69. i agree with you on an emotional level

Zimmerman was a monumental idiot of epic proportions, no doubt about that. But it is important to not let emotions get in the way. Zimmerman should be judged based on the facts and the facts alone. He had no business following Martin, but following someone is not illegal, nor would it warrant a physical response.

Yes, Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows him after telling the dispatcher that he ran, I am not disputing this. But according to the tape, he agreed to stop the chase and admitted to losing him. We cannot say for sure that he pursued Martin again and was successful. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, considering Martin was a 6' 160 lbs football player, and in Zimmerman's pic he appears to be overweight and out of shape.

BUT, it doesn't matter what is likely or not because there is no physical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (yet) to confirm either way. A lot of people on this forum are filling in the blanks with their own perceptions and bias, when we should be waiting for all the facts to come out.

[rrneck]

71. The facts may or may not come out at trial.

At the center of the controversy is the efficacy of stand your ground legislation. The facts of this particular case are important in that they might test that efficacy. The issue is not whether or not Zimmerman did anything illegal, but whether the law itself actually works as an effective set of rules of engagement. If the DA decides to prosecute Zimmerman he will get his day in court and I have no doubt he will get sent to prison whether he did anything illegal or not. Several million people are pissed off about what he did, so good luck finding a jury that hasn't already convicted him.

You made an interesting point earlier about whether the final confrontation occurred in a common area or on private property. Here (I think) is an image of the development.



It's a condominium development so there are almost no "back yards". It's almost all "common area". What does that do regarding the enforcement of the law? How are we able to tell if anybody is where they are supposed to be? How can that portion of the statute be applied to the reality of people's lives? Every square inch of this country belongs to somebody. Did the owners of the property authorize Zimmerman and Martin to be there? It looks like they both had that authorization given their respective relationships to the owners.

How were Zimmerman and Martin using their respective rights of occupancy? Martin might have thought he was fleeing someone who was harassing him. Zimmerman was, he thought, pursuing a suspect in a crime. Does his behavior rise to the level of aggravated stalking according to Florida statute? Were Zimmerman and Martin doing what they were supposed to be doing, which is to say, which one of them was breaking the law? If so, which law and how? If neither one broke any law, how is the DA supposed to prosecute the malefactor? A young man is dead for no apparent reason. The law is supposed to provide that reason. If it cannot, it doesn't work in the reality of people's lives.

Laws are a codification of popular consent. Adherence strictly to the letter of the law is the most rudimentary form of moral behavior. Just because something is legal that doesn't make it right. Zimmerman clearly was wrong, and if we don't have a law to govern that behavior one will have to be produced sooner or later. As it stands now if we can't find a way to punish Zimmerman for what he did anybody with a firearm and half an excuse to harass people will have a considerable legal advantage over those who are unarmed.

It would be in the best interest of RKBA advocates to get busy finding a way to have Zimmerman locked up rather than defending a statute that may not work. Don't think for one minute the DA isn't sweating it right now because it's shit like this that gets cities burned down.

[HockeyMom]

5. Once Zimmerman got OUT of his car,

he became the aggressor. Stand your ground? Leaving your ground?

[deutsey]

9. True enough

And according Trayvon's girlfriend (who was talking with him on the phone when the confrontation happened), Trayvon was concerned that a stranger was following him and ultimately approaching him.

Had Zimmerman just stayed in his car or just gone home, Trayvon probably would have been pissed that the police stopped him for no reason other than the color of his skin, but this tragedy probably wouldn't have happened.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I wish I could agree with you ...

My life experience has it that if Zimmerman had called the police and just gone home, the police would have stopped that young Black male ... at night ... during inclimate weather ... in a predominately white gated community ... it would be a crap shoot as to whether the result would have been any different.

[deutsey]

13. Yeah, considering the apparent history of the police there, too n/t

[HockeyMom]

14. The police would have been cooler

and known the questions to ask Trayvon, like that his father lived in the complex and he was visiting him. You do know his father lived there?

[shadowrider]

15. Let me clear a misconception for you

The neighborhood is NOT predominately white. In fact, it's 49% white, not that the media is interested in providing facts.

[HockeyMom]

20. 49% is still mostly white

Do you not get around? I have lived in places which were 25% white and other that were 98% white. Who cares? LAW applies to all and should be color blind. That is what I was told my many a WHITE law professor; former DA's, attorney's, NYPD Chiefs.

Nah, none of that matters. It was NYC.

[shadowrider]

29. It matters because the misconception is the neighborhood is "predominantly white"

Now, I don't know where you went to school, but 49%<51% (That 51% can be black, hispanic, asian, indian, whatever). In the end, IMO, predominantly white = 60% or greater. (See sig line).

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. I stand corrected. n/t

[Kahuna]

10. Exactly!!! The Stand Your Ground law would seem to favorTrayvon not Zimmerman. nt

[denverbill]

11. I'd take it further. Once he started following, he became the aggressor.

If I'm walking alone at night, and someone in a car starts following me, I'd consider myself already under attack, especially when they follow me when I try to run away from them.

[HockeyMom]

16. Not to mention that the car itself is a deadly weapon

against someone on foot.

[HockeyMom]

19. Yes, I agree

If you fear for you life against a pedestrian, it is safer to get OUT of your car? Duh? No. This is where that Stand your Ground law goes out the window. If he fears for his life, stand inside your car and don't pursue anyone, especially when 911 operator tells you NOT TO and that the police are on their way.

[TPaine7]

23. That's debatable...

Getting out of your car is not an agressive act. And no one claims that Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he got out of his car.

Also, the advice of a dispatcher is not law. (I am not denying that it was unwise to ignore that advice, but that's a different matter altogether.)

The core question, in my mind at least, is whether Zimmerman initiated physical agression or verbally threatened Trayvon.

[gejohnston]

61. in which case,

if Zimmerman landed up dead, Martin would have a stronger case and we would not be having this conversation. On the other hand, we could be talking about stupid racists cops trying to railroad a kid. Judging from some of Sanford PD's dirt, I think that would be probable.

[HockeyMom]

21. To those of you gun people

You do know that a car is considered a deadly weaspon? Someone who has a Black Belt, their hands are also considered a deadly weapon too. It is not just your guns.

[shadowrider]

22. Now wait a minute

We've been told over and over and over again the main purpose of a car is not to kill therefore it simply isn't as dangerous as a gun.

Now you're going to say it is?

Will you anti-gun people please make up your mind.

[HockeyMom]

26. Against a walker, yes it is

Sorry, you lose on this one. Zimmerman in his car could have killed Trayvon with that. No gun necessary. He didn't NEED a gun unless he got OUT of that car.

[shadowrider]

27. That has been pro-gun peoples opinion since the beginning

and we were told we were crazy. Cars are simply not comparable to guns since cars were not designed to kill.

You now agree with pro-gun people?

I'd pay to watch, on pay-per-view, you argue that point with other anti's.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. lol, you got 'em there. n/t

[PavePusher]

56. +1. n/t

[Oneka]

75. If a car is a deadly weapon

and a gun is also a deadly weapon, then why all the anti GUN hysteria. Having it both ways, are we?

[shadowrider]

76. Having it both ways? Of course. n/t

[Vincardog]

24. We should all be concerned about George Zimmerman's father's feelings. He was not there

His son was. His son left his car to pursue Treyvon. His son instigated any alleged altercation. His son apparently would not allow Treyvon to continue home unmolested. His son said "Fucking Coons" "always get away".

No there was no racism there.

[shadowrider]

25. Get your facts straight please

Voice analysis confirmed they don't know WHAT was said, it was just a mumble.

Please don't state as fact what isn't there. It only serves to inflame.

[HockeyMom]

28. Darling, the fact still remain that Zimmerman got OUT of his car

His car was his CASTLE, and his "protection". Once he left his car, he became the aggressor. None of these laws, Stand your Ground, or Castle Doctrine, says anything about running down a criminal. Even in Florida., you still cannot shoot a buglar running from your property with your family jewles, in the BACK. It is not a free for all for gun owners to do anything they want. The key is "your LIFE". Once they are fleeing, your life is no longer in danger.

[shadowrider]

32. First, I'm NOT your darling, and in the context used, I find it condescending and arrogant

Second, once he left his car, if all he did was ask why Martin was there and where he was going, then was returning to his truck per reports, he was no longer the aggressor.

Look, this is not a defense. All I'm saying is there is too much stuff floating around out there for anyone, in their right mind, to decide guilt or innocence. Maybe I'm in the minority. All I want is as much info as I can get before I make up my mind.

[pnwmom]

34. Too bad the police didn't bother to collect the information you want.

For example, they tested Trayvon for alcohol and drugs (and didn't find any) -- but they didn't bother to test his admitted killer.

[shadowrider]

39. And that is a valid point, I'm not disagreeing.

[Vincardog]

35. You know this how? I listened to the tapes and heard what I reported. Where did you get your facts?

Are you saying that Travon followed him back to his car and that is where he was shot?

[shadowrider]

38. I'm saying

if you look for information that isn't published in the alphabet networks, it's there.

I'm also saying, according to police (whose accuracy in this case is suspect), Zimmerman took stitches to the back of his head and had grass stains on his back, consistent with what he told police.

I keep an open mind. Do you?

[Vincardog]

41. Please post your link to that treasure trove of new information. Does an open mind deny what

other people hear with their own ears?

[shadowrider]

45. LOL, it isn't new

Look in other places than what you're fed.

[Vincardog]

48. Please provide me proof of what you say. Where is you link? Where is this

"Voice analysis confirmed they don't know WHAT was said, it was just a mumble."

Where did that assertion come from?
If you can't answer simple questions maybe you should stop posting simple answers.

[safeinOhio]

80. Faux news, i'm sure.

[Vincardog]

84. I am inclined to agree with you. Did you ever notice some posters who make claim after claim,

Never answer a question and always seem to call you ignorant and lazy?
Makes you go HUM...

[Tejas]

85. Please post your link to transcript of your version?

tks kby!

[Vincardog]

88. The transcript is what I typed. I heard it with my own ears. TKS NT

[pnwmom]

37. A man, not in uniform, and with a gun, is following you.

He's not an aggressor?

You really think that this kid -- a normal kid, not on drugs or alcohol -- would chase an armed man who was only going back to his truck?

Since the police didn't do their job, we're left using our common sense. And common sense tells us a normal person doesn't attack a person twice as big, with a gun, who's walking away from him.

[TPaine7]

42. You're assuming Travon knew he had a gun. Open carry isn't legal in Florida, IIRC. n/t

[shadowrider]

44. No, it is not. You are correct.

[pnwmom]

50. Open-carry advocates think they have a way around this law.

Just say you're on the way to target practice. Also, they argue that unless you show your gun, the "criminal" will assume you're unarmed -- and you're placing your life at risk.

So think about it. Zimmerman's approaching a guy he thinks is a dangerous criminal, in order to question him about his activities. Do you really think he's hiding his gun? Would that be a sensible thing to do if you, a civilian, were stopping to question someone you thought was a criminal?

http://www.open-carry.org/

In Florida, you can legally open carry a loaded firearm while engaged in, or going to and from, Fishing, Hunting, and Camping. With some planning and preparation, a law abiding person can open carry a firearm in public and stay in compliance with the law.

SNIP

Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.

Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Martin had no knowledge that the man had a gun.

A man, not in uniform, and with a gun, is following you.

He's not an aggressor?

You really think that this kid -- a normal kid, not on drugs or alcohol -- would chase an armed man who was only going back to his truck?

Whether a man following him in his neighborhood could be considered an aggressor or not is up for debate. Clearly Martin and his girlfriend felt threatened, per her testimony.

However, Martin probably did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, unless Zimmerman produced it before the fight started.

Also the facts do not seem to indicate that Martin chased (or approached) Zimmerman, but rather Zimmerman approached Martin.

[pnwmom]

53. How do you know that? Why are you so certain Zimmerman didn't show Martin the gun

as he approached him?

Zimmerman was a civilian approaching someone he thought was "suspicious" -- i.e., some kind of criminal -- to confront him with questions. And Zimmerman had a gun. You really think that he wouldn't show his gun -- even if only to lift his shirt to expose it in his waistband? If he was afraid of this suspicious character, wouldn't he have wanted that person to know he was armed?

I never said Martin chased Zimmerman -- I was reacting to the claim above that Zimmerman was going back to his truck when Martin decided to go after him. I don't believe this is the truth, however.

[spin]

59. If Zimmerman did pull his weapon in the confrontation to intimidate Martin ...

he could have be arrested and charged for that action.

The State of Florida's has a webpage on Concealed Carry at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html.

I'll excerpt a portion that appears under the link for Lawful Self-Defense...

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early when approached by an angry and aggressive individual who was brandishing a firearm.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I have often wondered if Zimmerman did pull his weapon as he approached Martin.

Zimmerman (as reported by the media) appears to be a cop wannabe. Martin, faced by an aggressive individual who had been following him, may have tried to disarm Zimmerman with tragic results.

If I was in Martin's shoes I might have done the same if I was unarmed. If I was carrying my legally concealed firearm, I might have drawn my own weapon and shot Zimmerman who was obviously not a police officer. I would have had good reason to fear for my life when approached by an angry and aggressive individual who was brandishing a handgun. It that case I would argue that the "Stand Your Ground" law applied to my actions.

Of course what I just said is just speculation. We really don't know exactly what went down that night.

[pnwmom]

66. The problem is there seemed to have been no witnesses.

Just Zimmerman, who claimed that Martin was the aggressor. I don't believe him, because he was the one stalking Martin, even after the police told him not to. And he was the one empowered by a gun. He never had to leave his car -- the police were on the way.

[spin]

73. I beleive tht Zimmerman was a cop wannabe ...

I have a Florida Concealed Weapons permit but I'm not a cop or a vigilante. If I called the police to report a suspicious looking individual and the dispatcher told me that the cops were responding and not to follow the individual, I would follow instructions.

In my opinion a person who is serving as a member of neighborhood watch should be aware that the word "watch" means To look or observe attentively or carefully; be closely observant.

Neighborhood watch

A neighborhood watch or neighbourhood watch (see spelling differences), also called a crime watch or neighborhood crime watch, is an organized group of citizens devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within a neighborhood. In the United States it builds on the concept of a town watch from Colonial America.

A neighborhood watch may be organized as its own group or may simply be a function of a neighborhood association or other community association.

Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations. When suspecting criminal activities, members are encouraged to contact authorities and not to intervene. emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch

[pneutin]

60. Because Martin would have mentioned this to his girlfriend

who was on the phone with him at the time verbal contact was made.

Why are you so certain that Zimmerman did draw his weapon? Let's think for a second here. At this point in the timeline, the cops are on their way to the scene and will arrive at any time. I'm not saying Zimmerman is a paragon of good judgment, but I have a hard time believing he would display his weapon, knowing that a police officer will be arriving and could witness this display. As a CCW holder, (correct if I'm wrong) he is bound by Florida law to keep his weapon concealed. And if an officer sees him reveal it, or Trayvon mentions this to the officer while being questioned, could result in revocation of the CCW and possible arrest. As a neighborhood-watch-captain-wannabe-cop, I doubt Zimmerman would have risked losing his CCW at that point of the timeline.

[pnwmom]

67. How do you know he didn't notice the gun after the phone call got cut off? No one knows

what happened then, except for Zimmerman.

All he had to do to display his weapon was lift his shirt enough for Martin to see it in his waistband. The police, who weren't even in the area yet, wouldn't have seen that. And Zimmerman seems to have had an awfully cozy relationship with the police -- maybe that's why he wasn't worried that someone might rat him out for open carry.

But even if he didn't display his gun, Zimmerman's story makes no sense. Why would this scared 17 year old, the one who had been talking to his equally scared girlfriend on the phone, go and attack the guy who weighed 100 pounds more than he did, while the bigger guy was calmly walking back to his car? Why????

One thing we do know: Martin wasn't high on alcohol or drugs. But we don't know about the killer, because the police didn't bother to get his blood tested.

[gejohnston]

68. waistband?

only gangsters carry like that,
oh wait, some dimwits do too. Never mind.

[jeepnstein]

72. That's how I carry my off-duty weapon.

Lots of cops I know do it the same way. Makes it practically invisible and quite accessible. As long as you use the correct holster it's as safe as any other mode of concealed carry.

[gejohnston]

74. I was picturing more in terms of

what is sometimes called "Mexican" carry. My bad.

[pneutin]

70. I don't know yet, and neither do you

You are just speculating based on your own preconceived bias. We don't know that Martin was scared--he told his girlfriend he was not going to run, but rather walk fast. Maybe Martin felt disrespected and wanted to assert himself. He was 6' 160 lbs according to the police report. Zimmerman was shorter, 5' 9" 240 lbs, and according to the released pic, overweight and out of shape. Weight is not the sole factor of physical prowess.

[pnwmom]

83. I don't know how any reasonable person could listen to that tape

and not know that he was scared.

He was a kid being stalked in the dark by a larger man. And he was armed only with a package of skittles and a can of tea. Of course he was scared.

[Atypical Liberal]

87. We don't' know one way or the other.

We don't know when Zimmerman produced his firearm.

[Oneka]

77. getting out of my car is not

in itself an aggressive act.
The fact is , Zimmerman had evidence on his body of being attacked, we don't know who attacked who first, all we now know is that Zimmerman was physically assaulted,and Martin was then shot, calling Zimmerman the aggressor here is without merit.


Florida statute on use of force by an aggressor.




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.

If there is ample evidence that Zimmerman had withdrawn from physical contact from Martin, and Martin continued an attack, then Zimmerman would be well within his rights, and morally right, to use deadly force against Martin.

Did what i described happen that night? We may never know, but judging Zimmerman, with what little information we have at our disposal, is just as dangerous, as coming to the conclusion, that i just outlined above, now isn't it?

[pnwmom]

33. The father says "at no time did he follow" the boy. That's not true.

He's recorded on tape, following the boy. He left his vehicle and went to the boy.

The boy would be alive today if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle and waited for the police -- like the police told him to.

[shadowrider]

36. Now that, I agree with

You simply can't stop someone without following.

A slight correction, a dispatcher told him not to, not the police.

[tabatha]

40. The following information was NOT in the initial report.

"Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt."

It was added later - hence there is a suspicion of tampering.

[shadowrider]

43. I've already said police actions are suspect.

What would you like me to do? Fire the first shot at his heart before he's had a trial? (IF it comes to that).

[frylock]

49. because anything and everything daddy sez after that should be considered unadulterated bullshit

the dude has been caught either lying or disseminating false information. he has ZERO credibility.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. No shit- his kid is looking at 35 to life...

[Tejas]

86. What does it matter as far as

what either set of parents declare?

None of them were there, correct?