He was specifically told NOT to do so by police personnel. That is enough to cast suspicion on his motives.
of course he had a right to pursue and confront Martin, I concede. but it wasn't his obligation or his duty... why hasn't the killer described the suspicious behavior that was the basis for the initial phone cll? I need more facts.
This is beating a dead horse. Additional facts may emerge that discredit Zimmerman's self-defense argument, but if they exist, they are unknown to us. The fact he ignored the dispatcher's request is unfortunate, but it does not by itself invalidate his self-defense claim.
Pursuing him is not the issue since he did it in a public place. The question remains if Zimmerman was the victim of aggravated assault or battery during the scuffle. Aggravated Assault: http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/assault/aggravated-assault.html 1. An intentional and unlawful threat - by word or act - to commit violence against another person; 2. With the apparent ability to carry through with the threat at the time it was made; 3. And the threat created a genuine fear in the intended victim that the violence was imminent; 4. and The accused made the threat: With a Deadly Weapon, or In the commission of a Felony. DEFENSES TO ASSAULT: 1. Conditional Threat A statement that sets out a conditional threat to commit a violent act at some unspecified point in the future based upon a possible eventuality does not constitute an assault (although it could constitute another crime such as Disorderly Conduct). 2. Unreasonable Fear If, while being "threatened", the accuser was taunting the defendant or did not actually believe the defendant would follow through with the threat, then a later claim of assault - usually because of pettiness - will be ruled unreasonable because the accuser did not actually feel threatened. Aggravated Battery: http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/aggravated-battery.html The crime of Aggravated Battery can be committed in one of three ways: 1. Intentionally causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement while battering someone; 2. Using a deadly weapon in the commission of a battery; or 3. Battering a person known to be pregnant. DEFENSES TO BATTERY: 1. Self Defense Also known as the justified use of force, self defense is a defense to the crime of battery so long as you use non-deadly force to defend yourself against another person's unlawful attack. 2. Consent Since an element of battery is that the contact be un-consensual, consent to the contact is an obvious defense. Other examples where consent would be applicable are athletic events. Mutual Combat: While not sanctioned as a legal defense, mutual combat is a theory that can be argued to a jury as a sub-category of the defense of consent. Essentially, the theory goes, if two people mutually engage in a fight (usually a bar brawl) neither person should be able to complain of the ensuing contact. --------------------- If you would like to read breakdown of the statute that I posted and you conveniently ignored my post it's here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6693511&postcount=153 So do you believe 100% that Martin was committing aggravated assault/battery which justified Zimmerman shooting him? If it's not 100%, then there is probable cause to arrest Zimmerman based on the laws of Florida.
He went against what the police specifically told him to do, which is the point, hasn't been disputed, and whether he had the "right" or not, casts suspicion on his motives.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6693511&postcount=153 2)In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Zimmerman "has a right to be" where Martin was. We can strongly speculate that his motives were to approach a suspicious black male walking in the neighborhood. Clearly Zimmerman felt safe enough due to the fact that he was packing and the person was much much smaller than him. With all that being said, Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher doesn't have a huge effect on this instance due to the Stand Your Ground statute. Now if he approached Martin on the lawn of Martin's father's house, he would have been trespassing and wouldn't have a right to be there.
Yep, he had the right to stalk an unarmed child as he walked home with his skittles and coke and eventually kill him. I absolutely despite people like you. People who treat human lives as cheap. It took you how many pages to refer to him by his name? How many pages to show any remorse towards the child. How is it possible for someone to be so obtuse? People like you are what's wrong with this country. You see what you want to see, skew facts in order to push your own agenda, and refuse to admit to your own shortcomings. It's sad - I wonder what kind of parents you had, because you obviously lacked something when you were being reared. Even *if* Zimmerman was an officer, there is no probable cause - hell there's not even any reasonable suspicion. He was simply walking home with his goods in tow. He didn't harass anyone, and he was literally 5 minutes from his destination. He had every right to be on that street. If there was a scuffle, Zimmerman initiated it by stalking the child. There's no way a child he outweighed by over 100 pounds ever warranted the use of lethal force. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Instead of making it home a child is dead because some lowlife decided to profile and pursue him in the name of neighborhood "safety". Ask yourself, what kind of person would pursue someone with a weapon for just walking by them in a hoodie at a leisurely pace in the rain? What kind of department refuses to take statements from witnesses of the event which diverge with the murderer's account? The gentleman lied about his past criminal offenses and has displayed a propensity for unwarranted violence in the past. http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/local/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLTCd/ It happened in this lady's backyard. As a primary witness she believes that it wasn't self defense. This guy is a murder and apparent sociopath. He displayed no remorse for his actions. This is the kind of trash you're defending. There is no circumstantial evidence supporting the claim that he was defending himself. Everything points to the opposite. The facts are there, you're just choosing to ignore them. Your continued attempt to decry the race card is nonsensical. It's immediately apparent that race was the inciting factor in this instance. It's also the reason they aren't releasing the 911 recording. An unnamed police official claims the 911 tapes catch Zimmerman saying, "Those a--holes always get away," followed shortly thereafter by the sound of a gunshot.
Did you read what you just quoted? Read it again: I don't agree that a kid punching the nose of an adult gunman who is stalking him, means that his summary execution by this gunman is justified. Especially when the child is so much smaller than the assailant.
...However, witness Mary Cutcher said she knew the truth. Cutcher said police only took a two or three sentence statement from her, but it took about 30 minutes to tell WFTV the story. "The cries stopped as soon as the gun went off, so I know it was the little boy," Cutcher said. Cutcher said a cry for help got her attention on the day Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in her backyard by Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood vigilante... http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/
Actually your type of thinking is extremely dangerous. I would like to challenge you to truly think critically and base your judgments on sound logic. You have not done this in this instance. You have emotionally invested yourself in proving Zimmerman is guilty, and you're only armed with the biased reporting you read, as well as an incomplete listing of facts. You seem to be emotionally tied to this -- is it perhaps because you have been wronged by an authority figure in the past? Is it because you yourself are African American and want "your side to win" or "defend your own"? You have tried to play to people's sympathies by saying things like "he was only carrying skittles and coke", referring to Martin as "a child", "leisurely walking", referring to how much larger Zimmerman was, etc. These points simply do not matter. They are not relevant to whether or not Zimmerman was acting in self defense or not. You also failed to mention the police's evidence they claim they have that says Zimmerman did in fact act in self defense. My point is that we don't know whether Zimmerman was justified or not in his actions. We need more facts, as I've said all along.
By the way bigtexxx a wet back, bloody nose and injury in the back of the head doesn't really justify as police evidence that he acted in self defense. This pokes a huge hole in Zimmerman's story. What do you think about that? Don't ignore this.
You're preaching to the choir here and I made the exact same argument earlier. Police are assuming that Zimmerman was the victim of aggravated assault and/or battery which just seems silly in this case. The outrage and uproar is completely justifiable.
Actually it was a terrible, poorly thought out post. Insults everywhere (including insulting my parents!), stretching the few facts we know at the time, and conclusions formed from a lack of logic. A very weak post
If there were other evidences that supports Zimmerman in a case that is as blown up as this one, I'm sure it would have been provided already. Note again that Zimmerman's "cry for help" was contradicted by a witness, and him being knocked down at one point doesn't mean he was in immediate danger. He doesn't even go into detail about how Martin posed as such a threat to him. You lose.
lol what a stretch Do you believe cases are tried only in the "court of public opinion"? If there are other "evidences" (sic), the police are under no obligation to release them to the media. So you don't know. I am completely obliterating you day and night.
