I think we're both on the same boat, beating the same horse or whatever. I agree with you. I just feel the need to defend GZ since it appears the public/media is so sure he is guilty, I am not sure either way, I just feel the need to defend the underdog. The media could have presented this case in an objective manner, but they didn't and millions were exposed to their propaganda. It's too late to turn the hands of time back, so we're left to deal with their aftermath.
I thought the exact same thing when I typed it, but I had a few and didn't care. The point was that her case was not stronger than the defense, she overreached with her charge and therefore I feel the need to defend the other side.
wekko368, can you please explain where in the law (anywhere) it states a "right to preemptive self-defense" (which you refer to several times)? Thanks.
The only non-wikipedia reference I've found says the same thing as wikipedia. "In the United States, the concept of “pre-emptive” self defense is constrained in that the threat must be imminent. Lawful “pre-emptive” self defense is the act of landing the first punch in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. " http://www.attorneyillinois.net/article-defenses-to-intentional-torts-self-defense.aspx
Martin's girlfriend actually said the last thing she heard was saying "Get off, get off". This is after she heard the "old guy" (who she said was speaking in a deep, angry voice) ask "What are you doing here" following Trayvon asking Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" The state attorney asked her if she was sure the voice saying "get off, get off" was Trayvon and she said yes she was. She said the phone then went dead. So, the only witness to the initial physical conflict was his girlfriend and her statement identifies Zimmerman as the aggressor. I'm pretty sure the reason this escalated so badly is that Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon illegally. Let's just think logically and set aside any notions of media bias for a second. Who can honestly say after listening to Zimmerman on that 911 call that if Trayvon told him he was going to his dad's girlfriend's house that Zimmerman would say "Oh, ok. Well in that case go on home budy and enjoy your night". The dude was CONVINCED Trayvon was a criminal. "Fugging punks". "These assholes always get away!" The guy aspired to be a police officer and was taking criminal justice classes. He had a gun on him. What about his actions that night or what we have learned about him since suggests that he was willing to allow Trayvon to go home that night as opposed to demanding he stay put until police officers got there? No, this can't be proven. But that's why self-defense is an affirmative defense where the burden of proof is on the defendant. This case really boils down at the end of the day to Zimmerman's credibility. If his statements indicate clear and significant inconsistencies with the rest of the evidence, there's no reason to believe he didn't initiate the altercation and thus lose his right to a self-defense claim. The prosecutor is an absolute moron for overcharging though and that is a story in and of itself. Prosecutors tend to have really inflated ego's and view it as a sign of professional excellence when they "stick it to" people instead of charging based on a case's true merits. This is a manslaughter case.
Unless there's new evidence I'm not aware of, the entire last paragraph sounds like pure speculation which the poster is trying to pass off as fact. Additionally, Disagree. The 911 dispatcher told GZ not to pursue TM. GZ disregarded it. Wouldn't you say that was wrong?
Quote: I think there was plenty of reason to suspect Trayvon, but not to be sure that he was casing houses in the neighborhood -- but GZ never said he was sure. It was raining but nonetheless Trayvon was taking his time getting to where he was staying, wandering around, looking at the houses according to GZ. Plus GZ said he looked like he was on drugs. Plus he looked to be a black male late teen dressed in a hoodie (which yeah is popular with lots of black teens but seems to sorta be the uniform of many teen thugs/criminals). GZ didn't recognize him as living in the neighborhood and in fact he didn't he was simply visiting his dad during his ten day school suspension. The was nothing legally or morally wrong with GZ: calling Trayvon in as suspicious and asking police to send a car to question him; get out of his truck to follow him to the extent of trying to keep Trayvon in sight so he could tell police when they arrived where he was; for GZ to ask Trayvon what he was doing around here, if he did as DeeDee claims there was also nothing wrong with Trayvon asking GZ "what are following me for?" What was wrong both legally and morally whoever threw the first punch which I believe was most likely Trayvon, since we have no evidence of GZ having ever hit any of the other people he's called into police as suspicious before. There are several other reasons why I think it was more likey than not that Trayvon started the fight because he felt "dissed" and mad for being racially profiled, suspected and followed. What really was wrong though and amounted to aggravated felonious assault was for Trayvon to keep hitting Zimmerman and bashing his head against concrete after he'd pinned GZ to the ground on his back, and clearly won the fight and neutralized any non weapon threat from GZ. Man what the hell have you been smoking zimmerman created this issue just because a young Black man is walking home doesn't mean he's stealing or casing homes .
What's morally wrong is that TM didn't carry a gun to protect himself. The next time I'm walking home from the store in Florida and being followed by a suspicious unmarked car, I'm running first, and if still chased, shooting when confronted. I don't think GZ broke the law, but that law is messed up. It's freakin kill or be killed out there. I know it's not that simple, but geez, my mind would be going crazy if an non-police car and person was stalking me. I would totally feel threatened. Who does that other than kidnappers, rapists, robbers, and GZ?
You don't get it. People have the right to follow you around and approach you to ask what you're doing in their neighborhood. You are supposed to answer their questions politely and tip them if you have any change on you. If it so happens to be a killer or rapist that approaches/chases you, well that's just bad luck my friend.
When I came to America as a teen I was shocked by the ignorance and arrogance of my peers. Seriously, they had no appreciation for what they had and had the most ridiculous opinion of the world but had never left the county. Guess what? They grew up and had kids. And now they and their kids are now posting in this thread...still with blinders on. I'm finally getting my parents, as most of you will one day. I just hope you don't cause too much shyt before you finally take off your shades.
It's been beat to death but I'll say it again. A police dispatcher's opinion isn't gospel nor can you be in trouble for not listening to them. What a dispatcher says is a mere suggestion. By default a dispatcher is going to tell you to do the safest thing possible based on the information available to them. Vicarious liability.
Out of curiosity, did you even read the text you quoted? The text said that there was nothing legally or morally wrong in GZ disregarding the dispatcher's instructions and pursuing TM. I disagreed b/c it was morally wrong. GZ was instructed on the safest/most helpful course of action. He chose to do the opposite.
Zimmerman ignored the "mere suggestion" and as a result a 17 year old died. He also ignored clearly defined neighborhood watch patrol guidelines to not approach suspicious people and to not be armed. He had every opportunity to prevent the encounter from ever happening. His negligent and irresponsible actions led to the encounter. Without them, there's no loss of human life. It's a total copout by the way to call it a mere suggestion. Dispatchers are never going to give callers clear directives. They will always give advice. Most people follow the advice. George CHOSE not to. He had a CHOICE.
All of this is legally irrelevant -- GZ was not on watch duty the night of Martin's death. How could GZ prevent the encounter if TZ charged and attacked him? GZ could have done exactly what the dispatcher said and Martin still may have attacked him -- we just don't know.
