View Single Post
Old 06-13-2019, 09:38 AM
WillFarnaby is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father's house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin's father's house was, and Dee Dee's testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it's really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.
I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you. It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest. We agree it is illegal to protect yourself. It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned. If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified. We know from Martinís phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.

If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martinís reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.

There's no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him?
Zimmerman had his gun and was pursuing who he thought was a burglar. He doesnít need to have it out to intend to harm Martin. If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?

In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes. His intent was not to meet with police, it was to apprehend Martin himself.

That's what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.
Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?
Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didnít think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.

If by "stalking illegitimately" you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.
Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone? If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them. Itís illegal to shoot someone. It is also illegal to raise a loaded gun and aim it at someone. The illegal act doesnít begin with the pull of the trigger and anyone would be a fool to allow someone to get that far in the act before defending himself.

Zimmerman isn't a police officer.
He isnít but he should be held to the same standard. We canít have vigilantes running around without consequences. We can have vigilantes running around with consequences.

[QUOTE•]Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.[/QUOTE]

You donít get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasnít to get an address and it wasnít to apprehend Martin, what was it?

Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.
You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.
Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.

Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, thereís a good chance you die.