Explain what about Zimmerman’s response to Martin was hostile or aggressive. He asked a question.
Martin had multiple chances to de-escalate the situation. Not only did he forgo the short distance to his house to confront Zimmerman he escalated it beyond words and beat him viciously. Prior to all this both were doing something suspicious to the other. Neither was doing anything illegal. After the conversation the person committing a crime was Martin.
Cite that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante.
They should seek safety and not confront the person. That’s a truly stupid question to even ask.
A reasonable person would try not to confront someone or start a fight. Zimmerman followed Martin because he acted suspicious and then ran. He knew the police were en-route and it was a reasonable course of action to keep him in sight so they could find him and sort it out. I’ve called the police on suspicious activity and I’ve had them called on me. A simple discussion sorts these things out.
Martin did not have the right to attack Zimmerman based on the events that we are aware of. Certainly nothing in the conversation warranted an attack.
By trying to evide Zimmerman he WAS trying to de-escalate, that failed multiple times.
The fact that you dismiss being chased at night by a stranger at night is something to be concerned about is just absurd. Why do you not afford the same rights of self defense to Martin? is it his look? is age?
I already provided the cite, he broke the most basic rules of the neighborhood watch program and ignored the dispatcher
I provided documentation showing he was headed towards home, to say Zimmerman had no role in the confrontation because he failed at his attempt to chase the kid down is just asinine.
Following someone walking in the rain at night is how rapes, assaults, and muggings happen.
I don’t claim to know if Zimmerman is guilty, the fact you won’t entertain the idea that Martin was acting out of fear and self defense is just odd.
For some reason you are saying that Zimmerman had no realistic reason to think that chasing someone down at night may cause them to fight back but Martin was suppose to know the exact best action to take and he is a child.
Martin ran away while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle. Zimmerman lost sight of him. The initial confrontation was over.
Martin then initiated a 2nd confrontation with Zimmerman when Martin approached Zimmerman from behind. The two men talked. Martin began punching Zimmerman.
If Martin was a 6’ 160 lb woman who had approached someone from behind, asked them what they were doing there, and then broke their nose and beat their head on the ground until blood poured out, I would have serious doubts about her actually being afraid of the guy she was kicking the snot out of.
Zimmerman kept following, that was an escalation, had he just “lost him” he wouldn’t have needed to leave his car.
The 911 call makes it quite clear that Zimmerman was actively searching for Martin as he walked, that part is not an unknown.
There was no level up, this is not a video game, Martin was under no obligation under the reasonable man doctrine to think that because he had run and Zimmerman had exited his vehicle and gave chase that the confrontation was over.
How did it fail? He was able to keep his distance but in the end chose not to.
I didn’t dismiss this. I’ve repeatedly said that Martin would have found it suspicious.
no, you didn’t provide a cite. You’re acting like the watch program has any bearing at all in this case. It is a meaningless set of rules that have no force of law. You might as well cite the Boy Scout oath.
There is no indication that he intended to catch Martin. If Martin went home that’s what Zimmerman would have seen. Problem solved on both sides. Your documentation shows the short distance involved. It was about 100 yards.
pretty good reason to skip on home using your premise of fear.
Again, the logical solution to fear in this situation would have been to go home. Self defense is justified when you’re attacked not because you have suspicions.
Martin had no cause to stop and fight. Why do you keep asking this? It’s beyond foolish to go out of your way to confront someone you think may harm you. The only reason for Martin to fight Zimmerman is if Zimmerman attacked him.
I see what you did there…with the whole dropping the following and the chasing bit…What is your monthly bill for straw? Is your position so weak that it can’t survive being framed in the context of the events of that night?
If you seriously think that “reasonable man doctrine” allows for:
… after “following and chasing”…
Martin: “Why are you following me?”
Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
Martin: punches Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose.
then there is really nothing to discuss. We’re way too far apart on the basics.
The reason would be that this is what has been reported (by Zimmerman’s brother?) to be what Zimmerman told the police. Do you know of someone, who was there, who has contradicted this story? This is the story that the jury will hear - IF - there even is a trial. What evidence will the prosecution produce to contradict Zimmerman’s story?
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will produce conclusive evidence that rat avatar doesn’t believe George Zimmerman. That should be enough evidence to convince you of Zimmerman’s guilt because it’s all we have.”
It was Martin’s punch and continued attack on Zimmerman that created the life threatening situation.
Bullets pass through the human body quite easily at many points. THERE’S the crossfire I’m talking about.
And Zimmerman did this in a subdivision. What the fuck is that?
Zimmerman was supposedly keeping people safe, yet somehow, he committed the only killing that subdivision has probably ever had.
I think, given that fact, that his neighbors (and certainly Trayvon) would have been a lot safer WITHOUT him around.
I’m not saying it’s black and white…but all you eager-beaver cowboys with your concealed-carry permits are like little boys playing with toy guns. You have about the same level of emotional maturity, impulse control, and common sense.
Given those facts, I don’t want you anywhere near my home with your guns. No thanks, I’ll get along just fine without your ‘protection’, thank you.
Surely you don’t think trying to convince me is worth your time. How is it not clear that I think Zimmerman, and other man-boys playing with guns, are some of the most dangerous people in our society? How is it not clear that you cannot change that opinion? Why waste your time?
The crux of the issue is that we don’t agree on how to interpret the 911 call. Some people see it as evidence that Zimmerman went gunning for Martin. We have at least one poster who believes that Zimmerman was “hyped” for the kill based on his tone of voice Zimmerman had on the tape. I don’t see the tape as evidence that Zimmerman was gunning for Martin. I think he should have followed the advice of the 911 operator, and, let’s be clear, it was advice not an order, but this is not evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything unlawful.
I’m unsure as to why you’re presenting as established fact that Martin approached Zimmerman from behind and started the fight; neither of those facts is known to you aside from the rumour that Zimmerman claims them to be the case. There’s no other eyewitness of which you are aware to corroborate this story.
It is possible that these things happened, but we don’t KNOW they happened. If you’re assuming Zimmerman’s word as gospel truth, you need to turn your skepticism meter up; he has, shall we say, an incentive to lie.