I haven’t seen the actual police report, is it publicly available? The few accounts I can find all reference that “it is not known” whether he was armed or not. Fragmentary news reports, to be sure. Many references also of the Deland PD officers who were at the scene treating Zimmerman as minor celebrity.
I have seen no evidence that he, and/or his truck were searched.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/assets/pdf/DN29314729.pdf
I don’t believe you can assert that he had a gun when the only evidence is that no gun was found or mentioned.
By 911 dispatch, or law-enforcement dispatch, then.
He may have. His bad decisions didn’t result in killing someone else, though. Zimmerman’s bad decisions did.
Isn’t it fair to say that Martin’s bad decisions were responsible for a death: his own?
They may have been partly responsible. If so, he was (obviously) punished for it. Zimmerman was not, at least not by the law.
Of course I can not state categorically that Zimmerman was armed, and as you point out it was not mentioned in the police report. I have also watched the entire dash cam video of Officer Godwin, and there was no search of Zimmerman, and no search of his vehicle. The audio is difficult to decipher at times, but the only time the issue of Zimmerman being armed or not is even mentioned is when Zimmerman brings up media coverage of Pat Johnson (owner of Pompano Pats) having given Zimmerman a gun after his acquittal. One of the officers, and it sounds like Godwin, says, emphatically, “Oh, you have the right to have a gun”.
I don’t believe that the facts as we know them preclude him having had a weapon that night. I would say that it is likely, given his own quotes and public stance on the matter, that he was armed. The police may have felt that did not have a probable cause ta ask and/or search for a weapon. Especially since they were too busy admiring his American flag artwork. (captured in video feed).
So, to be clear, I cannot factually state that he was armed, but I think it highly likely. Regardless. he legally could have been armed, and it would change nothing. so we are arguing side issues.
Zimmerman is millions in debt, and one guy that tried to help him out received death threats for doing so.
Isn’t there at least some punishment in play here for Zimmerman?
Perhaps, though it doesn’t seem remotely sufficient to me in light of the (moral) transgression (and I would, obviously, oppose any death threats, whether to Zimmerman or his supporters).
He’s alive, Martin is permanently dead. How much punishment is enough to qualify as “some”?
Well, obviously opinions will differ on this point.
And although you oppose the death threats, you acknowledge they exist, yes? I mean – merely by oppose them you don’t negate their punishing effects, right?
I’m taking your word for it. I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion, though. Whatever he has suffered (or not suffered) so far, I don’t believe it nearly suffices as a punishment for his moral culpability.
Actually all of the things I mentioned were backed up by physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, or independent testimony. Not just the first part.
Correct. We should only accept or assert as truthful things for which there is evidence.
However, you asserted that Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when he was following Martin. There is no evidence that this is the case, and, as mentioned, there is circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman did not have his gun in his hand. So your assertion that Zimmerman had his gun in hand when he was following Martin is not only reasonably doubtful, but probably false.
You are not going to be able to craft a law that would have subjected Zimmerman to punishment, because you are trying to do so based on ideas that are not only unproven but outright false.
[ul][li]Zimmerman did not disregard any police instructions. The NEN operator is not a police officer. (This is a matter of public record.)[/li][li]Stopping someone on the street does not put a reasonable person in fear of his life, or of serious bodily injury. (Bricker has already discussed this elsewhere.)[/li][li]Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin doubled back and attacked him. (This is backed up by Zimmerman’s contemporaneous statements, before the shooting, as well as the independent testimony of the witness for the prosecution Rachel Jeantel.)[/li][li]That Zimmerman did anything to put Martin in reasonable fear is not “likely”, it is probably false, and in any case has no evidence whatever in its favor.[list][] Zimmerman was not following Martin at the time of the confronation (already established by the transcript of Zimmerman’s calls to the NEN operator and the testimony under oath of Dee Dee Jeantel). []He was not brandishing his gun (already discussed). []He uttered no threats or accusations (backed up by Dee Dee’s testimony). []He made no physical attack on Martin (backed up by the physical evidence). []Martin struck the only blows, and inflicted the only physical injuries apart from the gunshot wound for which there is any evidence (the marks on Martin’s knuckle, the injuries to Zimmerman’s eyes, nose, face, back, and the back of his head). []There was no point at which Zimmerman was atop Martin, and one point where Martin was atop ZImmerman (backed up by the physical evidence of the grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees, and the eyewitness). [/ul][/list][/li]So what you seem to want to do is craft a law that says, even if you do nothing illegal, if you shoot someone you should be punished by making things retroactively illegal, or else simply make up something illegal, assume you did it, and convict and punish you.
So, either point to some evidence that Zimmerman did something illegal, or quit trying to manufacture a case against him from your imagination.
Regards,
Shodan
Not even then. A dept (a non-police officer) employee said we don’t need you to do that. Zimmerman wasn’t even charged with disobeying a police officer.
Martin’s poor decisions that night resulted in Martin’s death. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I’m enjoying all the effort you’re putting into this 
Thank you!
It seems likely because it would be very difficult to draw and fire a gun while fighting.
[quote]
You are not going to be able to craft a law that would have subjected Zimmerman to punishment, because you are trying to do so based on ideas that are not only unproven but outright false.
[list][li]Zimmerman did not disregard any police instructions. The NEN operator is not a police officer. (This is a matter of public record.)[/li][/quote]
He disregarded the wise instructions of the NEN operator, then. He should have heeded those instructions. Not heeding them in this case was behaving in a reckless manner.
[quote]
[li]Stopping someone on the street does not put a reasonable person in fear of his life, or of serious bodily injury. (Bricker has already discussed this elsewhere.)[/li][/quote]
Late at night, and if one has a gun visible (in hand or not), perhaps it does.
[quote]
[li]Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin doubled back and attacked him. (This is backed up by Zimmerman’s contemporaneous statements, before the shooting, as well as the independent testimony of the witness for the prosecution Rachel Jeantel.)[/li][/quote]
This is pretty weak evidence, considering Jeantel’s testimony (and that she was only present on the phone).
[quote]
[li]That Zimmerman did anything to put Martin in reasonable fear is not “likely”, it is probably false, and in any case has no evidence whatever in its favor.[list][/li][/quote]
Possibly. It may have been a tough case for the prosecution even with my idea. It might just be not that hard to get away with murder if it’s during a physical fight and there are no witnesses.
[quote]
[li] Zimmerman was not following Martin at the time of the confronation (already established by the transcript of Zimmerman’s calls to the NEN operator and the testimony under oath of Dee Dee Jeantel).[/li][/quote]
Not convincing, as above. Perhaps enough to shed reasonable doubt.
[quote]
[li]He was not brandishing his gun (already discussed).[/li][/quote]
If visible, it may have been enough to inspire reasonable fear.
[quote]
[li]He uttered no threats or accusations (backed up by Dee Dee’s testimony).[/li][/quote]
Not convincing at all.
[quote]
[li]He made no physical attack on Martin (backed up by the physical evidence). []Martin struck the only blows, and inflicted the only physical injuries apart from the gunshot wound for which there is any evidence (the marks on Martin’s knuckle, the injuries to Zimmerman’s eyes, nose, face, back, and the back of his head). []There was no point at which Zimmerman was atop Martin, and one point where Martin was atop ZImmerman (backed up by the physical evidence of the grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees, and the eyewitness).[/li][/quote]
Doesn’t matter, if Martin reasonably felt fear for his life.
I oppose laws that outlaw stuff that doesn’t violate laws. For the record.
I think he acted recklessly by disregarding the instructions of the operator, and acting with reckless disregard for life is against the law. Further, you’re entirely missing the point of my argument, which is that because Zimmerman is at least partially morally culpable for Martin’s death, an ideal law would find him legally culpable as well.
Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty.
It appears that you’ve taken on the role of bully-for-the-good-of-society? (Does the BFTGOS have a secret handshake? 
)
No, I’m making a different argument. Feel free to read my posts to see it.
So was O.J. Simpson. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
OK.
But you agree – I hope – that his moral culpability from the Sanford shooting rests on certain assumptions you’ve made, yes?
In other words, you’d agree that if security footage were to surface after all this time showing that Zimmerman approached Martin carefully and non-threateningly, and Martin attacked him, that might decrease his culpability; likewise if footage were to reveal that Zimmerman shot Martin and then fabricated his injuries with the connivance of the witnesses, your view of his culpability would increase – am I right?
So if you wouldn’t mind, when you say that Zimmerman deserves punishment for his moral culpability that has not been meted out, can you lay out what acts you are picturing Zimmerman actually did to earn that culpability?
How many white guys we got here? Of that group, how many white guys here don’t know that following a young black man around a gated community is likely to make him feel threatened? How many of us would continue to follow after being advised by authorities not to?
Yes, if the facts were other than what they are, the appropriate conclusion might be different. :rolleyes: