I’m a Hispanic guy – what rules should I follow?
Was O.J. of Peruvian/Latino descent?
Sure.
Probably.
Sure, with the understanding that this is all speculative. And it’s with the assumption that Trayvon Martin was not some animalistic savage thug, but a scared kid, which I think is far more likely.
Zimmerman (in his truck) saw Martin, and was suspicious. At some point, Martin notices this truck following him, and starts to run in fear. Zimmerman called the police department, and tells the operator he is following Martin. The operator says he shouldn’t do that. The call ends. Zimmerman has lost track of Martin, and gets out of his truck to look for him. He may or may not have a gun visible, but he has it with him. At some point, he finds Martin, or Martin finds him. At this point, all Martin knows (probably) is that a truck was following him, and now the guy in the truck is out looking for him, possibly with a gun. There is probably an exchange of words, and then a fight starts. Zimmerman is physically overwhelmed and, either with his gun already in his hand or able to draw it, he shoots and kills Martin.
In this case, I believe Zimmerman acted recklessly and with disregard for life when (in the dark) he followed Martin, when he disregarded the operator’s instructions, and when he got out of his truck to look for Martin. At this point, he is at least partially responsible for any confrontation that occurs.
Don’t follow strange young men of any race around at night. You probably already knew this, though, right?
Neither was Martin. At least not by the law.
No, the operator didn’t say that.
There were no “operator’s instructions” to disregard.
Dead people are dead, so they are not able to be punished by the law. Or by anyone else, actually. They can’t be rewarded, either, at least not in this world. Read more about death here.
In common parlance, and language as it is commonly used in things like phone conversations, what the operator said (“we don’t need you to do that” after Zimmerman said he was following Martin) can reasonably be interpreted as instruction to discontinue following.
Something to consider: if Zimmerman’s weapon was visible to Martin, and this motivated Martin to use force, wouldn’t his focus have been on trying to get the weapon away from Zimmerman? Zimmerman’s wounds were on his face and head. He had none on his hands. To me, that’s indicative that Zimmerman’s weapon was not visible at the time the confrontation began; if it were, Martin would have been clawing at and trying to control Zimmerman’s hands, not striking his head and ignoring the weapon, no?
I agree with your point, here, but to be fair, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that” is not an instruction, per se.
Should it be any other way, though? People do attack other people, and it’d be profoundly unjust for a person who killed an attacker in self-defense to go to prison for it because they happened to be alone when it happened.
There were no instructions of the operator to disregard.
No, it cannot. It can reasonably be interpreted as telling Zimmerman that they don’t need him to do that.
Possibly. But the fact that Zimmerman was following in his truck, and then got out of his truck to look for him, might reasonably be enough on its own to inspire fear for life in Martin.
Addressed in my last post – in context, I don’t see how this can be interpreted as anything but an instruction to stop following.
But if they follow someone at night, and then disregard a police operator’s instructions to stop following, they are at least partially culpable for any resulting confrontation, in my opinion.
No, it cannot. It can only reasonbly be interpreted as telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin.
You really need to figure out what an “instruction” is.
Except there were no instructions.
There was an instruction to stop following.
No. Not “reasonably”.
This is evidence that he did not have his gun in his hand. It took him several seconds to draw and fire. Ergo, he did not have his gun in his hand, and your statement that it was “likely” is false.
[list=A][li]Recommendations of an NEN operator do not carry the force of law. [*]As mentioned, the evidence shows that Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin doubled back and attacked him.[/list][/li]
Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in hand, and reason to believe that he did not.
As opposed to your allegations, for which there is no evidence at all.
You seem to be rejecting things for which there is evidence in favor of things for which there is no evidence at all.
Then don’t try to craft laws to punish people for acting legally.
Disobeying the instructions of the NEN operator is not evidence of a reckless disregard for life. Also, Zimmerman was obeying the instructions of the NEN operator when Martin doubled back and attacked him. So even if you set up a law where NEN operators can order people to stop doing things that are legal, Zimmerman could not be punished because he was not doing the legal thing he was forbidden to do.
I get your point, but it’s a stupid point. Your ideal law punishes people for acting legally, when somebody else acts illegally against them.
You are walking in an unfamiilar neighborhood, and get lost. You stop a stranger to ask for directions. Are they morally justified in trying to kill you? If they try to kill you, and you kill them, should you be convicted and go to prison under a law that makes asking for directions retroactively illegal?
Regards,
Shodan
You can say it a dozen times, still doesn’t make it true.
Yes. Yes “reasonably”.
Wrong.