That’s because IMO Zimmerman figured out where Martin was or was still looking for him.
That’s the only thing that makes sense.
You don’t give out your address for a couple reasons: either you didn’t want him (Martin) to hear it (implying you thought he was somewhere in the vicinity and would have heard it) or he knew he would be on the move (i.e. still pursuing Martin)–his location would change, obviously.
It wasn’t a criticism. I asked three questions of someone I know very little about. If I knew betenoire39 better, I wouldn’t have needed to ask these questions to make a personal assessment of his google-fu.
There appear to be at least two ways of finding the information betenoire39 requested.
Plan A
Step 1 - Search for statute(s).
Step 2 - Search for standard jury instructions.
Step 3 - Search for interpreting caselaws.
Step 4 - Search law dictionary for the term “Shepardizing”.
Step 5 - Shepardize case laws.
Plan B
Ask Bricker
You were very kind and generously supplied the information requested free of charge. I only asked a few questions.
Since GZ had prior experience with dealing with the police, he would have expected to give his address to the responding officer. It’s possible that GZ didn’t want his address included in the nen recording, or broadcast over the wireless airwaves, or heard by “the suspicious person who may or may not still be in the area”. I have no idea what GZ was actually thinking at that point in time.
By not giving out his address, Zimmerman pretty well followed the same procedure as in other calls to the police, which are available to the public. The only difference is that Trayvon didn’t run away like the others. Hard to believe Zimmerman’s motivation had changed from the past. There’s no way he could have known Trayvon wasn’t armed.
What google-fu?
Because it’s in question form, it’s not a criticism???:dubious:
Because I read your comment as in “get off your ass and do it yourself”. So did Bricker and pretty much almost anyone reading that.
Again, I didn’t have the expertise to extract and INTERPRET what I needed, so i deferred to Bricker.
Why would you even direct something towards me? I didn’t ask you a damned thing–yet you took the liberty to inject.
It’s entirely plausible and acceptable that Zimmerman did not know for sure where Martin was, or rather if he was within auditory range to hear Zimmerman’s home address. It’s also simply prudent to not give away information in life that you don’t need to.
How does this equate him knowing for sure that Martin was still around?
Yeah, well it’s entirely plausible and acceptable that Zimmerman figured out where Martin was or figured that Martin was* **somewhere *** near him.
I don’t understand where you’re bolded statement comes in.
I can think of at least one additional possibility. Calls to police are a matter of public record in Florida. If Zimmerman was squeamish about his home address appearing in a record that anyone could request, he might have balked for that reason.
Could be a possibility…
or he could have simply just met the police at the clubhouse and have avoided that.
But your point is taken.
My interpretation of the call is that the operator asked Zimmerman about his home address because Zimmerman couldn’t (or wouldn’t) give him another address.
Maybe Zimmerman didn’t want to give an address for another reason–that would definitely fix his location at a certain place and time.
The more and more I look at this, the more this whole thing seems planned–again, I know this isn’t admissible in court, but I will say it anyway.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman the officers were on the way. Depending on the nearest responding vehicle they could have been there even sooner than when they did arrive, even as Zimmerman got the words out of his mouth. Zimmerman had to know this from previous calls. How can you plan anything under those conditions?
It’s a public forum. The liberty to inject is implied.
If you don’t understand a comment or question, you are free to ask for a clarification. Why do you believe that you are somehow above being questioned?
You are overlooking another possibility. Zimmerman was afraid that the communications would be garbled and the police would go to his house instead of going to where he was meeting them. At this point the police didn’t have an address to respond to. They actually went to where the 911 calls reported.
Other than the 1111 RVC address provided early on in the NEN call.
http://news.yahoo.com/minn-man-says-fired-more-shots-needed-183741818.html
Different state…
The reality is he could have done things different, but why bother?
I don’t care if he took enjoyment in it, Castle Doctrine needs to be a lot stronger across the board.
But maybe the deranged hypothesis can be that he planned it, since he was stalking them in his own home…
Actually, beyond asking a few questions, you made a statement – one that is fairly characterized, in my view, as criticism: “It should be a piece of cake to find elements for manslaughter if you only put in the effort.”
But it’s not a piece of cake. Without access to a subscription service like Lexis or Westlaw, how would you propose that someone verify that a particular case is still good law?
And very different circumstances.
Or else that he went way beyond any requirement of self-defense.
Zimmerman fired once. By his own admission, this guy fired more shots than he had to. Not to mention this part -
Rather different from shooting once with someone sitting on your chest pounding your head into the ground.
The usual caveats about “as far as we know” and “subject to revision when more evidence is available”.
Regards,
Shodan
Nice try…but I am not taking your bait.
have a nice day.
Read this on Castle doctrine.
Interesting note about the property(car, sidewalk, lawn etc); they say NOW ..but didn’t this use to be law up until about the 1960s?
And apparently Arizona has no such law - which I find well A) Ridiculous seeing as how they have SYG B) Ashamed I didn’t know since I lived there for many years.
An interesting article, but not one which has a lot to do with the Minnesota case. Even under this proposed law, one would be entitled only to defend your house/where ever you had a legal right to be. If the account of the Minnesota case is to be believed, the shooter went well beyond self-defense. And therefore I don’t think changing the law would have helped him. Nor, IMO, should it have.
You have every right in the world to defend yourself. But if you shoot them and they fall, you don’t need to put your gun under their chin and blow their heads off.
And since Zimmerman did not do anything of the sort, it is another indication that he was acting in self-defense. If he really wanted Martin dead, he would have finished him off with another shot or two instead of frisking him.
Fortunately or otherwise, the sock puppet who was arguing otherwise is no longer with us.
Regards,
Shodan