Zimmerman hasn’t ever said he was afraid of Martin that I recall, outside the the specific and reasonable circumstance of Martin being atop him and beating him.
The only time his fear matters is at the moment he pulled the trigger. Not before, not after.
I’ll repeat, there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody.
Even if his intent was to confront or subdue?
Well, to be fair, Zimmerman did say “I don’t know what this guy’s deal is”, which is pretty much the same thing as saying “that boy scares me plenty - sure hope I get a chance to shoot his ass.” 
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. He would have to actually confront Martin and do something illegal, such as assault or subdue him, for it to be a problem. Even if he followed Martin with dubious intent, if Martin then attacked him, he would be entitled to defend himself.
You may be underestimating how strong self defence laws are in Florida.
If Zimmerman’s intent was to confront, in the sense of asking him what he was up to, then that is not illegal (or, IMO, wrong - he was the neighborhood watch in a neighborhood plagued by burglaries). If his intent was to subdue, in the sense of assaulting him, then the following itself would not be illegal, but the assault would be. The prosecution would then be obliged to produce evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman assaulted Martin instead of vice versa.
If one party had a mark on his knuckles, and the other a broken nose and black eyes, and there were eyewitnesses to testify that the one with the broken nose and black eyes were on the bottom and the other on top, then that would go a long way towards proving which one assaulted the other. And indeed, would demonstrate that whichever of the two renewed the pursuit of the other and re-initiated contact, was guilty of “following with intent to assault”, if there were such an offense.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite that he confronted him. I can cite from the phone call that he stayed in his car when Martin was staring him down. So who is following who at this point? Which person is exhibiting aggressive behavior? Martin.
Repetition doesn’t make it so.
It’s really a matter of perspective as to when the line has been crossed, and what information we have via the phone call tells us that from Martin’s perspective, that line had been crossed.
Given that, his acts may well have been self-defense. Cuz Florida is generous about that stuff.
I’m pretty sure you have a list of reasons why this cannot possibly be applied to anything Georgie did, but fortunately for us all, you are not the arbiter of these matters. It has been made very clear that many, many people, including the person who is now too dead to argue about whether he was justified in being afraid of the man who killed him, find Georgie’s behavior unacceptable and easily interpreted as threatening.
So there’s that.
Wait…looking at someone who has been staring at YOU is aggressive now? But Zimmerman staring at Martin, following him in and out of his truck, that’s perfectly peachy?
I don’t know why this still blows my mind at this point, but it does. You are… amazing.
No it is not.
“willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly”
Also, note that he is not charged with stalking.
Well, as we know Mr. Z has claimed a variety of things.
But you have gotten my attention with the above. If the brutal headslamming and punching wasn’t Z’s reason for fearing for his life, why have y’all been harping on it so much? You appear to be saying that Z was justified in killing Martin because Martin (supposedly) said he was going to kill Z and (supposedly) reached for Z’s gun. None of the rest of that had anything to do with it.
Is that correct?
Bricker told you, repeatedly, with citations, that Florida precedent establishes that a punch to the nose is enough to establish reasonable fear for the purposes of self-defense. You keep ignoring him.
Doesn’t matter. Steophan was under the misapprehension that “there’s nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody.” He was incorrect in making that assertion. The law of Florida clearly recognizes that following someone can be threatening and scary. Whether Z committed the crime of stalking or not, is not the point. The point is that following someone can be a crime, and therefore it is not ridiculous for someone being followed to feel threatened. As Martin easily may have. And Steophan was wrong.
I’m not asking Magiver to clarify the law for me.:rolleyes: I am asking Magiver to clarify ***his own ***understandings and assertions, seeing as how he has devoted so much time and energy to it.
Bricker DIRC that that case involved a broken nose that required a surgical repair? ADIRC that common law(?) drew a significant distinction between a battery that left the victim with a permanent disfigurement and one which did not without regard to the other facts of the battery? E.G. a sustained beating that left your face pulp but with no permanent damage wasn’t as bad as a quick fish-hooking that split your cheeks and left a scar.
CMC fnord!
I believe you have been telling us for a very long time now that there is nothing which refutes Zimmerman’s story and that the evidence we have is either neutral or supports it.
Zimmerman has claimed that he spread Martin’s hands wide, and held them that way.
Absolutely no human being involved in this case has ever even hinted at the possibility that Martin was conscious and able to pull his hands under his body, especially after Z had alreadysat on his mortally wounded torso to spread them apart in the first place. To “restrain” him. Not even Z himself has tried to make that ridiculous claim. Nor is there a single scrap of other evidence supporting such a ludicrous thing.
You have become nearly apoplectic when anyone else has inferred or assumed anything without producing a stack of evidence to prove it, but you have the nerve to come in here and completely invent Martin being consciously aware and in control of his body past the time Z sat on his mortally wounded torso and using this conscious awareness and strength to pull his hands under his body? With absolute zero evidence that such a thing could possibly be true?
And only so you don’t have to acknowledge that Zimmerman lied.
I believe you are what is known as a “piece of work”.
Nope, there is nothing illegal or wrong about following somebody. Just as there is nothing illegal or wrong about killing somebody. Just because following somebody and doing other things at the same time is illegal or wrong, doesn’t make following somebody a problem.
Also, are you claiming that this wasn’t the first time Zimmerman had encountered Martin? If not, why bring stalking into it? It’s irrelevant.
I am, as usual (but not quite always), right about this. Just because the law recognises something as threatening and scary (why the unnecessary repetition? Don’t you use enough words as it is?) doesn’t mean it’s wrong or illegal. If someone does something that happens to scare you, tough, unless it’s illegal, or an imminent threat of violence. Following someone is not an imminent threat, and is not in itself a crime.
Go on, find me a crime anywhere where the only element is following someone. Whether it’s Florida or Finland, I don’t care. I guarantee you you won’t find it.
But, just in case you still want to claim that Zimmerman was stalking Martin despite the singular nature of the incident, read it again and remember why Zimmerman was following Martin. There was no malice, simply an attempt to ensure the police could find him.
So, if someone a)wilfully, b)maliciously, and c)repeatedly d)follows someone, they have committed a crime. But, as we’ve discussed before, all the elements need to be present for the crime to have been committed. Just as killing someone isn’t a crime without several other elements present, following someone is not a crime.
Once again, Stoid, your own citation shows you to be utterly wrong, and me to be right. I will say this for you, you have the same tactics as the prosecution in the trial, as all their witnesses are showing that Martin was the aggressor, and Zimmerman the innocent party.
Let’s say Zimmerman is, for whatever reason, lying about that. What, exactly, do you think that shows? At the absolute most, it can cause you to ignore any part of his testimony that isn’t corroborated by other evidence.
How much, exactly, do you think that is? Remember, we know Martin went home and came back, we know Zimmerman stopped following him, and we know Martin was on top, and injured Zimmerman. All but Zimmerman stopping are from prosecution witnesses, and him stopping can be clearly heard on the tape. It is quite simply not the case that, if you can show one part of Zimmerman’s testimony is wrong, then you have shown he’s guilty of murder. Hell, unless Florida has different rules to most other places, an uncorroborated confession wouldn’t prove him guilty.
That despite the fact that you haven’t proven him to be lying, or even mistaken, you have merely shown there is no additional evidence to back him up. Get a medical professional to say that Martin couldn’t have moved at that point and you’ll have that evidence, but until then you don’t.
Evidence. Facts. Get them, use them. I am doing, you are ignoring them.
Oh, and this? Having one reason to be afraid of death or serious injury doesn’t preclude there being another one. If the injuries were sufficient to do so, the he was entitled to shoot Martin. If, in the process of trying to do that, Martin grabbed for the gun, that’s an additional, and indeed more pressing, threat.
Do you really think Zimmerman should have lain there and let Martin cripple or kill him, rather than defend himself, because you don’t think his head’s been slammed into the concrete enough?
“Hey, you got your stalking in my homicide!”
“You got your homicide in my stalking!”
“Wow… it’s delicious!”