No evidence for Zimmerman going looking for Martin after he said “ok” to the dispatcher.
Bullshit. He said he stopped following when he was barely out of his car and yet someone how he found himself behind the houses shooting Martin in the chest. Let me guess … that’s when he was looking for the street sign.
Is it moral to provoke a fight with someone who is carrying a concealed handgun?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not clear at all that Zimmerman did provoke a fight, though. But otherwise, I agree, a person shouldn’t start trouble while carrying a weapon because of the likelihood of it ending with a death.
On the topic of Nelson’s ruling…
Bolding mine.
How does that work? You can’t tell the jury something is legal unless there’s a law that says it’s legal? That’s not how laws generally work, they proscribe behavior, rather than permit it. Maybe her ruling was correct on other grounds, but if that was her reasoning, it seems deeply flawed to this layman.
I said no evidence. Not fantasies. Evidence.
Terr, when I think about fantasies in the case, the name gz is the one the instantly and solely comes to mind
If you think that anyone on Team Zimmerman is above asserting their total belief that Zimmerman completely abandoned Martin and also decided to walk in the same direction as him at that moment for absolutely no reason, you haven’t been reading the thread.
Side comment, not related to the murder itself…but god, for the love of pete, Don West sure has trouble controlling himself…the Judge admonished him that shes had to give him the courts rules of conduct THREE times now…while Im not sure if this will at all influence any jurors in how they perceive gz, it probably doesnt help his cause to have suoer pitbull lawyer repeatedly not complying with the judges orders
The last thing I would do as an alpha-male criminal lawyer type, if I wanted to get on the good side of an all-female jury, is constantly act like a dismissive brat towards the female judge, but then again this case has been all about the attorneys on both sides acting like idiots since day 1, so who’s really surprised.
Teenage boy gets annoyed when harassed by asshole. News at 11. :rolleyes:
Zimmerman created a situation where it was not unlikely he would kill a teenager guilty only of losing his temper. Whether GZ is technically guilty or not, why is it so hard for some of you to understand GZ’s actions are certainly immoral, cowardly and – if legal – should be studied for necessary rewriting of the law.
ETA: He brought a concealed handgun to a fist fight. Even in the Old Wild West (model society for gun nuts?), guns were displayed openly.
I generally agree with this analysis. I don’t believe the prosecution created a legally sufficient case for guilt, but Zimmerman’s careless decision to set off in the darkness, armed, was a very foolish thing for him to have done. There was no reason for it – it was legal, yes, but it wasn’t wise.
Losing his temper and assaulting somebody.
ISTM that this applies to anyone who carries a gun for their own safety, anywhere.
Any such person might be decreasing the likelihood that they will be a victim, but you can’t get around the fact that anyone who carries a gun is increasing the likelihood that they will incorrectly perceive someone to be a serious threat to themselves and shoot them.
Therefore it is immoral and cowardly etc. for anyone to carry a gun, based on this logic.
Of course, this has much broader application than guns too. There are a lot of things that people do which increase the likelihood that they might accidently kill other people. Driving cars is one example that comes to mind, but many many others, no doubt.
" “They told me not to follow him. I wasn’t following him, I was just going in the same direction.”"
“That’s following,” Serino said on the tape.
Every day, when you walk in the street, there are hundreds of people walking in front of you and you’re going the same direction. I guess according to your logic, you are “following” all of them. Which, according to Judge Nelson is not necessarily legal. You should be charged with the crime. Whatever it is.
Great.
Is Martin’s attack - punching Zimmerman in the nose - “immoral”? “Cowardly”?
No. If you’re carrying a concealed gun, you have a responsibility to avoid unnecessary fights. (Think of all the movies where the martial arts expert with deadly hands walks away from confrontation.)
:dubious: 
So two wrongs make a right?
It really depends on what those actions were, though. It he did break off pursuit of Martin for good at the point in the NEN call when he stops running and starting messing with his flashlight, then was confronted and attacked by Martin doubling back to start shit, then it’s hard to say Zimmerman did anything immoral or cowardly.
If he did continue pursuit, and confronted Martin, then certainly that’s immoral. But how are we to know that that’s what happened?
Again, though, did he bring the fight, or was it brought to him? It’s a crucial moral difference.