Actually, Zimmerman never stated Martin was a criminal, just that his behavior was suspicious.. How many people wander around in the rain without an umbrella, looking at houses, and according to Zimmerman, between houses? Since Zimmerman was parked by the side of the road, talking to the dispatcher, there was little reason for Martin to take off running when he saw Zimmerman on the phone. Zimmerman said he was returning to his truck when the confrontation begin. Multiple witnesses stated the confrontation begin west of the T, than moved south. If accurate, Zimmerman was mere seconds from his truck.
Not under any law I know of. Can you cite one?
Assault is an attempt to commit a battery. Do you think what Bricker described qualifies?
No. It wouldn’t.
An assault in Florida requires (among other things) a threat to do some physical violence to someone.
If Zimmerman had been recorded on video saying to Martin, “Hey, what are you doing here? You don’t belong here – this isn’t your neighborhood, and we don’t like criminal thugs like you around here. Fucking punk! Go back to whatever crime-hole you climbed out of!” and then charged with assault, he could not be convicted.
Unless, of course, the video showed him doing some act with DID constitute a threat of violence, like grabbing, hitting, pulling a gun, waving a club menacingly, or the like.
Do you understand this?
Are you saying that Florida law requires an express threat of violence and a reasonable inference of such a threat would not constitute an assault? So if an irrational person starts cursing at you and acting like a threat, and then hits you without ever voicing a threat it would only constitute a battery and not assault and battery?
No.
In your example, the irrational person is cursing and acting like a threat.. That satisfies the requirement for an act. But when what’s at issue are words alone, the words must explicitly communicate an imminent threat.
So your scenario involves Zimmerman not following Trayvon Martin and calmly saying “Hey, what are you doing here? You don’t belong here – this isn’t your neighborhood, and we don’t like criminal thugs like you around here. Fucking punk! Go back to whatever crime-hole you climbed out of!” in a way that is not threatening? I’m not buying it.
Would you buy a scenario in which Martin makes his way back to his father’s house, turns around, comes back, and confronts Zimmerman, saying “Why are you following me?” and then Zimmerman saying “What are you doing around here?” Is that threatening? Do you believe in that scenario, Martin would be justified in using violence?
Regards,
Shodan
Hurtful, superior, condescending - those lines could be read in a very irritating, snotty way… something that’s quite likely to provoke an angry response but is not threatening. So, no – not calmly saying those lines. Superciliously, dismissively, or condescendingly.
How about gesticulating wildly, or reaching for his holster? It’s all just hypothetical, are you just trying to say there’s some circumstance where Trayvon Martin would over-react to Zimmerman doing something that did not comprise an assault? Sure that could happen, but a rational person would assume the person who was already acting irrationally committed the assault, not the person who was minding their own business and acting perfectly rationally up to that point.
That assumes that Zimmerman wasn’t already quite close to Martin or that Martin didn’t pounce when Zimmerman began pulling out his weapon.
Out of curiosity, how was Zimmerman’s firearm carried? Did he have an exposed holster?
There’s certainly no evidence for it (or for most of the details of any of these proposed scenarios), but I would not be surprised at all if Zimmerman fumbled for his weapon, Martin saw this and reacted in his own defense to disarm Zimmerman, the struggle went to ground and Zimmerman then managed to get his finger on the trigger and fire.
For those of you who are more familiar with the trial evidence, what did the experts say about the range at which Martin was shot? Was he shot at close range or from a distance? An answer to that question would certainly alter some of my speculation.
Yes -for instance, a scenario in which Martin makes his way back to his father’s house, turns around, comes back, and confronts Zimmerman, saying “Why are you following me?” and then Zimmerman saying “What are you doing around here?”
We don’t need to assume anything - a witness was (allegedly) talking to Martin on the phone, and described the incident pretty much as I have said.
So again - do you believe Martin would have been justified in using violence against Zimmerman in a scenario in which Martin makes his way back to his father’s house, turns around, comes back, and confronts Zimmerman, saying “Why are you following me?” and then Zimmerman saying “What are you doing around here?”
Regards,
Shodan
From a couple of inches away. Or, more precisely, from a couple of inches away from the body, and with the gun in contact with Martin’s clothes.
Your scenario was one in which Zimmerman “pulled out his weapon and aimed it at” Martin. So the weapon in your scenario was already drawn.
Martin was shot from less than eight inches away.
Regards,
Shodan
So you believe this innocuous exchange took place and then Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman for no reason? Still not buying it.
Rachel Jeantel:
“They don’t understand, they understand, ‘Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.’ When somebody bash somebody, like, blood, people, trust me, in the area I live, that’s not bashing. That’s just called “whoop-ass.” You just got your ass whooped. That’s what it is.”
What does that have to do with anything?
Who said anything about “no reason”?
“Nuh-uh” is not valid refutation.
Regards,
Shodan
Nuh-uh is perfectly valid when someone doesn’t provide a reason for something they insist happened.
How often have you attacked some who asked “What are you doing around here”?
The casualness of the “ass whooping” given “in the area she lives in”.
Would a rational person say that that conclusion is the only possible one, beyond a reasonable doubt?