# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 110
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2181 "2013-07-15T13:06:28Z")
My problem with this whole case is that I feel that Martin was the one defending himself. The aggressive, threatening acts were made by Zimmerman first. Act’s that I would consider menacing. Are people really saying that if some random person with no authority at all is following you, all you can do is run away? So I can basically menace a random person, and if that person decides to not run away but confronts me instead, I can just shoot them down if I start losing an altercation I started? Really? Zimmermans actions definitely meet the definition of [menace](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/menace) to me. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2182 "2013-07-15T13:10:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Because I look at it in context with everything else. Which is a problem, because you’re imposing your view that he’s guilty on the evidence, instead of using the evidence to arrive at your view. > [@Stoid](#): > > It is clear to me that Zimmerman absolutely intended to follow Martin and prevent him from getting away like the other “assholes”, based on the compelling evidence of his statement and of the fact that he exited the vehicle at exactly that point to follow Martin. So he had already set out on that task, revealed his thinking process driving his actions, and he openly admitted what he was doing. So that’s pretty powerful evidence that he intended to continue, all by itself, but it is hardly the sum of it. Case in point: the idea that “these assholes always get away” was a personal vow to apprehend Martin. It simply isn’t. To arrive at that conclusion requires either mentally inserting additional words, or working backward from Zimmerman’s guilt to the evidence. > [@Stoid](#): > > I agree with the prosecution’s portrayal of Zimmerman as a wannabe, based on many things, which contributes to my belief that his intention was absolutely go after Martin. He was fascinated with being the one who catches the bad guy, and here he was being presented with an opportunity to do exactly that! He wasn’t going to pass that up simply because the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that”. Why hadn’t he ever done this before? Recall the incident a few weeks before, where Zimmerman was involved in an incident where an intruder was spotted in a neighborhood home. He actually saw this person in the act of committing the crime of burglary. Did he charge into the home through the open garage and make the bust? No. He kept an eye on the house, police were called, and the police caught the suspect. > [@Stoid](#): > > Specifically considering your alternative explanation, I cannot find it plausible because it doesn’t seem rational to me to choose to have the cops, the busy cops already on scene, take the time to _then_ call him so he can give them a complicated explanation of his complicated location, (a location that, if he does not have Martin in sight, doesn’t really matter that much anyway) _after_ they have already arrived. That’s stupid and wasteful of their time, specifically and especially if they are supposed to be pursuing a genuine criminal. Far smarter to take the time of the dispatcher who can then describe it to them while they are driving. Now, if Zimmerman were just an average person who never made such calls, that might make sense. But that’s emphatically _not_ who he is, he’s somebody that wants to impress the cops, wants to be a cop, wants to show off his mastery of the lingo the cops use. He doesn’t want to waste their time, he wants to be acknowledged and appreciated for respecting their job and their time he wants them to see how much like them he is. He is very invested in the way he is perceived by police, just for his ego. He **does** try to take the time of the dispatcher to give the directions. The first time, the dispatcher gets them wrong. The second time, the dispatcher cuts off Zimmerman’s giving of the directions and asks for a specific address. Yes, Zimmerman could have retorted with “Listen! I’m giving you the directions again, now pay attention!”, but people generally are too polite to do that sort of thing. Also, the dispatcher says the police will call him when they are “in the area”, not that they will arrive, park, and then call. That’d make no sense, surely they’d call as they approached, thus costing them no time. Also, you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes, it’d be ideal if the dispatcher relayed the directions accurately. But if he does so incorrectly, they might not arrive at all. What’s the smarter option: risk wasting 20 seconds of the police officer’s time, or risk the police not getting there at all, or at least not any time soon? > [@Stoid](#): > > In that same vein, he doesn’t want to stand around picking his nose waiting for them to show up so he can tell them about this guy he already told the dispatcher about, this guy that is almost certainly by that time long gone, making the whole visit pretty pointless and him the guy that called them there, wasted their time with a phone call to tell them where to find him,all so he could tell them the guy disappeared ten minutes ago. That gets into the aforementioned problems with the Zimmerman-wanted-to-catch-this-guy narrative. If he’s afraid the guy will be long gone, **why** is he giving him such an incredible head start? If Zimmerman wanted to catch the guy, why does he spend so much time on the phone, stationary, hashing things out with the dispatcher? Why’d he stop running in the first place? > [@Stoid](#): > > He wants to deliver the guy to the cops, wants to at least be able to point to where the guy is, if not actually have him under his control by the time they show up. It goes back to what I said originally: if he does _ **not** _ plan to search for Martin, what exactly does he plan to do instead while he waits for them to arrive? If it seems overly complicated to describe his location (directly inside the entrance to the complex?) then why not simply kill two birds with one stone, and tell the dispatcher you will meet them at the entrance to the complex? That keeps it simple, and gives you something to do in between: go back to the entrance to the complex. Because you have nothing else to do, if you have no plans to search for Martin. By staying around where he was, he can point the police to where he last saw Martin, and give them his last known heading. That’s much harder if he meets them elsewhere, i.e. at the entrance, since he’d have to either describe the layout of the neighborhood, or take them back there, thus wasting yet more time. > [@Stoid](#): > > Then add to all of that this: The story about going through the cut through to look at Retreat View Circle, when he was parked on Twin Trees Lane. To assist him in telling them what? Why does he need to go to retreat view Circle to tell them where to find him on twin trees Lane? Especially in light of the fact that he never told them where to meet him, he said call me. And he claimed that is why he was continuing to follow Martin towards retreat view circle after being told it wasn’t necessary. To get an address close to where he last saw Martin to give to the police when they called. > [@Stoid](#): > > Finally, factor in the most obvious thing of all: I find it hard to imagine that many of us have never had the experience of telling someone who was going to be meeting up with us somewhere to call us when they arrived so we could direct them to where we would be at that future time, knowing that our location was going to be changing between the end of the call and their arrival. It is an extremely common thing for people to do for exactly that reason, so coming up with a very different reason takes effort. Keep in mind the saying about zebra and horses, about Occam’s razor… That’s not what this was, though, because there were three parties involved: Zimmerman, the dispatcher, and the police. Wanting to cut out the middleman when he’s not reliably able to give directions **is** the simple explanation. If I were giving my friend A directions to relay to my friend B, and A got them wrong and didn’t let me correct him, you’re darn right I’d tell A to just have B call me. It doesn’t mean I’m moving about, it means I want the directions to be conveyed accurately. > [@Stoid](#): > > So, while your perspective and point of view might be different than mine, if you understand what mine is and you look at all of the things that I look at, understanding how they appear to me, you should understand that the vast weight of evidence and reasonable inferences point directly at Zimmerman intending to search for Martin, and that the likelihood of any other thing being the true explanation is so minimal that it raises no doubt whatsoever. The vast weight of your inferences, sure. But your inferences aren’t reasonable ones. As for the weight of evidence…what evidence? All you gave above was speculation and inference. Evidence in the NEN call would be something like “I’ll catch this guy”, or “Good thing I brought my gun”, or “Have them call me, I don’t know where I’ll be when I find this guy”. None of those statements exist. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2183 "2013-07-15T13:18:09Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > My problem with this whole case is that I feel that Martin was the one defending himself. The aggressive, threatening acts were made by Zimmerman first. Act’s that I would consider menacing. Are people really saying that if some random person with no authority at all is following you, all you can do is run away? No. But neither can you start beating on them, unless it’s reasonably necessary to prevent the person’s imminent use of unlawful force. Someone following you for a short distance, at which time you lose them, is a far cry from that. > [@split p&j](#): > > So I can basically menace a random person, and if that person decides to not run away but confronts me instead, I can just shoot them down if I start losing an altercation I started? What does “confronts” mean, here? If it means “start beating” then yes, you can shoot them if you reasonably fear they will kill you or inflict great bodily harm. Following someone for a short distance doesn’t strip you of your right to self defense if the person comes back and starts beating you, nor should it. If it truly is an altercation you started, you can shoot them if you’ve made a good-faith effort to retreat and they’ve kept attacking, or if you’ve exhausted every means of escape and reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2184 "2013-07-15T13:38:25Z")
This is what I don’t understand, and I’m not trying to be an ass here. I’m not trying to argue the verdict. I don’t like it, but I accept it. Do agree that following a random person around, no matter what the distance, is menacing? Didn’t Martin have the right to defend himself because of that? Or no questions asked he had to run. It would seem to make sense to me to just assume my life is in danger if some random person is following me. I would take action from there, sometimes you may run, but sometimes you may defend yourself. I think that Zimmerman should have been charged with menacing at least. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2185 "2013-07-15T13:53:40Z")
No, you do not have the right to defend yourself against someone who is simply following you. Following someone is not, by itself, a crime. There would need to be repeat incidents that could lead to a claim of harassment or stalking, or a specific and imminent threat accompanying the following. Your options aren’t only fight or run. You can carry on walking as you would normally, perhaps being extra alert for a threat if it does come. You can ask him why he’s following you. You can ask him, or tell him, to stop following you (not that he has to obey). You can call the police. You can do pretty much anything you like except threaten or attack him. To use force in self defence, you need to be in reasonable fear of imminent attack. Someone following you is not an _imminent_ threat. To use lethal force, it would need to be an imminent threat of death or serious injury. That’s not to say that, in certain circumstances, someone following you is not an imminent threat. They may be, but it’s those other circumstances that create the threat, not that they’re following you. To bring this back to Martin and Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman threatened Martin with the gun before the fight started, Martin wouldn’t have been entitled to use the level of force he used - that is, the beating following the punch. It’s possible, but not actually supported by any evidence, that Zimmerman said something that could justify the punch, or that he grabbed Martin, which would entitle him to use force to free himself. In any case except the first, Zimmerman would have been allowed to use lethal force at the time he did. So, unless there’s proof that Zimmerman threatened death or serious harm to Martin prior to the fight, he acted in legitimate self defence. Not only is there no proof of that, there’s not even any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2186 "2013-07-15T13:54:47Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Considering the fact that Zimmerman currently has not a pot to piss in, owes his attorneys, it’s hard to imagine what attorneys would take any case against him. Mark O’Mara has not been paid for representing Zimmerman either, as you note. Andthat was a very real prospect when he took th case. But did you ever hear of Mark O’Mara before this case? (Or Benjamin Crump FTM?) This is a very high profile case, and a lot of lawyers will be willing to take the longer view. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2187 "2013-07-15T13:57:08Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > This is what I don’t understand, and I’m not trying to be an ass here. I’m not trying to argue the verdict. I don’t like it, but I accept it. > > Do agree that following a random person around, no matter what the distance, is menacing? Didn’t Martin have the right to defend himself because of that? Or no questions asked he had to run. It would seem to make sense to me to just assume my life is in danger if some random person is following me. I would take action from there, sometimes you may run, but sometimes you may defend yourself. > > I think that Zimmerman should have been charged with menacing at least. No. Zimmerman had a broken nose, and people said that was a small injury that didn’t justify his use of deadly force. But, according to you, simply being followed, no matter the distance, justifies the use of force. Maybe that’s what you’d like the law to be. But that’s not the law in Florida. And if Zimmerman didn’t violate the law in Florida, why would you have liked to have seen him convicted? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2188 "2013-07-15T13:57:38Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > This is what I don’t understand, and I’m not trying to be an ass here. I’m not trying to argue the verdict. I don’t like it, but I accept it. > > Do agree that following a random person around, no matter what the distance, is menacing? It can be, sure. > [@split p&j](#): > > Didn’t Martin have the right to defend himself because of that? No, because (as far as can be determined), he wasn’t facing an imminent use of unlawful force. > [@split p&j](#): > > Or no questions asked he had to run. He didn’t have to run, no. But he couldn’t use force without it be necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by Zimmerman. Just feeling menaced or frightened in a general way isn’t enough. > [@split p&j](#): > > It would seem to make sense to me to just assume my life is in danger if some random person is following me. I would take action from there, sometimes you may run, but sometimes you may defend yourself. If your view is that being followed is enough to legally justify the use of force, well, you’re mistaken. And in this particular case, we know that Martin ran initially, the two lost sight of one another, and Martin had a head start of several minutes, as Zimmerman stopped running to finish his conversation with the NEN dispatcher and loudly bang his flashlight in a failed attempt to get it to work. The evidence indicates that Martin then returned to where he knew Zimmerman to be (the T, or just south of it), and a fight ensued in which only Martin inflicted wounds, until the fight was ended by the shot. Are you comfortable saying that this was Martin defending himself from the threat of Zimmerman, as opposed to leaving a place where he faced no threat so as to start a fight? I am not. > [@split p&j](#): > > I think that Zimmerman should have been charged with menacing at least. Florida doesn’t have a menacing law that I can find, though they might have something similar under a different name. If you can find it, we can speculate as to whether Zimmerman violated it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2189 "2013-07-15T14:05:13Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I think that Zimmerman should have been charged with menacing at least. I can’t find a Florida law against “menacing.” Florida does prohibit “stalking:” > [@](#): > > A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree… To be guilty of that crime, more than a single instance of the behavior is necessary. Is that what you meant? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2190 "2013-07-15T14:12:14Z")
I would seriously question whether Zimmerman can win a SYG hearing. ISTM that the judge was favorably disposed to the prosecution in this trial and tended to rule in their favor (as previous, I would appreciate an assessment from experienced litigators). As Bricker noted, she could - and should, IMO - have dismissed the case on her own, but did not. Bricker speculated that she would have preferred to let the jury bail her out, i.e. take the heat for the decision rather than face up to having on her own ruled that the evidence did not support guilt. Question then becomes whether this dynamic would also be in play in a SYG hearing. You could argue that a judge in a case involving a jury has the option of letting the jury make the correct decision, while in a SYG the ball is completely in their court. But I think judges are human. There has been widespread outrage at this verdict in certain communities and among certain special interest groups. And judges in FLorida are elected. I think winning the SYG would be a tough task. (A lot would depend on how much ongoing attention this gets. If it fades away from public consciousness, he has a better shot. In this sense, federal charges will not help him, even if they are dismissed.) ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2191 "2013-07-15T14:12:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here it is: > > No nexus to state activity required. Would have to be proven that Z willfully caused bodily injury “because of the actual or perceived race” of Martin. Tall order. 18 USC SS 249 goes on to state that: (B) Circumstances described.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that— (i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim— (I) across a State line or national border; or (II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A); (iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)— (I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or (II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce. It should be noted that Kel Tec firearms are manufactured in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2192 "2013-07-15T14:21:42Z")
I disagree that it was a general feeling, Martin was on the street by himself. I feel comfortable saying that Zimmerman was following in a car, so a few minutes head start really means nothing. You say he was trying to start a fight, but I don’t really see the evidence for that either. I see it as he was trying to get home, and as I understand it he wasn’t as close to his father as people make it out to be. To me it seems quite clear he was responding to the threat that Zimmerman created. I don’t know if there is a menacing law in Florida, but there is in my state. That’s why people don’t randomly follow you in [NY](http://www.weblaws.org/new_york/laws/n.y._penal_law_sec._120.15). Class B misdemeanor, but Zimmerman got away with nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2193 "2013-07-15T14:32:49Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I disagree that it was a general feeling, Martin was on the street by himself. I feel comfortable saying that Zimmerman was following in a car, so a few minutes head start really means nothing. But where Martin ran to, there was no road. > [@split p&j](#): > > You say he was trying to start a fight, but I don’t really see the evidence for that either. I see it as he was trying to get home, and as I understand it he wasn’t as close to his father as people make it out to be. Ms. Jeantel testified that she urged Martin to run, and he told her he didn’t need to because he was “at the back of” the townhouse. He had a couple minutes to get there, which even a brisk walk would achieve, and we know he ran part of the distance. Given that..if he was trying to get home, why didn’t he? > [@split p&j](#): > > To me it seems quite clear he was responding to the threat that Zimmerman created. It’s not at all clear. If you escape from a threat, then go back to it, that’s not responding to the threat in the sense of defending yourself. > [@split p&j](#): > > I don’t know if there is a menacing law in Florida, but there is in my state. That’s why people don’t randomly follow you in [NY](http://www.weblaws.org/new_york/laws/n.y._penal_law_sec._120.15) Zimmerman didn’t violate that law, either. There was no physical menace, nor could you prove that Zimmerman intentionally placed or attempted to place Martin in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2194 "2013-07-15T14:38:44Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I don’t know if there is a menacing law in Florida, but there is in my state. That’s why people don’t randomly follow you in [NY](http://www.weblaws.org/new_york/laws/n.y._penal_law_sec._120.15). Class B misdemeanor, but Zimmerman got away with nothing. Indeed? So in New York, if someone follows you, tells you he has a gun is going to blow your head off, and and then reaches into his pocket, causing you to fear possible serious injury, in your view he could be convicted of menacing in New York? ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2195 "2013-07-15T14:39:52Z")
Multiple witnesses have the altercation beginning west of the T, than moving south. This would tendd to corroborate Zimmerman’s claim that he was returning to his truck. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2196 "2013-07-15T14:43:44Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > This is what I don’t understand, and I’m not trying to be an ass here. I’m not trying to argue the verdict. I don’t like it, but I accept it. > > Do agree that following a random person around, no matter what the distance, is menacing? Didn’t Martin have the right to defend himself because of that? Or no questions asked he had to run. It would seem to make sense to me to just assume my life is in danger if some random person is following me. I would take action from there, sometimes you may run, but sometimes you may defend yourself. According to the testimony presented in court - TM ran away and then GZ got out of his vehicle. TM was by his father house while GZ was by the “T”. There was over 300 feet between the house and the “T”. The 2nd/final confrontation occured near the “T”. That indicates that TM traveled 300 feet back to the “T” to confront the (insert “N” word here) and creepy azz cracker. TM approached GZ. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2197 "2013-07-15T15:00:16Z")
At the back of doesn’t mean right behind the house at the back door. For all Martin knew at the time, Zimmerman could have come and cut him off before he made it to his fathers house. Why is the burden on Martin, anyway? We are auguring semantics now. Zimmerman started the whole thing, his behavior was very aggressive and threatening. I think the NY law I quoted is pretty straight forward. He would be guilty of menacing in the third degree in NY at the very least. You don’t follow random people around up here if you have no authority. You can watch them, like the 911 dispatcher said to Zimmerman, but you do not follow them. For backwards Florida, my original question still stands. I already know the answer of course. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2198 "2013-07-15T15:20:46Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > At the back of doesn’t mean right behind the house at the back door. For all Martin knew at the time, Zimmerman could have come and cut him off before he made it to his fathers house. Why is the burden on Martin, anyway? We are auguring semantics now. Not semantics. Testimony. GZ said he lost sight of TM. Jeantel testified that TM told her he had lost GZ. The original confrontation was over. If you believe what Jeantel testified to, TM had to return some 300 feet to get into a confrontation with GZ. If the final confrontation had occured near TM’s father house, some 300 feet from where it actually occured, it would be reasonable to assume that GZ had followed TM to that location. That’s not what happened. It’s also reasonable to assume that at no time did TM/GZ follow GZ/TM to New York. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2199 "2013-07-15T15:22:48Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > At the back of doesn’t mean right behind the house at the back door. For all Martin knew at the time, Zimmerman could have come and cut him off before he made it to his fathers house. Eh? Martin feared that Zimmerman had used Olympic-sprinter level speed to get in front of him, so he went back to the place that he knew Zimmerman had just been? Or, really, **was**. Remember, Zimmerman was a) talking on the phone in a normal, conversation tone, b) banging a metal flashlight, and then c) switching on his little backup flashlight. The idea that Martin wouldn’t have known were Zimmerman was as Martin approached the T is thus spurious. > [@split p&j](#): > > Why is the burden on Martin, anyway? What does that mean? I thought we were discussing what most likely happened that night, based on the evidence we have. Martin is accountable for his actions, just as Zimmerman was, if that’s what you mean. > [@split p&j](#): > > We are auguring semantics now. Eh? We haven’t debated the meanings of any words. > [@split p&j](#): > > Zimmerman started the whole thing, his behavior was very aggressive and threatening. I think the NY law I quoted is pretty straight forward. He would be guilty of menacing in the third degree in NY at the very least. You don’t follow random people around up here if you have no authority. You can watch them, like the 911 dispatcher said to Zimmerman, but you do not follow them. Again, that law requires physical menace. Following someone isn’t physical menace. > [@split p&j](#): > > For backwards Florida, my original question still stands. I already know the answer of course. What question was that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2200 "2013-07-15T15:23:52Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Zimmerman started the whole thing, his behavior was very aggressive and threatening. I think the NY law I quoted is pretty straight forward. He would be guilty of menacing in the third degree in NY at the very least. You don’t follow random people around up here if you have no authority. You can watch them, like the 911 dispatcher said to Zimmerman, but you do not follow them. So in New York, if someone follows you, tells you he has a gun is going to blow your head off, and and then reaches into his pocket, causing you to fear possible serious injury, in your view he could be convicted of menacing in New York? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=109) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=111)