No it doesn’t look heavy to me at all, but then again, I get cold easily. If you think this is evidence he was going out of his way to conceal his weapon while running errands, okay. But in a confrontation with someone he actively pursued and prejudged as suspicious and “up to no good”? That’s a stretch.
Brandishing a weapon is illegal, yes. I’m not sure why folks are assuming this means much of anything in terms of Zimmerman’s likely conduct. He chased after a person after he was advised not to do so by 911. Doesn’t this demonstrate he’s not above coloring out of the lines? Pulling out his weapon unlawfully is only one step removed from this.
Here’s a digitally enhanced version of the video of Zimmerman in the police station. Supposedly it shows a cut, but I’m not sure I see anything. Kind of brings us back to the point of it being dumb to diagnosis injuries through crappy footage.
No, it doesn’t demonstrate anything of the sort, and brandishing a weapon is quite different.
This has been explained before, more than once. The recommendations of a 911 operator carry no legal force. Brandishing a weapon is illegal.
Claiming that doing something legal shows you are likely to act illegally is silly. It would be like claiming that Martin had a right to walk where he did, and demonstrates that he was likely to be robbing houses.
Then again no one is arguing that he broke any laws by continuing to follow and/or look for Martin. And of course each person can make whatever conclusion they want about the fact that although advised not to, Zimmerman continued to do so. Was is because he simply wanted to keep track of Martin, hopefully from a distance? Or maybe he wanted to find Martin to detain him until police got there? Or maybe he wanted to find Martin and shoot him cold? It is not proof of anything, but it is evidence, as is every single thing that happened that night that we know about. It is up to each individual to look at the totality of the evidence and make their own opinions. Some is very important, some is less so, and some totally unimportant. If you are on a jury you have different responsibilities, of course. Outside of a jury you do not have any such responsibility.
So again I ask you explain how Martin ended up killed no where near the street or Zimmerman’s truck. When he called 911, he initially told him his location was on Retreat View. The directions he gave them included a left turn onto the street immediately after the community entrance. Near the clubhouse.
If Zimmerman stopped his pursuit immediately after instructed to by 911, can you explain how Martin and Zimmerman ended up crossing paths behind the houses on Twin Trees? What plausible explanation exists for this except that Zimmerman continued to chase Martin.
Indeed. So is stalking, something with which he could certainly be charged, taking his “perfectly legal” “following” of Martin and turning it into a crime.
Then the jury would decide if he was guilty. If all they heard as evidence was what we already know, I think a whole lot of people would say he was:
Right. Either way it suggests a past history of disappointment triggered him to behave in an imprudent manner this time.
The reason why I think he was trying to restrain Martin and not simply track his movements was the fact that he got out of his truck and started running after him. What was he going to do once he caught up with him? Just stand there and shoot the breeze?
Concluding from this that Zimmerman was planning on finding and capturing Martin takes a giant leap of logic. The far more likely motivation is that Zimmerman wanted to continue to do what he was doing. Reporting the location of a suspicious person to police so that they may capture him.