In the matter of George Zimmerman

[Chris0nllyn]

they were also ACTUALLY BREAKING INTO HIS HOME. Thats a far cry from following someone and then shooting them. How did it work out for that guy in solomons who shot the skateboarder?

The story didn't indicate they were actually in his home, IIRC.

Surely you aren't blindly accepting the shooter's story, are you?

The guy in Solomons shot at the kids. They weren't attacking him. It's pretty obvious that he was at fault.

 

[Midnightrider]

You want to bet?

I know of at least a few incidents where someone has used deadly force in defense of themselves and have not even been charged with a crime.

show me one in maryland where a non LEO-followed and then shot an unarmed teen after the shooter intiaited the conflict.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

show me one in maryland where a non LEO-followed and then shot an unarmed teen after the shooter intiaited the conflict.

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman struck Martin first?

 

[Midnightrider]

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman struck Martin first?

he didn't need to, following martin intiated the conflict. If not for that there was no conflict between martin and zimmerman.

 

[itsrequired]

they were also ACTUALLY BREAKING INTO HIS HOME. Thats a far cry from following someone and then shooting them. How did it work out for that guy in solomons who shot the skateboarder?

No where did the guy in Solomons say the skate boarder threaten or attack him in his original statement.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm not leavig out details, i am saying that those are not suspicious activities. walking in the rain talking on your phone is not suspicious. Being an unknown is not suspicious. I dont know how zimmerman could tell what martin was looking at, but even if you take his story as truth, there is nothing illegal about looking at houses from the street.

Maybe not to you. But since you weren’t there how could you know if it was suspicious? You’re making conjectures. Casually walking in the rain is not what most folks do. Do you know anyone that is just strolling around in the rain looking into windows? If you’re in the rain without an umbrella wouldn’t you be walking in a hurry to get to shelter, perhaps to get home? Why wasn’t Martin hurrying to get home in the rain? Why was Martin peeking into windows? You are purposely distorting what Zimmerman said he saw. But again, you weren’t there so how could you know?

You aren't standing your ground when you are following, you are adavncing. BTW, you are actually making the point that Martin could have believed that his life was in jepordy from the unknown suspicious person who was following him while carrying a gun.

Again, you are distorting the facts and sequence of events. Following is NOT against the law. The ‘stand-your-ground’ provision would occur when a confrontation begins, not when you are following from several yards away. You are dismissing over and over again that testimony is that it was Martin that was headed to his home, was actually behind that home, decided not to go inside, but rather turn around and go back up the sidewalk back towards Zimmerman. There is nothing testified so far to the contrary. It has been testified that the conversation went as follows:

Martin: You got a problem?
Zimmerman: I don’t have a problem
Martin: Well you do now! *POP*

At no time was Zimmerman – according to testimony – the aggressor. There is nothing testified to the contrary. In all appearances it looked like Zimmerman was headed back to his truck when Martin confronted Zimmerman. You seem stuck on Zimmerman following Martin as an act of aggression and justification for stand-your-ground. It has been determined that following someone is not illegal. Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong all the way up to the point he was sucker punched by Martin – which also has not been disputed.

Martin may have had justification for approaching Zimmerman to ask why Zimmerman was following him and at that point they could have had a discussion or even called the police. Martin did neither; he decided he was going to act out violently.

 

[itsrequired]

show me one in maryland where a non LEO-followed and then shot an unarmed teen after the shooter intiaited the conflict.

What is the difference between a law enforcement officer and non-leo when it comes to defending one self? What is it that Zimmerman did which was unlawful?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

he didn't need to, following martin intiated the conflict. If not for that there was no conflict between martin and zimmerman.

He was doing what Police told him to do. Also, he didn't break the law by following him. again, according to testimony, there was a "slim Jim" near one of the apartments, as well as break-ins in the neighborhood, not too long before this incident. Zimmerman had every reason to think he was suspicious.

Do you go up to people you think are following you and ask why they are following you? Then complain that they initiated the "conflict"?

I'll tell you who initiated it, the person who threw the first punch....everything is null and void as far I'm concerned.

 

[PsyOps]

he didn't need to, following martin intiated the conflict. If not for that there was no conflict between martin and zimmerman.

Explain exactly how following someone initiates a conflict? What you're saying is, if I'm following you this gives you the right to turn around a pop me in the face for following you?

 

[Midnightrider]

Maybe not to you. But since you weren’t there how could you know if it was suspicious? You’re making conjectures. Casually walking in the rain is not what most folks do. Do you know anyone that is just strolling around in the rain looking into windows? If you’re in the rain without an umbrella wouldn’t you be walking in a hurry to get to shelter, perhaps to get home? Why wasn’t Martin hurrying to get home in the rain? Why was Martin peeking into windows? You are purposely distorting what Zimmerman said he saw. But again, you weren’t there so how could you know?

people walk in the rain all the time. He had a hoddie on, there is nothing suspicious about that. Zimmerman was the one making conjectures, conjjectures that turned out to be incorrect. there is no evidence that martin was actually doing anything suspicious

Again, you are distorting the facts and sequence of events. Following is NOT against the law. The ‘stand-your-ground’ provision would occur when a confrontation begins, not when you are following from several yards away. You are dismissing over and over again that testimony is that it was Martin that was headed to his home, was actually behind that home, decided not to go inside, but rather turn around and go back up the sidewalk back towards Zimmerman. There is nothing testified so far to the contrary. It has been testified that the conversation went as follows:

Martin: You got a problem?
Zimmerman: I don’t have a problem
Martin: Well you do now! *POP*

At no time was Zimmerman – according to testimony – the aggressor. There is nothing testified to the contrary. In all appearances it looked like Zimmerman was headed back to his truck when Martin confronted Zimmerman. You seem stuck on Zimmerman following Martin as an act of aggression and justification for stand-your-ground. It has been determined that following someone is not illegal. Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong all the way up to the point he was sucker punched by Martin – which also has not been disputed.

Martin may have had justification for approaching Zimmerman to ask why Zimmerman was following him and at that point they could have had a discussion or even called the police. Martin did neither; he decided he was going to act out violently.

he did exactly that, Martin said "do you got a problem". it was at that time that, ACCORDING TO ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman did not identify himself but instead he reached in the area (front right pocket of his pants with both hands- firearm was on right hip) of his firearm and made a grabbing motion. Martin could have very well feared that zimmerman was grabbing a weapon.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

he did exactly that, Martin said "do you got a problem". it was at that time that, ACCORDING TO ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman did not identify himself but instead he reached in the area (front right pocket of his pants with both hands- firearm was on right hip) of his firearm and made a grabbing motion. Martin could have very well feared that zimmerman was grabbing a weapon.

So, lets's say none of this happened, and Martin had beat up Zimmerman for reaching for his cell phone to call 911.

Still Zimmerman's fault? Or is it only his fault because he actually shot the kid?

 

[Midnightrider]

Explain exactly how following someone initiates a conflict? What you're saying is, if I'm following you this gives you the right to turn around a pop me in the face for following you?

go pick any person and follow them and see if it turns into a conflict or a 911 call.

or better yet, what would you do if any man was following your 17yo?

if not for the following there was no conflict. Martin walks back to his house and zimmerman goes to the store.

 

[itsrequired]

he did exactly that, Martin said "do you got a problem". it was at that time that, ACCORDING TO ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman did not identify himself but instead he reached in the area (front right pocket of his pants with both hands- firearm was on right hip) of his firearm and made a grabbing motion. Martin could have very well feared that zimmerman was grabbing a weapon.

You seem to be adding stuff that isn't into evidence and nobody has testified to. Do you believe that Martin struck Zimmerman first? Do you believe that it was Martin who was on top striking Zimmerman?

 

[itsrequired]

go pick any person and follow them and see if it turns into a conflict or a 911 call.

or better yet, what would you do if any man was following your 17yo?

if not for the following there was no conflict. Martin walks back to his house and zimmerman goes to the store.

If my seventeen year old had the opportunity to come to my house and didn't, I'd kick him in the azz. My seventeen year old, (when he was seventeen) would have had the better sense to call the police if there was a problem rather than committing an assault.

 

[Midnightrider]

If my seventeen year old had the opportunity to come to my house and didn't, I'd kick him in the azz. My seventeen year old, (when he was seventeen) would have had the better sense to call the police if there was a problem rather than committing an assault.

so you think the police should be called if someone is following you, interesting.....
why?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

so you think the police should be called if someone is following you, interesting.....
why?

I'd think you'd WANT Martin to call the cops. Afterall, according to you, Zimmerman, the aggressor, was following him.

Why would you confront that person when you can call police, and have them figure it out?

Instead, he chose to confront Zimmerman, according to testimony, in an aggressive way.

 

[protectmd]

In some cases I think you should call the cops if someone is "following" you. However, unless you can prove a history of stalking or something, its not "illegal" to follow someone.

Furthermore, if the police are called about someone who is "following" them, I don't even think thats grounds for a Terry stop. The person isn't committing a criminal act. At the most the cop could go ask the individual who's doing the following what they are doing, however they wouldn't have to answer that question, as they are free to go and have 5th amendment rights.

People call the police all the time informing 911 that someone is taking pictures of them, their children, their property, their car, I was being followed, etc. Sometimes, police do get a call from the "follower" stating that he is a license private investigator, neighborhood watch, etc.... and informs dispatch what is going on. In the case of the private investigator, its often the target individuals spouse who hired them. Imagine that.

 

[DipStick]

More evidence that Zimmerman is a monster..

Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Indicted for Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant

The Citizen's Grand Jury?

Nice try though. But an "indictment" from a TEA Party group carries as much weight as a bird's feather.

 

[PsyOps]

go pick any person and follow them and see if it turns into a conflict or a 911 call.

or better yet, what would you do if any man was following your 17yo?

if not for the following there was no conflict. Martin walks back to his house and zimmerman goes to the store.

In the state of FL I am violating no law by following someone. If that person decides to turn around a start a conflict, THAT person has now violated the law and at that point I am allowed to exercise my ‘stand-your-ground’ right. My following someone is not justification for the person being followed to react with violence against me.

If someone was following me, and I was doing nothing wrong, I might inclined to ask why they are following me, or I might find a police officer for my own protection. I would NOT turn around, with no questions asked, and pop them in the nose then proceed to pummel them on the ground.

You keep dismissing that following someone is not illegal. It is not justification for the person being followed to react with violence. You keep dismissing the fact this community suffered a lot of recent burglaries. You keep dismissing that Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch and felt a duty to keep a more keen eye on his neighborhood. You keep dismissing that Zimmerman felt Martin was suspicious and he was perfectly within his right to follow Martin. It doesn’t matter whether YOU believe Martin was suspicious or not. The jury has heard that Zimmerman said HE THOUGHT Martin’s behavior was suspicious. And you keep dismissing the fact that the actual conflict did not occur as a direct result of Zimmerman following Martin. Zimmerman broke off following when he asked to. Zimmerman was headed back to his vehicle. Martin had an opportunity to go home. He chose to confront Zimmerman. He chose to use violence against Zimmerman.

There is nothing in the law that allows for someone that is being followed – a legal action – to react with violence. The only time you can react with violence is when you are confronted with violence. Following someone is not an act of violence.

 

[itsrequired]

so you think the police should be called if someone is following you, interesting.....
why?

If you believe a creepy person is following you, I would think you would want the law to check it out to identify that creepy person. If someone is annoying you to the point that you are going to assault them, I think its best to contact the authorities.