George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Deepak]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much"

Was he walking funny?

 

[EPresence2]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

I'm sure that the answer will be consistent with EPresence2's daughter, sister, or mother playing the part of Martin.

Except they don't look like the suspect involved in previous criminal activity in the neighborhood. Analogy fail.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

Well, if Martin were alive to tell hisversion and GZ was dead, who knows how it would have played out? Clearly, when only one person's story is presented, it tends to work to his/her advantage - just ask GZ.

Oh, btw, preemptive strikes are okay to a number of posters here as long as one has a "reasonable" fear of death.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

Good point. It does sound just a little worse than, 'He landed a couple punches so I killed him.'

 

[EPresence2]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid. You don't know Z started the fist fight, and neither did Rachel.... for the love of reason indeed.

Are you not seeing the danger of following somebody and failing to identify yourself and your intentions? Let say you follow a woman down a dark alley. She knows you are following her. She asks you why you are following her; you do not answer but continue to approach. Should she be prepared to defend herself?

There is a name for this sort of analogy - if you have to make it this way (extreme), what does that say about your analogy? It is very plausible that TM was fearing for his own safety, but perhaps Zimmerman wasn't following to chase him down and detain. Then a physical attack by TM would have been preemptive - is that okay in your book? It's a plausible scenario, and one for which GZ should have been prosecuted for creating. Yet TM could have continued walking (or running) in that scenario and nothing might have happened. No one yet has proven the attempted detainment scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. I consider it plausible as well, but the other scenario is also plausible.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

From Wikipedia:
In Florida, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Martin had the right to use force in this situation.

 

[ksen]

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

It would play out that at least the kid would still be alive.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

From Wikipedia:
In Florida, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Martin had the right to use force in this situation.

He would have a huge burden to get that. Just being followed in a neighborhood that had a neighborhood watch would not meet that definition. It would only apply if Zimmerman had his gun out and chasing him.

 

[EPresence2]

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

Well, if Martin were alive to tell hisversion and GZ was dead, who knows how it would have played out? Clearly, when only one person's story is presented, it tends to work to his/her advantage - just ask GZ.

Oh, btw, preemptive strikes are okay to a number of posters here as long as one has a "reasonable" fear of death.

There is a huge different between an escalation to physical violence prompted by a non-violent action and physical violence prompted by another violent escalation. You can always walk away from someone screaming in your face, yet it is certainly harder to accomplish that with someone on top of you and pounding. [Snark]Failing to make that distinction is revealing.[/Snark]

 

[Mumbles]

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

Actually...in cases like this, I'm perfectly okay with that. Who on planet earth, while driving to the store, changes their mind and begins chasing some random person down the street? That's absurdly aggressive. I've ran after random people before, but only after they dropped something - and I always held the dropped item in front of me and announced that they had dropped it as I approached.

But, given that Zimmerman had, on tape, displayed malice towards Martin, and that he obviously lied about his own actions, as he clearly tends to do...why even bother believing him?

 

[EPresence2]

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

It would play out that at least the kid would still be alive.

Revised Martin statement - "I started punching him because..."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Zimmerman didn't not sustain much in the way of any decent injuries. He did not need to be hospitalized. His life was not in danger. Losing a fight that you helped start should not precipitate the legal use of deadly force. This is a guy who killed a teen and really didn't seem the worse of it either... and that includes knowing Martin wasn't casing any place or armed.

From Wikipedia:
In Florida, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Martin had the right to use force in this situation.

He would have a huge burden to get that. Just being followed in a neighborhood that had a neighborhood watch would not meet that definition. It would only apply if Zimmerman had his gun out and chasing him.

Naw, that'd just amount to public indecency.

 

[EPresence2]

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?

From Wikipedia:
In Florida, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Martin had the right to use force in this situation.

How do you know what Martin was thinking? He only had the right to use force IF he felt in danger of bodily harm or death. Why would he fear that in a gated community?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if Martin were alive to tell hisversion and GZ was dead, who knows how it would have played out? Clearly, when only one person's story is presented, it tends to work to his/her advantage - just ask GZ.

Oh, btw, preemptive strikes are okay to a number of posters here as long as one has a "reasonable" fear of death.

There is a huge different between an escalation to physical violence prompted by a non-violent action and physical violence prompted by another violent escalation. You can always walk away from someone screaming in your face, yet it is certainly harder to accomplish that with someone on top of you and pounding. [Snark]Failing to make that distinction is revealing.[/Snark]

Once again, no evidence of pounding.

 

[Mumbles]

He would have a huge burden to get that. Just being followed in a neighborhood that had a neighborhood watch would not meet that definition. It would only apply if Zimmerman had his gun out and chasing him.

And how would Martin know that this wouldn't lead to a bunch of guys running up in his house? This is Urban Rule #1 - you don't lead any strangers to where you live, and particularly not if they're acting strangely. And Zimmerman was acting very strangely, as we heard on his own 311 call.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From Wikipedia:
In Florida, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Martin had the right to use force in this situation.

How do you know what Martin was thinking? He only had the right to use force IF he felt in danger of bodily harm or death. Why would he fear that in a gated community?

You mean other than the guy who was staring at him from a vehicle had left the vehicle to go after him?

He would have a huge burden to get that. Just being followed in a neighborhood that had a neighborhood watch would not meet that definition. It would only apply if Zimmerman had his gun out and chasing him.

And how would Martin know that this wouldn't lead to a bunch of guys running up in his house? This is Urban Rule #1 - you don't lead any strangers to where you live, and particularly not if they're acting strangely. And Zimmerman was acting very strangely, as we heard on his own 311 call.

And the fact he was calling 311 instead of 911 is more evidence Zimmerman was out of his mind.

 

[Mumbles]

How do you know what Martin was thinking? He only had the right to use force IF he felt in danger of bodily harm or death. Why would he fear that in a gated community?

Because some random dude jumped out of his car and chased him down the street.

That one's obvious.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He would have a huge burden to get that. Just being followed in a neighborhood that had a neighborhood watch would not meet that definition. It would only apply if Zimmerman had his gun out and chasing him.

And how would Martin know that this wouldn't lead to a bunch of guys running up in his house? This is Urban Rule #1 - you don't lead any strangers to where you live, and particularly not if they're acting strangely. And Zimmerman was acting very strangely, as we heard on his own 311 call.

That's a movie rule. He should have gone in his house and called 911. The two fears that Martin would have had, Zimmerman was a narc or Zimmerman was a gang banger.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Are you not seeing the danger of following somebody and failing to identify yourself and your intentions? Let say you follow a woman down a dark alley. She knows you are following her. She asks you why you are following her; you do not answer but continue to approach. Should she be prepared to defend herself?

There is a name for this sort of analogy -

Apt. the word you are looking for is "apt".

if you have to make it this way (extreme), what does that say about your analogy?

Extreme? What is so extreme about it? It is exactly the same scenario that Martin faced. Martin was followed behind the buildings by a man who refused to identify himself or let him know his intent.

It is very plausible that TM was fearing for his own safety, but perhaps Zimmerman wasn't following to chase him down and detain.

In your plausible scenario, Martin can stand his ground. What other reason would Zimmerman have to close in on Martin if not to confront or detain? Why did Zimmerman refuse to identify himself?

Then a physical attack by TM would have been preemptive - is that okay in your book?

We have no solid evidence who attacked who. Martin had every reason to use force under the stupid "stand your ground" law.

Yet TM could have continued walking (or running) in that scenario and nothing might have happened.

We don't know that he didn't.

No one yet has proven the attempted detainment scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. I consider it plausible as well, but the other scenario is also plausible.

Yes, we understand this. The only thing we know is that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin behind the houses and did not identify himself when asked to do so by Martin.

 

[EPresence2]

There is a huge different between an escalation to physical violence prompted by a non-violent action and physical violence prompted by another violent escalation. You can always walk away from someone screaming in your face, yet it is certainly harder to accomplish that with someone on top of you and pounding. [Snark]Failing to make that distinction is revealing.[/Snark]

Once again, no evidence of pounding.

Once again, downward motion of arms and wounds on back the head consistent with a pounding.