George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Nexus]

Potential witnesses never stopped Zimmerman in all his other violent incidents.

Yeah, but murder is somewhat higher stakes, even if the victim is a young black male who is on suspension from his high school...Plus there was a chance that anyone in the house might come to Martin's aid and maybe even had a gun. Zimmerman isn't known for liking fair fights.

Zimmerman was convinced Martin was a burglar so he wouldn't have expected to face additional resistance from occupants he would be saving if he followed his suspect into a home. No one is arguing Zimmerman wanted to murder an innocent teenager that night. But when it comes to bad guys Zimmerman will stand his ground anywhere anytime against anyone.

 

[RavenSky]

How about Zimmerman stays in his f*cking vehicle, and then Trayvon would be alive today.

Truly, I don't care what any of you think Trayvon could have, should have, might have done... the bottom line is that ZIMMERMAN is at fault... 100%.... for KILLING an innocent teenager. ZIMMERMAN got out of his vehicle and pursued Trayvon. ZIMMERMAN is the KILLER and 100% at fault.

As lonn as we are talking general rules (such as "Urban Rule #1"), saying that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car is not reasonable. People have the right to wander abou their neighbourhoods, and they have right to keep an eye on people they suspect might be burglars.

Zimmerman was not wandering around his neighborhood. Trayvon was, though. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, and no he does not have some inalienable right to do that. He needlessly created a situation wherein he killed an innocent teenager, and he should have been convicted for it.

There is no rule that at all times, everyone should stay in their F*ing vehicles.

and there is no "rule" saying Trayvon should have gone straight home, or called 911, nor any of the other "rules" you laid down for the innocent teenager thereby trying to blame him for his own death. That notwithstanding, had Zimmerman stayed in his f*cking vehicle, he would not have killed an innocent teenager.

If Trayvon had been a real burglar, Zimmerman getting out of his truck to have a better view would have been examplary (just looking through... apart from him shooting Trayvon and possibly trying to detain him later).

Wrong. This is why real neighborhood watch people are told NOT to do shit like getting out of their vehicles to "watch" whomever they suspect. It is highly dangerous.

 

[RavenSky]

The lengths people will go to in order to blame an innocent teenager for his own death while excusing an aggressive violent killer is just disgusting

Pointing out how taking a different action on part of either party could have avoided the event is hardly blaming anyone, it's a fact. It's no more disgusting than suggesting that Zimmerman caused the chain of events by leaving his car.

Yes, actually you are blaming Trayvon. He is not the one who did anything wrong. Innocent people minding their own business wandering about their neighborhood (like you just got done saying is not against your "rules") do not have to be mind-readers to take evasive actions to avoid their own deaths at the hands of overly aggressive violent self-appointed "neighborhood watch" people. Zimmerman is the only person who needed to change his own actions to avoid killing an innocent teenager.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, he was waiting quietly at the T was what Zimmerman did up until the point he met Trayvon again.

That is a pure fantasy speculation with zero basis in any sort of rational thought or fact.

 

[RavenSky]

(...)

It shouldn't be, any more than leaving one's car ought to be a crime punishable by death.

I don't see who's arguing for that.
Do you mean you have some information that didn't reach me that Martin was waiting with a lethal weapon, ready to kill as soon as Zimmerman would step on the sidewalk?

You didn't see the chunk of sidewalk that lawyer brought into the court

 

[Toni]

Yeah, but murder is somewhat higher stakes, even if the victim is a young black male who is on suspension from his high school...Plus there was a chance that anyone in the house might come to Martin's aid and maybe even had a gun. Zimmerman isn't known for liking fair fights.

Zimmerman was convinced Martin was a burglar so he wouldn't have expected to face additional resistance from occupants he would be saving if he followed his suspect into a home. No one is arguing Zimmerman wanted to murder an innocent teenager that night. But when it comes to bad guys Zimmerman will stand his ground anywhere anytime against anyone.

Zimmerman was convinced that a)Martin was a burglar b)Martin was on drugs or something c)Martin was up to no good d)Martin wasn't likely to give him any trouble, reality since George knew he himself was well armed and d)that he had his chance to prove what a big man he was

I am pretty sure that Zimmerman wouldn't have followed Martin into any home or any place where there might be witnesses or worse: armed aid for Martin.

As far as Zimmerman being willing to stand his ground against any bad guys: You betcha, even if it meant he had to stalk some poor kid and then invent a back story to fill Zimmerman's mind set.

 

[EPresence2]

Shoving a cop while doing his duty is a big fucking deal. Even if Zimmerman didn't know he was a cop he did know it was an authority figure that was doing his rightful duty. Anyone that attacks a bouncer doing their job is stupid and aggressive. The other incidents where the charges were dropped says much more than nothing. It demonstrates a pattern of stupid aggressiveness. No one is that unlucky to innocently stumble into that many incidents. And considering what is known about women's reluctance to press charges in domestic violence cases its even more damaging to Zimmerman's credibility.

but it still doesn't prove Zimmerman actually grabbed Trayvon.

The kind of proof you require can only be found in mathematics. In real life its best to go with the odds and the odds are Zimmerman intended to detain one of "those assholes that always get away" when he the cop wanabe followed his suspect while armed after being told not to by police.

The case being made to negate reasonable doubt is almost entirely circumstantial.

"However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[7]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

There can be reasonable doubt with an opinion of lesser odds and you don't need mathematics to make that conclusion.

 

[Arctish]

Shoving a cop while doing his duty is a big fucking deal. Even if Zimmerman didn't know he was a cop he did know it was an authority figure that was doing his rightful duty. Anyone that attacks a bouncer doing their job is stupid and aggressive. The other incidents where the charges were dropped says much more than nothing. It demonstrates a pattern of stupid aggressiveness. No one is that unlucky to innocently stumble into that many incidents. And considering what is known about women's reluctance to press charges in domestic violence cases its even more damaging to Zimmerman's credibility.

The kind of proof you require can only be found in mathematics. In real life its best to go with the odds and the odds are Zimmerman intended to detain one of "those assholes that always get away" when he the cop wanabe followed his suspect while armed after being told not to by police.

The case being made to negate reasonable doubt is almost entirely circumstantial.

EPresence2, what exactly is your point in this thread? Are you saying there is a reasonable doubt Zimmerman committed premeditated murder, or are you saying he is innocent of all wrongdoing? Are you arguing that there is no proof of who attacked whom, are you arguing Martin provoked Zimmerman's attack, or are you arguing that Martin attacked Zimmerman?

Every single Zimmerman-Martin thread I've participated in has had posters demanding irrefutable proof when none exists, and using the lack of irrefutable proof as an excuse to claim there is no basis for concluding Zimmerman was the aggressor or that Martin wasn't. All the circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman targeted Martin for an aggressive action, that he engaged in armed pursuit of an innocent teenager, that he has a history of aggression and violence, is dismissed. Meanwhile, highly pejorative language is used to describe Martin, despite the lack of even circumstantial evidence that Martin did anything wrong. Thus we have posters talking about Zimmerman's right to pursue a "criminal", but no mention of Martin's right to defend himself from the stranger with a gun pursuing him. It's a Thug Of The Gaps argument. We are told that without irrefutable proof Zimmerman created the conflict through his stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, we cannot conclude he did no matter how much evidence there is of Zimmerman's stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, or that the confrontation was the result of the choices he made.

 

[Rhea]

OMG - he shoved an undercover police officer questioning a friend for underage drinking. The other incidents were allegations with dropped charges - saying nothing about what the truth actually is.

Shoving a cop while doing his duty is a big fucking deal.

Yup remember how in the Michael Brown thread it was a big fucking deal that made him deserve being dead?

 

[Nexus]

There can be reasonable doubt with an opinion of lesser odds and you don't need mathematics to make that conclusion.

You are discussing a legal issue of criminal law. The burden of proof is to protect society from the government. The principle that its better to let ten guilty go free than convict one innocent. Trials are not about truth they're about rhetoric and more persuasive narrative. You're foolish if you limit your thinking because that's how our criminal justice system works. Those constraints aren't needed for us here because we lack the power of the state to harm people. We're free to examine all the variables to more accurately know what happen.

I'll stick with the better probability that Zimmerman was the initiator of violence that night.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yeah, but murder is somewhat higher stakes, even if the victim is a young black male who is on suspension from his high school...Plus there was a chance that anyone in the house might come to Martin's aid and maybe even had a gun. Zimmerman isn't known for liking fair fights.

Zimmerman was convinced Martin was a burglar so he wouldn't have expected to face additional resistance from occupants he would be saving if he followed his suspect into a home. No one is arguing Zimmerman wanted to murder an innocent teenager that night. But when it comes to bad guys Zimmerman will stand his ground anywhere anytime against anyone.

If he has a gun.

 

[RavenSky]

Shoving a cop while doing his duty is a big fucking deal.

Yup remember how in the Michael Brown thread it was a big fucking deal that made him deserve being dead?

Made him deserve being dead after he was 35 feet away and no longer a threat, no less

 

[EPresence2]

The case being made to negate reasonable doubt is almost entirely circumstantial.

EPresence2, what exactly is your point in this thread? Are you saying there is a reasonable doubt Zimmerman committed premeditated murder, or are you saying he is innocent of all wrongdoing? Are you arguing that there is no proof of who attacked whom, are you arguing Martin provoked Zimmerman's attack, or are you arguing that Martin attacked Zimmerman?

Every single Zimmerman-Martin thread I've participated in has had posters demanding irrefutable proof when none exists, and using the lack of irrefutable proof as an excuse to claim there is no basis for concluding Zimmerman was the aggressor or that Martin wasn't. All the circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman targeted Martin for an aggressive action, that he engaged in armed pursuit of an innocent teenager, that he has a history of aggression and violence, is dismissed. Meanwhile, highly pejorative language is used to describe Martin, despite the lack of even circumstantial evidence that Martin did anything wrong. Thus we have posters talking about Zimmerman's right to pursue a "criminal", but no mention of Martin's right to defend himself from the stranger with a gun pursuing him. It's a Thug Of The Gaps argument. We are told that without irrefutable proof Zimmerman created the conflict through his stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, we cannot conclude he did no matter how much evidence there is of Zimmerman's stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, or that the confrontation was the result of the choices he made.

I'm not sure why you are confused about my intentions. Maybe it was lost/forgotten in the onslaught of disjointed comments on this thread. I already stated my opinion that Zimmerman should have been charged and convicted of a serious crime for creating the questionable circumstances around which a teenager was killed.

But for me, there remains a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the premeditated stupidity of attempting to detain a suspect if no crime had been committed because - among other things - (1) he would have been subject to civil/criminal liability for being wrong and (2) the suspect wouldn't necessarily know he carried a concealed weapon to suppress resistance. And I find it hard to believe he was ready to kill a mere suspect. The 911 call suggested he thought Martin was on drugs and casing houses to burglarize - suspicion motivated by a recent string of crime in his neighborhood. *Really no cause for suspicion?* So he wanted to follow Martin to make sure he didn't get away... from the cops in-route or from him?

Did GZ's history make the case beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) he meant to physically detain the youth for the cops or (2) something less agressive and risky but effectively not letting him get away? Why would Zimmy ask "What are you doing around here" as he's trying to detain Martin? Surely Zimmy has used tactics other than violence to affect outcomes in his adult life. Does committing one crime (shoving an undercover cop when he was 21) and having a restraining order placed on him for alleged domestic violence (same time frame) mean he must have committed everything he is accused of? I'm just not sure, despite the fact he lied to avoid the appearance of creating a dangerous situation (at the very least).

I also haven't described Martin in a decidedly negative way. I've only said that absence of circumstantial evidence is not evidence of absense. There's only historical evidence that Trayvon was no Casper Milktoast when it came to fighting. I can also imagine getting pissed off that someone (creepy ass - not bad ass) was following me in a truck (in a decent neighborhood with gates) and more angry when that person confronted me for just walking down the sidewalk to a relatives house. Why didn't he just answer the question from somebody who probably lived in the neighborhood? GZ: "What are you doing around here?" TM*: "Who are you to question me?" But why assume what I think is what Trayvon thought - I've seen plenty use/abuse of that assumption on this thread.

There's more, but it's late and I need to hit the hay.

 

[EPresence2]

There can be reasonable doubt with an opinion of lesser odds and you don't need mathematics to make that conclusion.

You are discussing a legal issue of criminal law. The burden of proof is to protect society from the government. The principle that its better to let ten guilty go free than convict one innocent. Trials are not about truth they're about rhetoric and more persuasive narrative. You're foolish if you limit your thinking because that's how our criminal justice system works. Those constraints aren't needed for us here because we lack the power of the state to harm people. We're free to examine all the variables to more accurately know what happen.

I'll stick with the better probability that Zimmerman was the initiator of violence that night.

I've been talking about what the court should have decided if that wasn't clear. I'm just not as sure about the relative probabilities as you are. I do have a lower opinion of GZ than I started with (which wasn't very high to begin with).

 

[Arctish]

EPresence2, what exactly is your point in this thread? Are you saying there is a reasonable doubt Zimmerman committed premeditated murder, or are you saying he is innocent of all wrongdoing? Are you arguing that there is no proof of who attacked whom, are you arguing Martin provoked Zimmerman's attack, or are you arguing that Martin attacked Zimmerman?

Every single Zimmerman-Martin thread I've participated in has had posters demanding irrefutable proof when none exists, and using the lack of irrefutable proof as an excuse to claim there is no basis for concluding Zimmerman was the aggressor or that Martin wasn't. All the circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman targeted Martin for an aggressive action, that he engaged in armed pursuit of an innocent teenager, that he has a history of aggression and violence, is dismissed. Meanwhile, highly pejorative language is used to describe Martin, despite the lack of even circumstantial evidence that Martin did anything wrong. Thus we have posters talking about Zimmerman's right to pursue a "criminal", but no mention of Martin's right to defend himself from the stranger with a gun pursuing him. It's a Thug Of The Gaps argument. We are told that without irrefutable proof Zimmerman created the conflict through his stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, we cannot conclude he did no matter how much evidence there is of Zimmerman's stupidity, aggression, and poor judgment, or that the confrontation was the result of the choices he made.

I'm not sure why you are confused about my intentions. Maybe it was lost/forgotten in the onslaught of disjointed comments on this thread. I already stated my opinion that Zimmerman should have been charged and convicted of a serious crime for creating the questionable circumstances around which a teenager was killed.

But for me, there remains a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the premeditated stupidity of attempting to detain a suspect if no crime had been committed because - among other things - (1) he would have been subject to civil/criminal liability for being wrong and (2) the suspect wouldn't necessarily know he carried a concealed weapon to suppress resistance. And I find it hard to believe he was ready to kill a mere suspect. The 911 call suggested he thought Martin was on drugs and casing houses to burglarize - suspicion motivated by a recent string of crime in his neighborhood. *Really no cause for suspicion?* So he wanted to follow Martin to make sure he didn't get away... from the cops in-route or from him?

Did GZ's history make the case beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) he meant to physically detain the youth for the cops or (2) something less agressive and risky but effectively not letting him get away? Why would Zimmy ask "What are you doing around here" as he's trying to detain Martin? Surely Zimmy has used tactics other than violence to affect outcomes in his adult life. Does committing one crime (shoving an undercover cop when he was 21) and having a restraining order placed on him for alleged domestic violence (same time frame) mean he must have committed everything he is accused of? I'm just not sure, despite the fact he lied to avoid the appearance of creating a dangerous situation (at the very least).

Okay. I wasn't sure where you were trying to go in some of your posts. Now I have a better idea of where you stand.

I think you are focusing a bit too much on the question of pre-meditation. I don't think Zimmerman had a clear plan in mind when he got out of the car, and I don't think he thought through the possibilities very carefully. I think what Zimmerman thought was going to happen, and what actually did happen, were two very different things.

Premeditation notwithstanding, he was still responsible for creating the situation.

I also haven't described Martin in a decidedly negative way. I've only said that absence of circumstantial evidence is not evidence of absense. There's only historical evidence that Trayvon was no Casper Milktoast when it came to fighting. I can also imagine getting pissed off that someone (creepy ass - not bad ass) was following me in a truck (in a decent neighborhood with gates) and more angry when that person confronted me for just walking down the sidewalk to a relatives house. Why didn't he just answer the question from somebody who probably lived in the neighborhood? GZ: "What are you doing around here?" TM*: "Who are you to question me?" But why assume what I think is what Trayvon thought - I've seen plenty use/abuse of that assumption on this thread.

There's more, but it's late and I need to hit the hay.

According to Jeantel, Martin asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" before Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there. So why don't you ask "Why didn't he (Zimmerman) just answer the question from somebody who probably lived in the neighborhood?" That's what I was getting at in my post. The responsibility for that confrontation belongs to the guy who made it happen: George Zimmerman. And yet, time and time again, posters keep trying to make it Martin's responsibility.

How is it possible that the pedestrian is responsible for the choice the guy in the car makes? Why is he being held responsible for the confrontation when he did nothing to create it? And why is it okay for the pursuer to ignore questions, but not for the pursued?

 

[EPresence2]

I'm not sure why you are confused about my intentions. Maybe it was lost/forgotten in the onslaught of disjointed comments on this thread. I already stated my opinion that Zimmerman should have been charged and convicted of a serious crime for creating the questionable circumstances around which a teenager was killed.

But for me, there remains a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the premeditated stupidity of attempting to detain a suspect if no crime had been committed because - among other things - (1) he would have been subject to civil/criminal liability for being wrong and (2) the suspect wouldn't necessarily know he carried a concealed weapon to suppress resistance. And I find it hard to believe he was ready to kill a mere suspect. The 911 call suggested he thought Martin was on drugs and casing houses to burglarize - suspicion motivated by a recent string of crime in his neighborhood. *Really no cause for suspicion?* So he wanted to follow Martin to make sure he didn't get away... from the cops in-route or from him?

Did GZ's history make the case beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) he meant to physically detain the youth for the cops or (2) something less agressive and risky but effectively not letting him get away? Why would Zimmy ask "What are you doing around here" as he's trying to detain Martin? Surely Zimmy has used tactics other than violence to affect outcomes in his adult life. Does committing one crime (shoving an undercover cop when he was 21) and having a restraining order placed on him for alleged domestic violence (same time frame) mean he must have committed everything he is accused of? I'm just not sure, despite the fact he lied to avoid the appearance of creating a dangerous situation (at the very least).

Okay. I wasn't sure where you were trying to go in some of your posts. Now I have a better idea of where you stand.

I think you are focusing a bit too much on the question of pre-meditation. I don't think Zimmerman had a clear plan in mind when he got out of the car, and I don't think he thought through the possibilities very carefully. I think what Zimmerman thought was going to happen, and what actually did happen, were two very different things.

Premeditation notwithstanding, he was still responsible for creating the situation.

I have already agreed that he created the situation leading up to the confrontation. It's the premeditation part that is important considering the nature of Zimmy's previous incidents of convicted and alleged violence - they are more like "heat-of-the-moment" sort of reactions with little time to consider the consequences. There was time to consider consequences between the 911 call and the fight. And how do you know Zimmy's apparent lying was about more than covering up the creation of the situation leading to the confrontation (assuming Rachel's testimony was truthful)? Because he lied about some things, everything else must be a lie? Is this just another thug of the gaps?

I also haven't described Martin in a decidedly negative way. I've only said that absence of circumstantial evidence is not evidence of absense. There's only historical evidence that Trayvon was no Casper Milktoast when it came to fighting. I can also imagine getting pissed off that someone (creepy ass - not bad ass) was following me in a truck (in a decent neighborhood with gates) and more angry when that person confronted me for just walking down the sidewalk to a relatives house. Why didn't he just answer the question from somebody who probably lived in the neighborhood? GZ: "What are you doing around here?" TM*: "Who are you to question me?" But why assume what I think is what Trayvon thought - I've seen plenty use/abuse of that assumption on this thread.

There's more, but it's late and I need to hit the hay.

According to Jeantel, Martin asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?" before Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there. So why don't you ask "Why didn't he (Zimmerman) just answer the question from somebody who probably lived in the neighborhood?" That's what I was getting at in my post. The responsibility for that confrontation belongs to the guy who made it happen: George Zimmerman. And yet, time and time again, posters keep trying to make it Martin's responsibility.

How is it possible that the pedestrian is responsible for the choice the guy in the car makes? Why is he being held responsible for the confrontation when he did nothing to create it? And why is it okay for the pursuer to ignore questions, but not for the pursued?

I've already agreed that Zimmy created the situation leading to the confrontation. But it is also possible that Martin reacted violently to GZ's verbal confrontation in the gated community - "Why are you following me?" could be said in different tones. It is also possible that Zimmy tried to physically stop Martin from "getting away" before the police arrived, despite having nothing but suspicion of drug possession and intention to burglarize. What I think happened between the two possibilities is really much less important than the lessons learned from the case, which should not exclude actions Martin could have taken. Being proactive toward suspected crime is a two-way street (either vs. stalking/harassment or drug possession/intention to burglarize). If I had to make a choice (really why?), I'd go with Zimmy trying to detain Martin in some manner... but I wouldn't be surprised if Martin punched him before any physical contact was initiated. Therein lies the reasonable doubt.

I'm not necessarily referring to you, but how is being cock-sure of what happened a virtue in this debate?

 

[Jayjay]

(...)

It shouldn't be, any more than leaving one's car ought to be a crime punishable by death.

I don't see who's arguing for that.
Do you mean you have some information that didn't reach me that Martin was waiting with a lethal weapon, ready to kill as soon as Zimmerman would step on the sidewalk?

It was suggested that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, as if that was his crime. The context of the discussion is that Martin could have avoided the incident by going home, but that doesn't mean it was Martin's fault for failing to do so. Similarly, there is no doubt that Zimmerman could have avoided the incident by staying in his car, but it doesn't follow that it was his fault for leaving his car.

Of course it could be his fault for some other reason. I'm not defending Zimmerman, but opposing fallacious arguments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see who's arguing for that.
Do you mean you have some information that didn't reach me that Martin was waiting with a lethal weapon, ready to kill as soon as Zimmerman would step on the sidewalk?

It was suggested that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, as if that was his crime. The context of the discussion is that Martin could have avoided the incident by going home, but that doesn't mean it was Martin's fault for failing to do so. Similarly, there is no doubt that Zimmerman could have avoided the incident by staying in his car, but it doesn't follow that it was his fault for leaving his car.

There is a minor difference here. Zimmerman, in leaving the car, was actively creating a situation. Martin had every right to be wherever he wanted to be. This isn't as if Zimmerman was taking a casual stroll in the evening. He was following (stalking?) another person.

 

[Jayjay]

You think that because Zimmerman would follow a burglar with is car, he would force his way into one of his neighbours' houses also? That doesn't follow at all. Besides, he was waiting quietly at the T was what Zimmerman did up until the point he met Trayvon again.

I don't have to "think" anything. We all know that Zimmerman got a gun, followed a kid for no reason, first in a car, then on foot, and shot him dead. We already know - for certain - that Zimmerman was willing to follow this kid for a long time and between buildings. And Martin knew that, too.

Walking a short distance to check around the corner is hardly the same as following someone into his house, or that he wouldn't realize that Martin wasn't a burglar if he ever saw him go into a house where there were lights on and other people around. Besides in all likelihood the only reason the two crossed paths again was because Martin turned back instead of going straight home.

This is just another "let's make Zimmerman a cartoon villain coz we all hate him" scenario that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Some people think that despite having a guy follow you in a car and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain, into an alleyway behind buildings, you should not feel alarmed, you should assume he lives there and is "up to some good" and you should politely ask the guy if he's an authority figure while you lead him to your home. And they think that somehow magically, Zimmerman would have instantly believed you and said, "hey welcome to the neighborhood" and let you keep going.

Because.... because Zimmerman is so known for that. Or some equally vacuous thing that continues to paint Z as a guy who does nothing to create this incident.

He may have created the incident, but it wasn't by leaving his car and checking out where the suspected burglar may have gone which isn't an unreasonable thing to do. We'll never know exactly what happened between the two when they met: maybe Zimmerman tried to grab Martin or pulled his gun, maybe Martin pulled the first punch, but we're just guessing.

As lonn as we are talking general rules (such as "Urban Rule #1"), saying that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car is not reasonable. People have the right to wander abou their neighbourhoods, and they have right to keep an eye on people they suspect might be burglars. There is no rule that at all times, everyone should stay in their F*ing vehicles. If Trayvon had been a real burglar, Zimmerman getting out of his truck to have a better view would have been examplary (just looking through... apart from him shooting Trayvon and possibly trying to detain him later).

You bait and switch between reasonable and has-a-right.

Martin had a right to walk, and it was reasonable for him to avoid the creeper and not lead him home.
Zimmerman had a right to stay in his truck and it was NOT reasonable for him to take a weapon and pretend he was a cop closely following a person he thought (wrongly, as it turn out) was a burglar.

Zimmerman had a "right" to walk around the neighborhood, technically, even though, he was trained by NW that this was a BAD IDEA and told by dispatch that this was NOT NEEDED - hence his actions were NOT reasonable. And the moment he confronted Martin (and probably grabbed him) he no longer had any "right" to those actions.

Martin, meanwhile had a "right" to defend himself against the creeper following him and grabbing him. He was reasonable in trying to get away, and reasonable not leading the guy home.


So the bait and switch doesn't work. The two sets of rights and reasonable actions tell the story, and it does not favor the guy who is once again in the public eye for being a violent aggressor.

We don't know if Martin was consciously trying to get away or not lead Zimmerman in his home. I think it is far more likely, that he figured he had evaded him and just decided to take a different route himself: because the path between the houses was dark and maybe he didn't want to enter his home through the back door, or he could have simply been stalling because he was on the phone. Besides, you are severly misunderstanding if you think I'm saying that Martin was at fault. Based on what he thought, his actions up until the fight were somewhat reasonable, and we don't know how the fight got started exactly.

Zimmerman had every right to check if Martin was leaving through the back entrance. And since he had called the cops, it was a reasonable thing to do also..that way he could tell them if Martin left the area. Observing and reporting to the police is not a crime.

 

[Jayjay]

How many pro-Zimmerman posters would like to make a bet whether or not Zimmerman will have another incident within the next three years? Since you're all certain of his upstanding character it shouldn't be any risk.

Domestic violence or similar? Based on his history so far, the chances are pretty high.

Following and shooting someone he suspects is a criminal? Not a chance. He only "won" the court case by narrowly avoiding a jail sentence. I seriously doubt that he'd put himself in that particular situation again.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How many pro-Zimmerman posters would like to make a bet whether or not Zimmerman will have another incident within the next three years? Since you're all certain of his upstanding character it shouldn't be any risk.

Domestic violence or similar? Based on his history so far, the chances are pretty high.

Following and shooting someone he suspects is a criminal? Not a chance. He only "won" the court case by narrowly avoiding a jail sentence. I seriously doubt that he'd put himself in that particular situation again.

I agree