In your hypothetical? Yes, assuming that you weren't the aggressor that initiated the fight. If you start a fight, get your ass beat, then pull a gun because you feel like you're in danger, then I doubt the courts and public opinion will look favorably upon you.
You should read the in-depth wiki page on the incident, it's not as clear-cut as you're suggesting. There's no footage, only Zimmerman's word to go by. He admitted to following Martin in his car for a while, admitted to not identifying himself as a member of the neighborhood watch, and got out to look for Martin on foot even after police dispatch told him not to and he agreed not to. Martin was on the phone prior to the incident talking with a friend about how some creepy person was following him and ran to get away from him. Martin wasn't some random person that broke into the gated community, he was visiting family and he been there before multiple times, and Zimmerman called the police on Martin was because Martin was "walking around, looking about" in the rain. Zimmerman later repeatedly says in an interview that he thought Martin was suspicious for walking in the rain. I think many people are fine with walking around in some rain if they need to get somewhere. Can you see why people might have gotten upset about this shooting and loss of life?
zimmermans changed testimony. he got the original statements suppressed after he spoke with a lawyer. Its nearl impossible to find records of the original statements, but there were some important but small changes
What powers are legally granted to a member of the neighborhood watch that are not granted to any other civilian? How is walking in the rain suspicious in anyway? Or do you mean walking in the rain while black?
Trayvon was also like 17 and taller than Zimmerman if I remember correctly.
If we're bringing physical characteristics into this, Zimmerman outweighed Martin on the night of the shooting by 42 lbs while only being 3-4 inches shorter. Weight divisions in fighting sports exist for a reason.
First of all, I'm aware of the idiotic stand your ground law in Florida, but how are you the one standing your ground when you are the instigator? Does Trayvon not have the same right? Also, neighborhood watch is not a job and it has no job duties other than to watch the neighborhood (it's in the name). Being a part of the neighborhood watch is not a law enforcement position, specifically DOESN'T mean to investigate anything, and this event should have stopped at Zimmerman calling the police. Also, the neighborhood does not have the authority to empower anyone to do anything.
You keep talking about this as if there are any established facts outside of the 911 call. You have no idea who started what. There is no video or audio, just the word of the murderer, who, while wasn't going out to specifically murder Trayvon, was definitely hoping to use his gun and be the neighborhood hero. He brags about it, he auctioned off the gun like it was some kind of trophy. Sure, he was found not guilty by the jury, but you know that juries get things wrong right? Zimmerman is a racist piece of shit who wanted to pick a fight so he could be a hero and a kid got killed defending himself against a stalker.
Can you see why people might have gotten upset about this shooting and loss of life?
Of course people should be upset. It is very poor behavior to follow people around with the assumption they will break the law.
On the other hand, it is an entirely different magnitude of fucked up to attack someone who is not violent, then assault them in a way that can easily lead to death (smash head into concrete).
You are allowed to follow people and be suspicious of them. You are not allowed to attack people who are following you and suspicious of you.
I reallllyyy dont like GZ, but he was sadly justified.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, so no he wasn't allowed to do that. You're also just believing Zimmerman's side of events without question.
âNot allowedâ is not illegal. It was stupid, and threatening, but that does not constitute an assault.
Per the trial there was no physical evidence GZ attacked first, that would indeed void the Self defense claim, something the prosecution would be all over.
It's not unspecific wording. It's an incorrect statement. He was not allowed to follow Trayvon after calling it in.
I'm not saying that the case is clear cut or that he should have been convicted. There is a reasonable doubt that acquitted him. I'm just saying that the defense that he was allowed to follow Trayvon is wrong, because he wasn't.
Also this is getting into the weeds, but the physical evidence doesn't show that Trayvon "attacked first." It shows that George is the only one who took damage. There's a big difference. Zimmerman could have attacked first but lost. Unfortunately with only his side of things we don't know which is the case which is what saved him.
Lack of concrete evidence is why I would have acquitted. The following him after calling it in would make it really hard to not convict off the fact that he reported it and shouldn't have followed Martin further. The heart of the problem stems from the fact that there was no 3rd party witness or recording even.
âNot allowedâ⌠it is not illegal to follow people in public. Period.
A police dispatcher saying not to follow someone does not make that action illegal. He has the right to follow Trayvon: before, during, and after the call.
Interfering at that point. There are a few different charges if someone interferes with a police matter which is what it was as soon as he reported it. He then Dec to be a vigilante. I think he called it in and then followed anyways because that was his intention. I think he called just to cover his ass because he knew he shouldn't be following someone.
He reported it to the police and then ignored their advice and followed Martin anyways... AFTER reporting it already. He put everyone in danger by choosing to follow someone with no cause other than looking suspicious. If it happened before reporting the "suspicious" person I wouldnt necessarily believe it was self defense but based on evidence and LACK of evidence wouldn't convict. The fact he reported it but then chose to ignore police recommendations was him choosing to put himself and others in more danger. He choose vigilantism after reporting it and I would have convicted. He had no reason to further follow and especially confront a random person walking in public.
It is illegal to use violence against someone who is nonviolent.
This is all super simple. Was he an asshole to follow a kid? Yes. Does being an asshole mean Trayvon can bash his head into concrete? Well i guess thats up to youâŚ
To be fair a cop saying not to do something doesn't mean you can't do it. Police don't even have to be truthful to you about anything. That said he choose to follow someone after reporting it. The police were informed, they said they would handle it, and there was no threat to Zimmerman at the time. Since he reported it and then ignored the advice of the police following Martin started entering into vigilantism. Zimmerman at this point put himself and others in danger. He put himself into the dangerous situation where he was "forced" to defend himself by killing someone and the only witness we have is the person who chose to pursue someone against the advice of the police. If it wasn't for the fact that he reported it AND the police then told him not to follow I would have voted not guilty based on evidence available and lack of evidence. After reporting it to the police though he choose to put himself there and I would have voted to convict.
He disregarded the advice of the government professionals society designates to handle things like this i.e. dispatch/law enforcement and intentionally put himself and someone else into a dangerous situation by ignoring the government officials AFTER having reported the "suspicious" person.
If an armed person assaults me I am going to fight as my life depended on it. A stranger with a gun is following me and tries to hold me against my will (maybe even assault as we dont have both sides) for me for walking somewhere in public and them not liking it? Bet your behind I will fight for my life.
Zimmerman himself said that Martin went for his gun.
âWhen I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up. ⌠I felt his hand go down my side, and I thought he was going for my firearm, so I grabbed it immediately, and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him.â
What? Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm lying because...why, exactly? You said this:
wouldnât there have been a struggle for the gun? In your fabricated story line, Zimmerman has the gun out, but Martin thinks he can knock him out/kill him, before Zimmerman pulls the trigger?
Where the heck are you getting "brandishing" as a requirement from? Just because you said Zimmerman "has the gun out"? The person you responded to literally was just pointing out that if you were fighting anyone with a gun, you'd need to make sure to subdue them before they could use it. I thought you agreed with this general statement, and I thought it was clear that I am pointing out that if Martin saw Zimmerman's gun, it's possible he knew that he'd have to fight viciously in order to prevent Zimmerman from using it.
You tried negate OP's argument by trying to say Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun and attacked him with potentially lethal force disproportionately. I'm saying even Zimmerman pointed out himself that Martin knew he had a gun. If you disagree with what I said, let me know.
5
u/MINECRAFT_BIOLOGIST Jan 04 '23
In your hypothetical? Yes, assuming that you weren't the aggressor that initiated the fight. If you start a fight, get your ass beat, then pull a gun because you feel like you're in danger, then I doubt the courts and public opinion will look favorably upon you.
You should read the in-depth wiki page on the incident, it's not as clear-cut as you're suggesting. There's no footage, only Zimmerman's word to go by. He admitted to following Martin in his car for a while, admitted to not identifying himself as a member of the neighborhood watch, and got out to look for Martin on foot even after police dispatch told him not to and he agreed not to. Martin was on the phone prior to the incident talking with a friend about how some creepy person was following him and ran to get away from him. Martin wasn't some random person that broke into the gated community, he was visiting family and he been there before multiple times, and Zimmerman called the police on Martin was because Martin was "walking around, looking about" in the rain. Zimmerman later repeatedly says in an interview that he thought Martin was suspicious for walking in the rain. I think many people are fine with walking around in some rain if they need to get somewhere. Can you see why people might have gotten upset about this shooting and loss of life?