[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal. [/quote]
FS 784.011 - Assault
(1) An �?�¢??assault�?�¢?? is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
This is the Florida law which defines assault. The argument could be made that by following Trayvon, there could have been a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. If the evidence winds up agreeing with Zimmerman’s story, however, the fact that he was no longer following Trayvon and had lost sight of the kid would mean that the threat had passed and Trayvon would no longer have had a real reason to confront Zimmerman and assault him, which means no murder/manslaughter charges. By confronting Zimmerman, he would have willingly placed himself in harms way. If Zimmerman did run him down (I find this unlikely since Zimmerman looks like Jabba the Hut’s younger brother and Trayvon appears to be in good shape.) then it doesn’t really matter who started the fight since Trayvon would have been well within his rights to respond to the threat that Zimmerman represented and Zimmerman will face at the very least manslaughter charges. I think, though, that there is at least enough evidence to make a case against Zimmerman for assault no matter what. I know that if some stranger is following me, I am going to assume he means to harm me in some way.[/quote]
This seems like a very conceivable way it played out. The problem for Trayvon, if this is what indeed happened, is that once Zimmerman was walking away, as stated above, he no longer posed a threat. We have to remember that we are dealing with a boy however and unfortunately, and we were all young once so we know, kids don’t always use proper judgment. This gets back to my issue with Zimmerman: he did not behave properly in the first place and set the wheel in motion.
He is not a cop. The cops told him to stop following the kid. He had a gun. He should have looked at the big picture and understood the possible consequences of his actions. You carry a gun, you have to understand that you may end up using it. Why press your luck? Why create a situation in which you might use it?
Carrying a gun should make you more cautious, more careful, not more reckless or bold. If being an idiot with a hero complex who exercises bad judgment (and racially profiles) is a crime then Zimmerman should be charged with it.
To all of those who say Zimmerman (or anyone) has the right to follow someone: did you ever think that Zimmerman following someone who was, in his mind, suspicious, was seen by Trayvon as suspicious? What seed did that plant in his 17 year old mind? He probably thought Zimmerman was a perv. [/quote]
The cops didn’t tell Zimmerman not to follow. News outlets calling 911 operators “police operators” or other bullshit are further shading their agenda.
Those people are call center employees whose employer has a contract with the city. Nothing more. They are not legal authorities. As discussed earlier, many cases have occurred where call center employees recommend action or against and are ignored as transpiring events change. Shooters on the right side of the law are not punished. They are not disobeying legal commands. It is dishonest to act like they are.
You can protest Zimmerman following until blue in the face, he did nothing to deserve being attacked, especially if he was on his way back to his truck.
You still don’t know what he saw that actually caused his suspicion. So far team Martin is going of f of projected assumptions which brings us back to an objective need for legal due process and the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty.
The only changes from the beginning of the first thread to now are evidence and testimony supporting Zimmerman vs. bullshit spun by the Martin family lawyer and character descriptions, initiated by the same lawyer, of a gang affiliated, violent, thieving, drug selling young adult punk instead of a lollipop sucking, cute young teen.
If anything, conjectured assumptions supporting Zimmerman would be much stronger than the other way around. Given the young adults history, he likely was acting suspicious when the neighborhood watch reacted.
Objectively, so far, all evidence points to self defense by legal definition. Like it or not Trayvon isn’t the innocent young kid people want him to be and, given our knowledge, attacked Zimmerman.