Read it however you want. He didn't follow it. At some point, he chose not to.
George Zmmerman trial begins...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #302
Well, from his statements Zimmerman says he was going back to his truck. from Rachel jeantel we know that Martin initiated face to face contact. We also know, from the 911 call that the police were on the way. so it is just as hard to know if Zimmerman was or wasn't following the suggestion not to continue following Martin. again, even if he followed Martin, it doesn't rise to the level of causing manslaughter to occur. Just following someone doesn't reach that point.
I'd hardly consider it to have turned into an ominous warning. You don't need to do that means he didn't need to do that. He opted to do it for whatever reason, and unfortunately, the ramifications were far greater than he expected. It could have gone any number of other possible ways.
As I said, each participant made a series of choices that led to the final outcome. Zimmerman's choosing to ignore the operator's advice (something his fans seem to want to downplay) was one of those decisions but not the only one.
Martin chose to move through a gated community where he didn't live with a hood up; bad decision #1, regardless of his right to do so. Zimmerman chose to follow him. Martin, when observed, chose to approach Zimmerman; bad decision #2. Zimmerman called 911 and reported what was happenning. Martin ran during the call. Zimmerman then ignored what he was told and pursued Martin; bad decision #3. Whether he caught up with Martin and confronted him or Martin jumped him unexpectedly or some other permutation, the two eventually ended up in a fight that Zimmerman apparently was losing, prompting him to escalate it further by drawing a pistol. I suspect that both men made a few bad decisions between #3 and Martin's death. I won't speculate as to what they might have been; there's been enough speculation about that already.
I worked retail for many years and there was a reason that we were told not to pursue shoplifters out of the store; you could get shot, stabbed, beaten, or end up in court having to defend yourself against charges of assault & battery. I understand the desire to not let someone you perceive as a criminal get away. Unfortunately, up to that point, there was no evidence that Martin was a criminal at all. People can say what they want about reasonable assumption, but the fact remains that Zimmerman drew his own conclusions. There were probably dozens of people in that neighborhood that he didn't know on sight.
As far as the verdict goes, it is what it is. It isn't my place to be satisfied or dissatisfied with it. The prosecution didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with and the defense made a case that the jurors found reasonable enough in light of the evidence and therefore chose not to convict. People need to get over their feelings on the trial and look at the lessons that can be learned from this.
Initiating face to face contact doesn't either. It's what occurred after contact and prior to them fighting that would make the difference.
As for brushing off following someone, I think Steve phrased it very well:
Don't pretend that Zimmerman didn't add fuel to the fire by his actions. If the account that Zimmerman gave is true and accurate, even if it is slanted in his favor, then both men escalated the conflict at various points.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
If Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or serious physical injury at the hands of Martin; drawing a gun would not have been an escalation since Martin would have been the first to raise the confrontation to the level of DPF.
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
OP
- Thread Starter
- #306
the trouble I have with this is considering someone following me in a neighborhood an escalation to the point that it is considered worthy of a factor in a charge of manslaughter. wether or not Martin was told not to follow ,and he wasn't told not to follow, in my mind that doesn't reach anything near contributing to manslaughter. whoever initiated physical contact is where manslaughter starts, not simply getting out of a vehicle and walking through your own neighborhood. After all, Martin didn't know if Zimmerman lived in the direction that Martin was traveling in, when he initiated contact with Zimmerman.
Technically, Martin was living in the community. He was staying with his father's fiancé at the time of the killing.
One important lesson...don't initiate combat with strangers who aren't attacking you...that goes either way in this case.
Technically, Martin was living in the community. He was staying with his father's fiancé at the time of the killing.
One important lesson...don't initiate combat with strangers who aren't attacking you...that goes either way in this case.
I didn't actually say that. I said that there were several points where both men escalated the conflict.
Martin being first is speculation. Zimmerman drawing the gun is fact. I stuck with facts that are actually known. Since we don't know who actually started the fight (that pesky lack of witnesses thing), I didn't include that.
It seems likely that Martin initiated the physical conflict, but Zimmerman's willingness to pursue Martin on foot, even after being advised not to, raises the possiblity that Martin may have tried to escape and Zimmerman tried to restrain him (remember, Zimmerman was very preoccupied in the transcript with keeping Martin from getting away), thus initiating the conflict.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman by slaming his head against the curb, he could have just been acquitted on the same grounds. It could have just as easily played out as follows:
A strange man was overtly following him, causing him to fear for his life. A confrontation ensued when Martin tried to escape, and while fighting off his attacker, he saw the attacker go for his gun, prompting him to strike the assailant's head as hard as he could.
Zimmerman's motives would by unclear, as he would be dead. Who actually started the confrontation would be unclear, as Zimmerman would be dead, leaving Martin as the only one who could give a full account of what led up to the scuffle. Zimmerman's position as a neighborhood watchman would probably come up, but Martin's defense would no doubt have exploited the line about those a - holes always getting away.
Obviously, it didn't go that way. But you should be able to reasonably see how the SD argument could have been made by Martin.
As I said previously, I have no side to align with, no party to back. This was preventable. The decisions of both parties led to the death of one and the derailment of the life of the other.
Last edited:
I agree. Aside from the statement about profiling (I didn't get into that) he said pretty much what I just said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Implying that Zimmerman "escalated" by drawing a gun sorta means that you think Zimmerman wasn't justified in drawing it....which is a "fact that is not actually known" either.
I'm just saying that drawing of a weapon MAY escalate a confrontation if it's drawn without a good reason...but drawing in defense of your life means that the other party, armed or not, escalated the confrontation to DPF first.
Of course there is only one side to this story. Agreed.
No. That is not what it means, sorta or otherwise. Please refrain from speculating about what "I" actually think. If that is what I thought, I would have said so. I honestly don't know if he was or not, so I will refrain from speculation.
Drawing a gun on an unarmed opponent is always an escalation. It may be justified, but it is still an escalation. If you'd actually take the time to read my post, you'd see that I did indicate a prior escalation on Martin's part, assuming Zimmerman's account in the 911 transcript is accurate. Please also note that I said the following:
It seems likely that Martin initiated the physical conflict, but Zimmerman's willingness to pursue Martin on foot, even after being advised not to, raises the possiblity that Martin may have tried to escape and Zimmerman tried to restrain him (remember, Zimmerman was very preoccupied in the transcript with keeping Martin from getting away), thus initiating the conflict.
Since we don't have an eyewitness account of who started the physical conflict, I didn't include it in the chain of events.
Since all of us are not lawers or policemen, please share what DPF stands for.
That's what I've been saying.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
No....it is not.
The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force".
Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not.
Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
Within the use-of-force continuum as usually taught, and as embodied in the law, OK--but you can't tell me that things don't jump up a level when a gun is tossed into the mix. Everyone's adrenaline level goes up then. Everyone knows you can be killed with fists but you will be killed by bullets.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
The way it looks martin never knew there was a gun until he was shot. Looking at the autopsy evedience with shot placement and that martins **** was several inches away from his body at the time of shooting I doubt Martin knew there was a gun until he was shot
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Daniel did you watch the trial? Your basically saying all the evidence presented can't be used to form an opinion. You come across as Z shot M and we don't know anything else. Its not speculation to use the evidence to form a picture of what happened. While we can never be 100% sure what happened using evidence we can get pretty close to the truth
No one has been pro-Martin--some of us believe that GZ bears some moral responsibility here. It's not an all-good vs. all-bad situation. There's some grey.
Folks,
I've been quite pleasantly surprised at how well this thread has held up, without shots and without nastiness. Let's not start it now. Keep things courteous and polite, if you can't manage friendly.
Not quite a warning... consider this a strong word to the wise.
I've been quite pleasantly surprised at how well this thread has held up, without shots and without nastiness. Let's not start it now. Keep things courteous and polite, if you can't manage friendly.
Not quite a warning... consider this a strong word to the wise.
