Read it however you want. He didn't follow it. At some point, he chose not to.I don't read "We don't need you to do that" as an instruction. Or "Ok" as a refusal......
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Read it however you want. He didn't follow it. At some point, he chose not to.I don't read "We don't need you to do that" as an instruction. Or "Ok" as a refusal......
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.I've found that it isn't easy to overcome various early memes established by the media about what happened, even after the evidence has been presented and runs quite contrary to some of those memes that were created in a rush to judgement. As the facts have been laid out again and again we have found that there was a specific reason Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin, and that the non-emergency operator stated that they didn't need Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin. Of course in hindsight "we don't need you to do that" turns in to an obvious ominous warning.
Initiating face to face contact doesn't either. It's what occurred after contact and prior to them fighting that would make the difference.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.
If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed. Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.
Zimmerman apparently was losing, prompting him to escalate it further by drawing a pistol.
I didn't actually say that. I said that there were several points where both men escalated the conflict.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.
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.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
I agree. Aside from the statement about profiling (I didn't get into that) he said pretty much what I just said.
Well Said.
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.
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.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.
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: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.
That's what I've been saying.Of course there is only one side to this story. Agreed.
Drawing a gun on an unarmed opponent is always an escalation. It may be justified, but it is still an escalation.
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.
Sure funny how all the pro gun control fascists er posters are also Pro Martin...