He followed him while guiding police to him. That's not stalking, that's doing his job.

Crazy how so many argue with emotion and no reason.

He didn't walk, he ran. He felt threatened enough to run away.

How do you know what he felt?

You don't.

And it's still 100% irrelevant if Zimmerman wasn't preventing him to get to where he was going. Feeling threatened is not enough anymore than feeling like a unicorn is relevant.

Yep, any time someone hits you punches you in the face and gives you a fat lip... You can shoot them dead.

that's funny, i recall a 911 transcript specifically stating not to follow

so you were saying?

The 911 operator did not "specifically" say that. But why do you need facts,

Maybe Martin was running for his health.

Well I would suggest that your analogy with the eight year old girl...would not pass the "reasonable person" test. In other words...how would your analogy play in front of a jury of "reasonable people"?

Maybe he was trying to evade a neighborhood watch guy as he watched him and listened to him call 911?

Maybe you can say maybe forever and it will never change the facts of the case. He's not being tried for the feelings of others. He being tried on the facts.

'should i follow him?'

'we don't need you to do that'

Right, thank you for correcting yourself. That's hardly instruction and has been said 1,000,000 times already, the 911 operator has no authority to tell anyone what to do.

But..... The 911 did in fact tell him that.

911: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
911: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

2:27....

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

Thank god we have proof so we know exactly what 911 told George.

I live in Florida and I think that's fucked up. Firstly a distinction should be made where it's clearly on your property versus elsewhere such as in public. On your property you should have no duty to retreat. But in public you should have to try to reasonably minimize the situation such as by trying to walk away or get help from others where reasonable.

Then a distinction needs to be made between willingly putting yourself in the situation versus having it thrust upon you. If you start a fight or confrontation or are basically acting as if you were a law enforcement officer you should not have the same protection as someone who shoots an armed robber during a home invasion.

If this continues on we are going to see all sorts of bar fights devolve into this where the loser decides to blow the other guy away and then claim self defense and "stand your ground".

"We do not require you to follow him" is hardly the same as "do not follow him"

In some states the law requires one to retreat if possible before you can apply self defense. In some states even in your own home you can only use deadly force if you are confronted with deadly force.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with a law that uses the "reasonable person" test.

Actually it makes a big difference. Reverse the situation a bit and change it around. If this occurred in broad daylight and if Trayvon were instead a known resident who was on top of Zimmerman would Zimmerman still have been justified shooting him after other residents witnessed it and the police were called?

Most people would say "No." The unknowns and the situation are relevant. Zimmerman didn't know who Martin was and it was night. But the same is true for Martin. He didn't know who Zimmerman was. He didn't know what he wanted.

And we have no idea as to how the physical confrontation actually began other than what Zimmerman claims.

It seems like no matter how many facts come out in the case that very few people stray from their original "beliefs" about what happened.

I still haven't heard an explanation of how a person pinned down being straddled around the ribs with knees up to his armpits (according to testimony, not conjecture) manages to first knock the top guys hand off his gun, but then draw it himself and fire.

I've been wanting them to demonstrate that in court.


I also would mention for those of you who feel GZ was totally normal to follow in the first place, the officer on the stand 2 days ago stated that if he had been on patrol that night and driven past TM doing all the things GZ said, he would NOT find it suspicious. When asked why not, he responded that TM could have lived there or been making his way home or even waiting for a ride. So unless a) residents had called for police already or b) he had been in the act of some crime, the officer would have thought very little of it.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

really?

so lets say you have someone unconscious.. 911 says not to touch them, you do anyway

in your mind, and argument here, you are saying 'you wouldn't be at fault for touching them'

911 didn't say that. Had they said that, it's no more relevant than any other individual saying it.

What the 911 operator should have said is "Stop being a jack ass and get back in the truck and let police do their job".

When he says "we do not require you to follow him" they mean "do not follow him".

Oh - they said one thing and now you are explaining what they "really" meant. Interesting this wasn't a major point in the trial... Yet is such a strong point of contention on porn forums. Maybe they just need you to translate?

The reasonable person test helps but it's not perfect. People have different ideas of what is and is not reasonable. The way I see it Zimmerman was acting as if he were a law enforcement officer. He put himself in the situation on common access property which he did not own and Trayvon Martin had a legal right to be there. At some point we need to limit this.

For example now in Florida as I understand it I can walk up to someone I don't like on public property with a bad temper and start insulting their mother. Once they punch me and especially if they get on top of me I can then pull out a handgun and blow them away while claiming "self defense". This is even more true if it's at night or if they are significantly larger than I.

We can't have a thousand Zimmerman's running around with 38s shooting every young black kid they see walking home from the store at night because they didn't say drop to the ground and roll over the first time the unidentified neighborhood watch guy demanded it. And I sure as hell do not want to be hassled myself. If I'm walking home and I see some guy following me around without identifying himself I'm going to be ready to fight too. If he walks up to me or touches me and it's the middle of the night I might punch him and take him to the ground too. I have no idea what he wants. It's self defense.

Let's switch it around. If you are walking through your neighborhood at night and a middle aged black man starts following you around to the point where you start running away what are you going to do if he finally catches up to you and without identifying who he is or what he wants he demands you "Stop!" or "freeze!" ? What would you do if he touches you or tries to grab you?

Now let's say your son or daughter was in the above situation. What would you tell them to do? Now imagine how Trayvon Martin felt.

It doesn't matter who was on top or who started it or why. I honestly believe that Martin punched Zimmerman first. But no matter, punching someone in the face and then wrestling on concrete does not justify deadly force - ever.

didn't say what?

He was told not to follow. The operator explains why they gave the command as a 'suggestion', but it's a command

why we're talking about it.

Wow.

Uhmmmm it can't be a command and a suggestion. It was clealy a suggestion and the operator made it extremely clear to the court that they don't give commands.

Personally I can see where it might justify it. Especially at night and where you think the other guy is a criminal. Once you are knocked out or disabled you have no control over what else will happen to you. But at some point you need to be accountable for being wrong when you make such assumptions. And the same is true for putting yourself in that situation by acting as if you were a law enforcement officer.

the operator also made it extremely clear why.

in any event, if the operator were to tell you to not touch an unresponsive person, and you do, you are legally liable. ie, command.

"We do not require you to follow him" is hardly the same as "do not follow him"

If you had watched GZ the day after the incident when detectives brought him to the scene and recounted the events you would have seen GZ SAY out of his own mouth "they said not to follow him". So I submit that as evidence that *HE* knew they did not want him to follow. There is NO need to hash this out; he's said it himself.

By the way, the neighborhood watch captain who testified said it's their long standing instructions to members to NOT follow, but to call 911.

In addition to that, the officer who testified said if it had been him he would not follow without seeing him in the act of a crime.

well that settles it..

Hardly makes you any less mentally impaired to say "it was both a command and a suggestion"

How he recalled what was said, does not change what was said - nor does it change the meaning of what was said or negate the fact that it is again 100% irrelevant that the 911 operator told him to do anything.as it carries zero weight and zimmermans intention as heard on the 911 call was to follow him and giide police who had already been dispatched to Martin

Hardly the behavior of someone intent on committing murder.

The way I understand Florida's self defense law is pretty much no matter the circumstances...who started what etc...or whether there are injuries or not...if at any time a "reasonable" person becomes in fear for his life or great bodily harm that person can apply self defense and use deadly force.

So the only real test for the use of deadly force...is if a reasonable person would become in fear for his life or great bodily harm.

You are wasting your time; there are several here that had absolutely no comprehension of the English language, yet feel they can read a newspaper report and know all the facts.

Zimmerman said it himself the day after on the police video.

You can call it a suggestion all you freaking want. But when a 911 operator "suggests" something to you, it's in your best interests to do it... If not you end up in a bad situation and end in court on murder charges...

glad you're paying attention.

the charge is second degree murder, boy wonder.

how does one have no comprehension of the english language, yet read a newspaper?

Backing up the poa-leece again, are you?

surprising lol

Uhmmmm ok?

This is you adding your meaning to what was said. The 911 operator himself testified that they don't give people commands and have no authority to tell people what to do.

Again , all 100% irrelevant and evidence already presented to the court that was heard and barely even acknowledged by either the defense or prosecution.

You are trying to portray it as something it's not, add meaning where there is none and refuse to simply watch the 911 operator say to the prosecutor, judge and jury that they don't give commands and have no authority to do so.

come on man, your intent is to convince us how superior you are

what could you possibly be confused about?

hah, your thread is nutty squealer. too bad i haven't stayed current on this case, i could have joined in the crazy fun! hahahah.

Haha hardly. My intent is to discuss the facts. Not everyone's religios visions and nutty interpretations of common single and two syllable words.