aborgman said:
Who said Zimmerman broke the law? I have said about four times that I think Zimmerman might walk. I just think that he created a situation that lead to a needless fatal confrontation.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
Who said Zimmerman broke the law? I have said about four times that I think Zimmerman might walk. I just think that he created a situation that lead to a needless fatal confrontation.
I think it comes down to who initiated force. Whoever initiated force created the situation that lead to a needless fatal confrontation.
If all Zimmerman did was follow Martin, and Martin attacked him physically for that - Martin is the one who created the situation that lead to a needless fatal confrontation.
aborgman said:
We just disagree. If Zimmerman follows police instructions, nothing happens, period.
NOT police instructions. 911 dispatcher instructions.
...and if Martin isn't walking down the road, nothing happens.
If a woman walks naked through a bad neighborhood and gets raped - she didn't "create" the situation.
aborgman said:
You are splitting hairs this time. To say nothing would have happened if Martin had not walked down the street is like blaming a nice looking woman for being raped.
Dispatcher instructions should have been followed, period. I'm pretty sure that if Zimmerman had been given instructions about something like an accident, he would have listened.
As I said before, I think the situation is on Zimmerman only because he could have stayed at home like dispatcher told him to.
Floyd Eye said:
The difference is that Zimmerman had already contacted the police and had been told to let them handle it. If he does that, nothing happens.
I don't see equal responsibility.
Okay, let me ask you a question Doc. Say this guy was following this kid and the kid confronts him (which is apparent) and the kid attacks the guy first ( which is also very likely) are you saying that he is absolved of responsibility because that guy should have listened to the 911 dispatcher? Is that really your position, that the kid had the right to physically assault the man because he was following him?
Surely you see the point I am trying to make.
Or, Zimmerman thinks his man is getting away so he confronts him. Kid tries to leave but Zimmerman tries to hold him until police arrive. Fight ensues.
We'll never know what really happened, but this is what I see as the most likely scenario.
Well there were witnesses. If the scenario you just stated turns out to be the case, then I totally agree with Doc. No friggin' neighborhood watch, wannabe cop has the right to attempt to detain anyone.
This seems unlikely to me though since there would have been no evidence that this kid had actually done anything wrong. I wouldn't think Zimmerman would assume he had the right to detain someone just because he was suspicious of them.
Where are you reading there were witnesses? I only see where there were 911 calls reporting the fight, nothing about how it started.
You have to Google it. The original article is a few days old. There are witnesses. In any event, it seems unlikely that Zimmerman decided that he had the right to detain the kid, but if this is in fact the case, the kid was within his rights to resist by force and we will likely see Zimmerman charged.
Floyd Eye said:
Yes, Zimmerman created a scene that did not have to happen, period. Zimmerman is the adult (criminal justice major) acting in a position of responsibility with neighborhood watch. Martin was 17 and probably freaked out by a stranger following him.
Zimmerman did his part when called the police. All he had to do was wait for them.
nutdog said:
If the suspicious person just walks away, what is the crime? No blood, no foul.
All Zimmerman needed to do was wait for the police.
Well, it certainly seems hard to tell from the information provided if that is true or not. The original article is a fluff piece, at best, and the others don't quite provide a full picture yet.
I did google it. Nothing about witnesses saying what happened. One little thing that says one 911 call may have the gunshot recorded.
Maybe somebody saw it, then we may know. But it doesn't seem unlikely that gun-toting, cop wannabe neighborhood watch captain might get a little carried away. No more unlikely than teenage kid attacking him because he was being followed.
The most recent article that I posted said that police cuffed Zimmerman, took him
In for questioning, and released him. The report indicates that Zimmerman did take a beating. Given Florida law, he has a chance of proving self defense. My point is that self defense and being morally defensible are not the same, and Zimmerman failed to do the wise and defensible thing by engaging Trayvon Martin in any way.
In for questioning, and released him. The report indicates that Zimmerman did take a beating. Given Florida law, he has a chance of proving self defense. My point is that self defense and being morally defensible are not the same, and Zimmerman failed to do the wise and defensible thing by engaging Trayvon Martin in any way.
Since this is indeed all speculative - I think it's correct to characterize the kid as doing what he thought was necessary to protect himself from some strange person who was obviously stalking him.
While Zimmerman may feel a strange black person walking down 'his' street justifies his decision to arm himself and stalk him - he completely overstepped. Hell, calling the police because he saw a black person in his neighborhood was overstepping - but everything he did afterward was so far out of bounds, it's not even on the radar.
Boiling it down to whether or not Zimmerman was then "attacked" - is moot. Zimmerman inserted himself into a situation he did not belong. There was no mention of anything that made the kid 'suspicious' other than the fact that he was walking down the street and that he was black. Neither of which rise to the level of anything.
However, anyone walking down the street who is suddenly being stalked has a right to be concerned and even justifies confronting the person who is stalking them - and even ultimately 'puffing up' to encourage said stalker to stop stalking.
What's this kid supposed to think? He's being stalked - he gives the stalker dirty looks and puffs up to hopefully make him stop - he doesn't stop? I'd think I'm in trouble - I'd do what I needed to to protect myself.
If this kid was hopping fences, running through yards, if he were carrying a weapon - any of these things could be legitimately cited as 'suspicious'. Being black and walking down the street is not - even if he was later shown to be both carrying Skittles and defending himself against what he very legitimately thought could be someone out to hurt him.
If Zimmerman isn't racist - and wasn't motivated by racist thoughts, he's clearly just plain stupid, armed and clearly dangerous - all of which I think should be enough to toss him in jail.
But that's just speculation. And while it is just speculation, it's very hard (based on what we are able to know) to assemble a scenario where Zimmerman's actions are justifiable or excusable.
- Status
