The issue for the DA is not that GZ was justified to shoot TM, but GZ following TM provoked a fight that ended with a shooting that could have been avoided. CCW need to understand this nuance of the law when using a gun. Why this law exists is to prevent armed people from saying or doing things that they normally will not do if unarmed. Example a hothead armed with a CCW Glock, goes to a bar and starts an argument with a bigger guy, which results in a fight, a fight he is losing and then he shoots his bigger and stronger attacker and claims self defense when the cops come. In a drawn out event, self defense is valid if the gunowner did not start the fight, and did everything to de escalate the situation before he had to shoot. Jentel was a bad witness but she established one thing, TM noticed GZ was following him. Question to jury, is that legally considered a provocation? Non of the witnesses so far can account for the events after the cellphone call and neighbor who saw TM on top of GZ. What transpire can determine GZ guilt or innocence. When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land. GZ claim that he was confronted and attacked by TM while he was heading back to his SUV. Heading back to the SUV is considered a de escalating action. If TM felt threaten by GZ following him, he can attack if GZ was following him. If GZ was heading back to his SUV, TM cannot follow and attack GZ for the perceived threat. There no witness to back up GZ claimed he was attacked after he was heading for his SUV, and TM is dead and cannot tell his side of the story. Unless the DA has evidence or witness that GZ lied, GZ is most likely to be off the hook. IMHO who is right or wrong depends on the back and forth between the two men. This trial is not so clear cut.
He appears to have stopped following once he was told that. Earlier I think he had been encouraged to watch where TM was going--the point being for the police to be able to locate TM when they got there.
No evidence or witness to contradict Zimmerman's testimony, and therefore he is presumed innocent in the eyes of law. The burden of proof is on the state, and they don't have the big cheese or the key facts in the case.
You are swallowing the prosecution Kool Aid there, Fee.
There is NO evidence to suggest that the "following" continued after GZ was told that it wasn't necessary for him to observe where TM had gone. Evidence suggests that this is in fact the point where GZ began to return to his vehicle.
I question two points:
I don’t believe one is justified in attacking anybody just because they think they are being followed. That would allow someone to attack a person simply traveling the same direction - not rational.
Just because a 911 dispatcher tells me something, I am under no obligation to comply. Not complying with the directions of someone without actual knowledge of the situation in no way implicates a person of anything.
Zimmerman’s lawyer should make mincemeat of any prosecution strategy reliant on your two claims.
That is wrong. First, there is no evidence that Zimmerman "followed" Martin beyond the 15 seconds or so when he was still on the phone with police. Second, it is perfectly legal to follow somebody, and even to approach them and ask a question. That is not provocative or violent.
CCW need to understand this nuance of the law when using a gun. Why this law exists is to prevent armed people from saying or doing things that they normally will not do if unarmed.
What things do you mean? Things like calling the police about suspicious persons, rather than confronting them?
Example a hothead armed with a CCW Glock, goes to a bar and starts an argument with a bigger guy, which results in a fight, a fight he is losing and then he shoots his bigger and stronger attacker and claims self defense when the cops come. In a drawn out event, self defense is valid if the gunowner did not start the fight, and did everything to de escalate the situation before he had to shoot.
Nothing in your example above is even remotely related to any of the events at issue in this trial. But even in your example, starting an argument does not give the other person the right to punch you. You didn't start the fight. Even if you shove the person, if they respond by hitting you over the head with a brick, you have a right to defend yourself. Good grief, use common sense.
Jentel was a bad witness but she established one thing, TM noticed GZ was following him.
You may not be aware of this, but Zimmerman stated during his call to police that Martin was aware of him. Martin circled Zimmerman's car, checking him out. Jeantel established nothing. Her account, as much as can be credibly gleaned from it, completely supports Zimmerman's version of events.
Question to jury, is that legally considered a provocation?
No, it isn't, and that isn't a question for the jury. Juries decide questions of fact, not of opinion and not of law. It never ceases to amaze me how many people insist that Martin "had every right to walk through that neigborhood," but somehow Zimmerman didn't. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in Jeantel's account) that Zimmerman followed Martin. But even if he did, that is perfectly legal and not provocative, and not a justification for violence against Zimmerman. This is not complicated.
Non of the witnesses so far can account for the events after the cellphone call and neighbor who saw TM on top of GZ. What transpire can determine GZ guilt or innocence.
Not really. We have witness testimony that Martin was banging Zimmerman's head against concrete, which is clearly a life-threatening action. There is no evidence at all that Zimmerman did anything to precipitate this. None. And there is common sense reason to believe that Zimmerman did nothing (why call the police, then start a fight when you know they are minutes away?)
When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land.
As a matter of law, that is a ridiculous statement. First, he stopped following while still on the phone with police - that is on the recording. Second, the operator had no legal authority to "order" him not to follow. Third, it would have been perfectly legal and not provocative for him to follow, had he done so -but again, there is absolutely no evidence that he did.
GZ claim that he was confronted and attacked by TM while he was heading back to his SUV. Heading back to the SUV is considered a de escalating action. If TM felt threaten by GZ following him, he can attack if GZ was following him.
Are you out of your mind? You think that you can legally assault somebody because you think they are following you?
If GZ was heading back to his SUV, TM cannot follow and attack GZ for the perceived threat.
Sure, he can follow. He can't assault.
There no witness to back up GZ claimed he was attacked after he was heading for his SUV, and TM is dead and cannot tell his side of the story.
Except for every eyewitness so far, none of whom contradict a single detail of Zimmerman's account.
Unless the DA has evidence or witness that GZ lied, GZ is most likely to be off the hook. IMHO who is right or wrong depends on the back and forth between the two men.
So many people say this. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin (no evidence he did,) and even if Zimmerman verbally confronted Martin (no evidence he did,) and even if Zimmerman grabbed or shoved Martin (no evidence he did,) none of that obviates Zimmerman's right to self-defense when Martin punches him in the face and bashes his head against the concrete - which Martin indisputably did.
This trial is not so clear cut.
It's a lot more clear-cut than you seem to think. Let's not lose sight of the forest here: Martin had ample time to return home while out of Zimmerman's sight, while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police. His friend's "earwitness" testimony confirms that in fact, he did return home. The fight occurred fifty feet from Zimmerman's SUV. Martin obviously returned to that spot. Zimmerman screamed for help, Zimmerman is the only one with injuries, and Zimmerman did not pull the trigger until literally seconds before the officers he had called arrived on the scene. Use some common sense.
It was clearcut enough that police knew better than to charge him before this got politicized.
What law are you reading? Since when is looking at someone and watching what their doing while on the phone to 911 provoking a fight? That was GZ neighborhood and he can follow and even ask what someone is doing if he likes especially if he thinks they’re up to no good. You’re not allowed to attack someone for watching you, then refuse to retreat as they’re screaming for help. This is self defense.