Posted on 07/22/2013 10:14:41 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
I’d call it a “suggestion” at best. No warning or was given to Zimmerman as to what might happen if he followed Martin. If someone were to hold out a plate of chocolates to you and you asked “Are you offering me some chocolate?” and the person responded “yes”, if you said “you don’t need to do that,” it wouldn’t be considered “advice” but more like a suggestion that it isn’t necessary.
I think you have it right. Zimmerman wanted to see where Trayvon was going. When told to stand down, he complied and headed back to his car. Trayvon ambushed him.
I still contend that Zimmerman should have remained in the car in the first place.
It’s a fair point.
It’s where I’m conflicted as well. I’m uncomfortable about the fact that the point of necessary activism by regular, otherwise law-abiding citizens has come.
And mind you, Zimmerman was within the law here.
Still, protection of anything implies risk. According to recent precedent, being armed is not just a right, but a responsibility.
I’m going to excerpt some commentary about Warren vs. DC:
“Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]”
Under Warren, Zimmerman was basically providing the protection the police aren’t obligated to provide.
That was the point that Mark O’ dramatized during his defense summation when he asked for quiet for a full four minutes out of the three hours’ time he had allotted to speak. 110 yards is 1/4 of the 440 yards in a quarter mile. So it’s 1/16 of a mile, and normal walking pace is 3 mph or 20 minutes per mile. So at a normal walking pace it would take 20/16 = 1 and a quarter minutes to walk 110 yards. But of course walking home - let alone running home like a frightened kid - was the furthest thing from Trayvon’s mind. Well, except for calling 911 on the cell phone he was carrying . . .
Well stated.
With the threat of a federal and civil prosecution hanging over his head, along with very real death threats abounding. . .he may be out of jail, and rightfully so, but he is hardly free in his person.
“OK, he gave his last name, but did he follow the Dispatcher’s advise not to follow Trayvon or not?”
Did you read the transcript?
Did you listen to the tape?
1) Your question is irrelevant.
2) A dispatcher is not a police officer and is not empowered to issue orders.
Did you miss the trial?
That is a scary count. . .after all, the case was made up and had no probable cause of facts to back it up, but yet we have brain-dead jurors willing to vote to convict because he MUST have done something wrong if he shot someone.
Just my opinion, of course.
“but, as a licensed concealed weapon carrier, he has a responsibility to execute good judgement.”
He did. . .he didn’t immediately shoot the thug-gansta-wanna-be. He took one heck of a beating before he shot the piece of excrement.
“I don’t think getting out of his car and following a suspicious looking person in the dark, by himself, was good judgement.”
Your choice, sincerely, but I prefer a neighbor that is looking out for me and the neighborhood. . .especially since I travel a lot and the wife is at home alone. . .and if some thug-gansta-wanna-be is seen skulking around the neighborhood and going out of sight. . .I’d want my neighbors to be engaged and aware and looking out for each other.
But then again, if you are my neighbor I will defer and not get involved, not even call the police (according to many posters here-”Never speak to the police”).
Cheers.
RE: but, as a licensed concealed weapon carrier, he has a responsibility to execute good judgement.
Put yourself in Zimmerman’s position... here you are going back to your car after trailing Trayvon and then he comes back after you and then beats you and smashes your head to the ground ( EVIDENCE: Broken, bloody nose and bloody head as corroborated by the medical examiner).
You cry for help with a loud voice but nobody comes, with Trayvon relentlessly pounding. Are you going to let him continue to pound you to death, or use whatever weapon you have to defend yourself?
So, the question to you is this -— why is using the gun that he had bad judgment? And if so, what would he (or you) have done under the circumstances?
I think the judge went out of her way to make the instructions to the jury as confusing as possible. The vote changed after they went back and made the judge clarify some things.
Not every risky or foolhardy action is a victory for civil rights.
Good point. Hadn’t thought of it that way.
In my opinion, George’s actions were not foolhardy and were a victory for civil rights.
The left is trying very hard to criminalize the natural right, the civil right, of self defense.
Therefore, George won a civil rights victory for all of us.
I have no problem with Zimmerman using the gun to stop Trayvon. He had no choice.
I return to his decision to follow the perp on foot. Zimmerman knows that he can’t fight, so, should he be attacked, his only means of defending himself would be the weapon.
He would not have pursued Trayvon had he not had the weapon, therefore, he should not have pursued Trayvon just because he had a weapon.
Trayvon was not in the act of harming anyone at the time. At worst, he was casing the neighborhood for a future burglary, but we can’t be sure of that.
Zimmerman called the police. He should have waited in his vehicle for them to arrive. In the meantime, had Trayvon attacked someone else, George could have intervened. But he should have waited.
That’s all he did wrong. I don’t blame him for shooting his attacker. But he did put himself in a bad situation.
Spot on. You nailed it. Well done.
“He would not have pursued Trayvon had he not had the weapon, therefore, he should not have pursued Trayvon just because he had a weapon.”
There is no proof of that statement, no fact to back it up.
So, you feel concealed weapons permit holders only carry because they can’t fight? Interesting.
In fact, concealed carry holders are inclined to avoid confrontations because they are armed. Someone on a thread a week or so ago provided links to studies to show this as fact. Don’t have it to hand.
As to the rest of your post. . .I refer you to the daily threads by Uncle Chip and the facts expressed on the stand and introduced into evidence that simply prove you wrong.
Have a nice day.
I think you misrepresented or misunderstood my point. But it’s no big deal, I think we mostly agree that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin. I just personally feel that, based on what we now know about Zimmerman’s fighting prowess, he made a poor decision to follow after him by himself. And how did he know that Trayvon wasn’t himself packing. The best course of action was for him to call the police and wait safely in his vehicle until they arrived.
Would I have followed Trayvon? Probably. I can handle myself. But Zimmerman most certainly cannot. He’d been taking MMA classes for 18 months and wasn’t allowed in the ring. A skinny 17 year-old beat his ass. That’s all the proof I need that he probably should have stayed put.
I don’t believe that CCW’s are in anyway related to fighting ability. But a CCW isn’t a license to become a badass.
I don’t say Zimmerman was wrong. I think he was foolish for needlessly putting himself in danger. Glad he was able to defend himself, sad that he became the victim of a mob-rule politics.
I get your point.
In that case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p8_FOQ7-P30&t=141
Cheers.
GZ had done this dozens of times before, apparently without incident.
It's Monday morning quarterbacking to call it bad judgment. You have the benefit of hindsight. GZ, at the moment he got out of his car --to try to get a better location of the suspicious person, so he could report that location to the dispatcher-- had no idea he would later be sucker punched and beaten within an inch of his life.
And btw, if there is anyone who still claims that the beating GZ received from St Skittles didn't have the capacity to become fatal in short course, check out this similar case:
Teen accused in El Paso police officer's death charged with capital murder
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.