Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
Saying that something is “not necessary” is not an order.
No logic there. Both an apple and an orange are round. To a degree.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Hattie here. The 911 call did appear to me to tell Zimmerman to cease and desist.
You are arguing over semantics.
Your “fact” is made up.
He was told “We don’t need you to do that”. His response was “OK”.
That isn’t “stop following the boy”
Even if the dispatcher said “stop following the boy” (highly unlikely, since the dispatcher didn’t know Martin was 17 years old at the moment) AFAIK it doesn’t constitute a lawful order from an LEO. Dispatchers cannot command you to not do something you have every legal right to do.
Have a nice day.
You’re hopeless.
“Contrary to your contention that “I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked,” I am pretty sure you could tell the difference between a beatdown by a person who is strong enough to break you, from one where the person is NOT strong enough to break you. If you can’t tell the difference, they you run the risk of failing the “reasonably” part of “reasonably apprehended risk of serious injury.””
That is a massive mistake. If a person is attacking you and they don’t have the strength to beat you down, you must, as the intended victim assume that the attacker has the ability to step up the attack using other means. That can include mace, stun gun, baton, knife, or gun.
With that being said, I’ve been in that exact situation. I was jumped in an attempted mugging. The mugger had the intention of knocking me out and taking my money. When I didn’t go down on the first blow, he resorted to his secondary means of attack. He stabbed me with a knife with the intent of killing me. I was able to draw my gun at which point he ran behind the building and out of site.
The person that attacked me was killed in a home invasion less than a year later. He killed the son of the home owner in that attack.
I’ve been down this road and I will won’t make the same mistakes again.
It is what the press is trying to Inflame.
Never let a crisis be wasted.
They are hoping for a repeat of London after a thug was shot.
I know.
Our populace is dumbed down enough that this will happen.
From the City Manager’s statement-
“...telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow....”
How does “you don’t need to do that” equate to an order to stop? And what does it matter, because the dispatcher can’t give a legal order? He also told the dispatcher, “Okay.”
You get it.
I also have been mugged, although not with those consequences.
Stay safe, FRiend.
Persecution complex.
I wouldn’t care if thousands of elected officials told me what the law they wrote was intended to do. It only matters what a court decides the actual law, as written states.
Thank God for that.
Are you advocating ignoring written law by popular acclaim and the whim of the author of those laws?
10 seconds of yelling when he had a fire arm...suggests that it was last resort.. not first.
Fight back against what? Reports are now indicating that he attacked Zimmerman from behind..........Wound on back of head, broken nose, grass stains on back of shirt.
So, if some chick is rubbing your crotch, you are in reasonable apprehension of serious personal injury? Or the attacker is literally your 5 year old, 30 pound nephew or something, who is pissed off at you?
I agree with you, if it is some able-bodied adult stranger undertaking the attack, it is reasonable to apprehend risk of serious personal injury. My point was just that in the entire spectrum of unwelcome contact, there are contacts where it is UNreasonable to apprehend serious personal injury. You contend there is no such thing. Well, if you kill that chick who is lustfully rubbing your crotch, or your 5 year old nephew, you are probably in trouble with the law.
“.....that you cannot pursue someone and then claim stand your ground as a defense....”
************************************************
I don’t believe I’ve read anywhere that Zimmerman will claim “stand your ground” as a defense should any action be brought against him. That wouldn’t be likely to match the facts on the ground. It would be difficult for me to visualize “STANDING my ground” if I wasn’t standing but was instead laying on the ground screaming for help with someone on top of me pummeling me. In such a situation you have basically two choices—allow yourself to be beat (possibly to death) or defend yourself.
Me? I’d defend myself. You? I don’t care.
I’ll answer that.
Yes, she is.
I’m glad you survived.
No, just serious fun!
Trying to step up the time table .
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.