Its not a question of whether the 911 call is legally binding. Neighborhood Watch tells its volunteers to report only, not approach or pursue (which is also not legally binding). The question is if you’re a 17 year old kid minding your own business walking down the street and a grown man is making (baseless) accusations and then chases after you, do you feel on edge and threatened? Again, Zimmerman initiated the entire episode by trying to act in some hero capacity. The man made all of these rash judgments based on the fact that the kid was black walking down the street, there was no crime witnessed.
Zimmerman reported to dispatch that Martin was behaving suspiciously (read the transcript).
While I would have remained in the vehicle, Zimmerman chose not too. He was perfectly within his rights.
Initiated the entire episode? It’s a chain of events. Each individual step in the chain can alter culpability. Is the salesman of a hammer legally culpable if the person who bought it bashes someone on the head with it? Afterall, he started the entire episode. Remedial logic. Look into it.
If indeed Zimmerman lost Martin (as the transcript of the phone call shows, and is backed up by Martin telling his girlfriend that he’s lost Zimmerman) then how does Zimmerman initiate violence?
It seems very likely that Martin did assault Martin on his way back to his truck (which of course negates your claim that Martin felt threatened).
Finally, the burden of proof would not be on Zimmerman to prove his version of events. Rather, it would be on people like you to prove his guilt.
Game, set, match.
Get back to me when you have proof Zimmerman initiated any violence.
The shooting seems to have been in response to an unwarranted assault upon the survivor. That doesn't break any laws that I'm aware of, given the current facts that are known.
Stating that Zimmerman was looking for trouble is silly. Of course he was “looking for trouble”, but not in the sense you are insinuating. Seems pretty obvious to me he was looking out for his neighborhood and spotted someone suspicious. It seems that the incident would have ended without any altercation if the deceased had not decided to attack Mr. Zimmerman. I draw that conclusion upon the currently known facts. Pretty straightforward.
You imply that the deceased would be within HIS rights to assault Mr. Zimmerman simply because the man was suspicious and followed him or even possibly confronted him. If Mr. Zimmerman did not pointedly threaten him or attack him first, then the deceased had NO right to assault him, period.
Considering the known facts, Mr. Zimmerman was well within his rights to use whatever means were at his disposal to repel the assaulter.
The bad news is, I'm sure the authorities will bow to the pressure from the professional race baiters and others who want to appease the black community and possibly railroad this man to a prison sentence, possibly undeserved.
Interesting times, indeed.
this is a no win situation and a horrible event....but that doesn't mean murder was committed....