“Do NWVs have the right to question strange people walking through their (the NWVs) neighborhoods? I’m not a lawyer, but I would think not.”
I’m not trying to call you out specifically, but your statement concerns me! What’s wrong with you people?
A citizen darn well has the right to question strange people walking through their neighborhood, and following them to see what they’re up to, and shooting them dead if they attack them (if the attack, which I am not certain of), or shooting them dead if their life is in jeopardy.
Zimmerman had the right to follow, to ignore the dispatchers suggestion or request, to question Trayvon (if he did). He did not have the right to restrain without clear evidence of criminal activity - and there has been nothing presented that would indicate that he tried to restrain Trayvon.
All the howling about him “disobeying a direct order”, following Trayvon and whatall is pure poppycock. Even the question of whether or not Don’t Back Down is applicable here is used horse fodder. Self defense is the question. If it can be shown that there was a reasonable possibility that Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life, then the law says he must be acquitted - provided that it cannot be shown that he did something illegal to cause the attack.
This means that Zimmerman should be acquitted if he did not illegally provoke the attack even if he did any of the following:
Followed Trayvon
Ignored the directions of the dispatcher
Questioned Trayvon
Told Trayvon to get off the street
Told Trayvon that he had called the police
Accused Trayvon of being a punk and a thief
IF - and the evidence we have indicates this occurred - Trayvon was beating Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk, then the shooting was justifiable self-defense.
Using his weapon was not a case of stupidly getting into a situation he had to shoot his way out of - it was a case of taking intelligent (and as it appears to have turned out) necessary precaution and protection with him in case he came across someone intent on doing the neighborhood harm and willing to do Zimmerman harm if thwarted in his original purpose. Apparently Zimmerman had sufficient training to leave the scene alive and his alleged assailant dead - which is, after all, the entire purpose of carrying a handgun in that situation in the first place (or should be). Any other purpose would be illegitimate and/or stupid.
From all indications, someone got himself well in over his head...but it wasn’t Zimmerman.
We don’t know what Zimmerman said to Martin. But if you’re out walking close to your home, do as many people as want to have the right to walk up to you and question what you’re doing? Or do you have the right to walk close to your neightborhood without being accosted by other people? Again, we don’t know if Zimmerman said anything to Martin. And whatever he might have said wouldn’t justify Martin attacking him and threatening to kill him if that’s what happened. Again, we have to wait for the evidence to emerge.
Under Florida SYG, immunity not acquittal.
Now that prosecutors have brought charges against George Zimmerman, you probably think that a jury is going to hear the facts and decide the case. Think again. Under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. That means no jury; no conviction; no jail. Think of it as a big “Get Out of Jail Free” card. It is worth repeating: Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not just provide an affirmative defense; it provides immunity. The distinction is extremely significant