Posted on 03/20/2012 9:36:58 PM PDT by marktwain
Listen to the tape - it’s pretty clear that the 911 operator did not want Zimmerman following Martin. “We don’t need you to do that” is a pretty weak way of saying it, but 911 operators are trained to *not* be confrontational. It’s basically customer-service speak for “don’t do that”
Zimmerman told the 911 operator that he wasn’t going to let Martin GET AWAY. This implies Zimmerman was going after Martin and Martin was trying to get away, presumably to his father’s house just down the street.
I don’t know how you can read Martin coming in for the attack in that call.
Let's try that again:
Beyond that, Zimmerman could have lost his "self-defense" argument under Florida law even if he didn't initiate physical contact. First, because Assault is defined under Florida law as "unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent." You can commit assault without making physical contact.
Also, as I mentioned above, you can lose your "self-defense" defense even if you don't commit a crime, if you "provoke" the use of force against yourself.
You’ll need to check with your own psychiatrist. Mine said “stand your ground” gives you the right to kill them if they draw a picture of a gun in your presence ~ but I don’t really trust him ~ if you know what I mean.
That says something completely different.
That's from Zimmerman ~ he's complaining that Martin is running away.
I agree and I also made that point. You don’t need to initiate aggressive contact by punching somebody out.
It can be done by yelling at somebody and running up to them in an aggressive manner. Since Martin didn’t know who this guy was, it’s reasonable for him to assume he’s in possible danger and has the right to react under that assumption.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a guy, who was drunk, come around the counter and into private store space where I was. He had no reason to be behind the counter, other than the fact he couldn’t get to me otherwise. I grabbed the phone and went into him, I made the initial physical contact. He’s been charged with assault.
He told the 911 operator that Martin wasn’t going to get away.
Call me crazy, but the message that I get is that Martin isn’t going to get away. Unless Zimmerman is a strong enough telekinetic to mentally lift Martin and hold him into place, Zimmerman is going to have an physical encounter with Martin in an attempt to apprehend him.
That says something completely different.
All Zimmerman's injuries show is that there was a physical altercation. The existence of injuries do not say anything about who initiated the conduct. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, and attacked or provoked Martin, then Zimmerman is not entitled to assert a "self-defense" defense/immunity.
Can we be 100% certain who started what? No. Certainly not enough here for the local DA to bring charges from the initial investigation.
That should say a lot as well.
Martin was trying to get away, that is by Zimmerman’s own words. Do you know of any situation where a person, when there is potential for physical conflict, who is trying to get away can be considered the aggressor?
I’m Zimmerman and you’re Martin. I have told the 911 operator that I am suspicious of you, you are trying to get away and I am not going to let you get away. How have you become the aggressor in this situation?
Do you know of any situation where a person, when there is potential for physical conflict, who is trying to get away can be considered the aggressor?Yes, when he turns around and attacks the other person.
I’m Zimmerman and you’re Martin. I have told the 911 operator that I am suspicious of you, you are trying to get away and I am not going to let you get away. How have you become the aggressor in this situation? Neither is an aggressor in your statement. Until one of them does something to the other, physical or intimidating, then neither is an aggressor.
“Yes, when he turns around and attacks the other person.”
As somebody has pointed out, under Florida law, the person who strikes first is not necessarily considered the aggressor. It’s the person who is initiating contact and we know that was Zimmerman. His call explicitly says that he’s going to make contact, because Martin is trying to get away.
“Neither is an aggressor in your statement. Until one of them does something to the other, physical or intimidating, then neither is an aggressor.”
Actually, under Florida law, you are incorrect. By getting out of his vehicle and going after Martin, we know that Zimmerman initiated contact.
If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle or kept his distance, we know by Martin’s behaviour, that he was trying to get away, he would have kept trying to get away, which means there would have been no physical contact.
"unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Zimmerman getting out of his car is not an act of violence nor is it a threat or an act that creates well-founded fear.
You’d be correct if Zimmerman kept himself in position of observation only.
Zimmerman himself said that he was going to go after Martin. Those are Zimmerman’s own words. I take the man at his word on that point. I can only assume that Zimmerman went after Martin, as he said he would.
Martin, not doing anything unlawfully and not knowing who Zimmerman is, could only assume that he was threatened by Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had no reason to approach Martin at all.
Are you going to ignore Zimmerman’s call to the operator that Martin was trying to get away Zimmerman wasn’t going to allow that to happen? I don’t know how you can possibly interpret aggression, on the part of Martin, from that.
As I said, only a stupid person would wait to see what another person acting irrational wants, especially if there’s the possibility the irrational person might be armed.
Seriously, if you weren’t armed and the other person might be, and was acting irrational because you don’t know who this person is, are you really going to wait and see what this person wants? Are you really going to take a chance and see if this person doesn’t mean you harm?
Are you really going to do that?
You’ll need to check with your own psychiatrist. Mine said “stand your ground” gives you the right to kill them if they draw a picture of a gun in your presence ~ but I don’t really trust him ~ if you know what I mean.
*********************************************************
LOL I know what you mean, all my kids (at least the males) would not have survived early childhood if I followed his/her advice and acted upon it.
What this whole Zimmerman incident shows is the NEED for good concealed carry training BEFORE beginning to carry. SOME 2nd amendment advocates say that being required to get a permit to carry infringes upon 2nd amendment rights. I don’t have a problem with a requirement to get a permit as long as it is not onerous and is on a “shall issue” basis. I also think that requiring some limited training to get the permit is OK (and is actually a good idea) under the “well-regulated” concept.
I live in the People’s Republic of Maryland where (at the moment) it is next to impossible to get a carry permit. That is changing as a result of pending litigation. Anticipating a successful conclusion to that litigation, I’ve started researching what would be the best carry gun for me, subscribed to Conceal Carry (www.usconcealedcarry.com) magazine and plan to enroll in good concealed carry training. And I’m planning to take that training even though I have years of military experience and even if it ends up not being a requirement in Maryland.
I don’t know what the situation in Florida is, but if Zimmerman had such training, it went completely over his head.
Seriously, if you weren’t armed and the other person might be, and was acting irrational because you don’t know who this person is, are you really going to wait and see what this person wants? Are you really going to take a chance and see if this person doesn’t mean you harm?Happens all the time and I have never had to defend myself. Why do you say Zimmerman was acting irrational, why lie?
My thoughts are to look at it from a different standpoint. What if it were a lady walking home from the store. Car starts following her. Car then pulls over and guy get’s out telling her to stop. She doesn’t know who He is. Wouldn’t she have the right to attack said guy?
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.