Replies

Both parties were on their cell phones: Zimmerman to the police, and Martin to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman's call had ended before the confrontation.

The recording of Zimmerman indicates that he was actually confronted by Martin, not the other way around.

I haven't encountered this claim before - do you have a link? (It has been reported that Zimmerman's statement after the shooting stated that he was attacked on the way back to his vehicle.)

Martin's girlfriend provided an interview to ABC News. Her account also indicates that Martin confronted Zimmerman.

True.

"Following" someone is not a crime. The ~~911 operator~~ dispatcher had no authority to order Zimmerman to stop doing so. That requires a LEO on the scene.

"Being followed" is not a justification for the use of force in self-defense. That requires an explicit threat or an incontrovertible fear of bodily harm.

This is open to interpretation in the state of Florida. The stand your ground law only requires that you "feel threatened", not that there is necessarily an explicit threat. It could be argued that a kid raised in the "stranger danger" era might feel threatened by someone following him.

By your own account, you would have gone over to talk to someone that is following you. I would do the same. But, the evidence indicates that Martin subsequently escalated to the use of force (and at least in Texas, deadly force by striking Zimmerman in the head).

Zimmerman's statement indicates this. Martin's girlfriend's statement seems to contradict that. (If she is telling the truth about being on the phone when the fight started, I do find it odd that Martin would attempt to take a swing at someone while also trying to talk on the phone.) So far, I haven't been able to find any independent witness statements that indicate that they saw the beginning of the confrontation, only the middle/end.

Zimmerman's call had ended before the confrontation.

But not before Zimmerman said "he's coming over to check me out".

I haven't encountered this claim before - do you have a link? (It has been reported that Zimmerman's statement after the shooting stated that he was attacked on the way back to his vehicle.)

That's correct. Zimmerman had reported he was no longer following him and was going back to his vehicle. Martin then approached Zimmerman.

Have you listened to the entire, unedited 911 call from Zimmerman? It's about 4 minutes long.

I didn't have time to follow up to this earlier, but I did a bit of reading.

Have you actually read the law, or are you repeating someone's convoluted interpretation?

I read the law:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

#1 is the one that addresses "reasonable fear". But, the subsequent (a) and (b) prerequisites are associated with a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. It wouldn't apply to this situation.

#2 is a set of exclusions for #1. They wouldn't apply to this situation, either.

#3 is the one that applies:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I've highlighted the important part: meet force with force. Following someone is not force, and doesn't justify force (or deadly force) in response.

If you haven't read the entire law before now, I suggest you do so, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation (including mine).

"It could be argued that a kid raised in the "stranger danger" era might feel threatened by someone following him."

It could be argued (easily) that you, like Santorum, are a real threat and danger to truth and basic common sense.

Why, by ANY two-brain-cell reasoning, would ANYONE who feels impending acute immediate personal danger or threat--of ANY degree--instead of swiftly taking ANY of a number of other freely-open pathways AWAY from it--turn back TOWARD the "danger/threat" and TACKLE and PUMMEL INTO CONCRETE WITHOUT RELENT the retreated "scary and dangerous" adult male who supposedly caused the "stranger danger kid" to to be so SCARED CR@PLESS?

You and your laughable logic are an embarrassment to basic common sense, rational thought, and halfway intelligent reasoning.