Whether Martin dabbled in the past in drugs has nothing do do with it. If Zimmerman said the person he was watching acted strange, like he was on drugs, and drugs were found in Martin's body, then that gives some credence to the fact that Zimmerman was watching Martin because he was acting strange (beyond walking around off the sidewalks), and not just because he was black. Whether Zimmerman had a legal right to kill Martin depends on Florida law, and the law in question is Florida Statutes Chapter 776, as amended by the Florida Stand Your Ground act of 2005.
We have to apply that law to the facts - and we don't know the facts yet. None of us do. For one thing, we're hearing contradictory 'facts.' But when it comes time to apply that law, one of the elements is Zimmerman's 'reasonable belief,' which will be determined by a reasonable man standard. As with similar standards, the appearance of the other party is relevant. In law school you're given the example of the gentle giant - a party who may not have an aggressive bone in his body but by virtue of his size would be viewed as a threat by a reasonable person who didn't know him. If - and we're not talking Trayvon here - a person chose to get a skull and crossbones and the words "kill 'em all" tattooed on his forehead, then in a fight it would likely be deemed more reasonable for you to be concerned about what the individual was going to do. If the individual said "I'm going to kill your *ss" as he beat on you, then that must be considered.
If Trayvon carried himself like a gangsta and wore certain type of tattoos, then a reasonable person may feel more threatened by him. But by a tattoo of him mother's name? Hardly. By a simple hoodie? Hardly.
Have you read Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.041 and applied them to all of the facts favorable to Zimmerman? Forget tattoos and hoodies. IF Martin punched Zimmerman and knocked him down, and IF Martin was beating on Zimmerman for the nearly one minute that somebody was beating on somebody suggested by the timing of call #3 on the Sanford website, with a fight for the gun, what's your analysis under the Florida Statutes?
Had you had followed the one to the girlfriend you would have learned that she has never been interviewed by the police.
When I read about her, I'd find out that she has refused to give an interview to the police, correct? That's different than the police not wanting to interview her, isn't it?
Okay ... now let's look at it from another angle. Martin's talking on the phone with his girl, minding his own business, walking back to the apartment. He notices someone watching him intently, slowly following him in his SUV. He's creeped out, decides to get off the main street and takes the cut - the walkway - that runs along the back of the buildings. He notices the guy gets out of his vehicle and follows after him. He's fearful, the creepy guy is now coming after him on foot. Would he be covered by Florida Statutes Chapter 776, as amended by the Florida Stand Your Ground act of 2005?
... one of the elements is Zimmerman's 'reasonable belief,' which will be determined by a reasonable man standard. As with similar standards, the appearance of the other party is relevant.
And what are the other elements? It seems to me that Martin would also have 'reasonable belief' just by the mere action of being followed in the dark, for some unknown reason, by a strange man.
Zimmerman's first action should have been to pull up along side Martin and say something like, "Yo, I'm with the Community Watch, can I help you out?" It would have detered a would-be robber who would have then been aware that he was being watched. If he had done that and Martin had a chance to explain where he was going, maybe Zimmerman would have given him a ride to the apartment.
Your correct, we don't know the facts yet but so many things have been presented as facts .. set in stone .. that just don't make sense.
A red flag for me was when Zimmerman agreed to meet the responding officers at the mailboxes and then told them to call him when they reached the complex so he could tell them where his location was. It indicated (to me at least) that Zimmerman had no intention of returning to his vehicle.
Some have told me that Zimmerman said that because he didn't know what street he was on. I say BS to that. It's been reported that he's patrolled the complex's three streets over and over again. He knew those streets like the back of his hand.
I have to continue this tomorrow when I'm not so tired ...
Good night.