At least on this forum, there has been discussion (though little agreement) on the rights and/or obligations we have to obey 911 dispatchers, follow suspicious people, and shoot unarmed aggressors, and the applicability of the "stand your ground" law. I'm sure the New Black Panthers and anti-gun groups are having similar thoughtful discussions.
And all of those discussions have nothing to do with a corrupt government!
This case has little to do with corrupt government, either. I think you want the Obamacare thread.
Zimmerman was told by authorities to not pursue. He did his part by contacting police. That is where this entire thing SHOULD HAVE ended. But, the power hungry, authoritative, militant mindset of this nut job just couldn't let it go. So he pursues and a 17 year old kid ends up dead. Whether he had stolen jewelry on him or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. The guy was given specific instructions by authorities to not pursue. Zimmerman was the cause of the confrontation that lead to him shooting this kid. We can get caught up in semantics all day. Whether he's a "murderer" by the legal definition or this was manslaughter or whatever. But Zimmerman needs to be locked up for the rest of his life, IMO.
Sure we can get caught up in semantics, but it's important because someone's life is at stake. Zimmerman had no obligation to follow those "instructions" because the statement "We don't need you to do that" by a 911 dispatcher is not a lawful order. Waiting for the police to do something is useless much of the time, and no one has a duty to sit around letting things happen so they can tell the cops what happened after the fact, even if the dispatcher tells them to.
I'll respond to that. We still have to show responsible restraint in making a judgement about all this. At the very least Zimmerman showed poor judgement more than once. Maybe not a cold blooded, pre meditated murder, but the question I asked in my last post still stands. Everyone is quick to bring up the stand your ground law in regards to Zimmermann, but no one is willing to apply it to Martin. How come? If some man that was not a cop followed me in the night and kept questioning me, then got out of his car and followed me, yeah that would be seen as a threat to my personal safety to me, a big one. If Martin had any reason to believe that Zimmerman meant harm to him in anyway, he had a right to defend himself. Is there evidence that Zimmerman's life was in danger? Unless there is, he was in no way justified in using deadly force. Of course all this is highly in question.
So the 911 dispatcher should have been more clear in the instructions? Had the dispatcher been more clear, then would he have been obligated to obey? Again this goes back to why Zimmerman followed him in the first place. Are we going allow people to follow people like that because of some kind of hunch they have? What was it about Martin that drew suspicion in the first place?
If it is against the law for me to shoot a man walking away from my house AFTER he's robbed me then I suspect Zimmerman had some form of a legal obligation to not continue to pursue Martin, no matter if the 911 dispatcher had an explicit or implicit legal authority or not. Unfortunately, using the "waiting on police to do something is useless..." reason doesn't legally justify what he did. By his actions it set in play a chain of events that never should have happened and though you're right. There is a life currently at stake. But unfortunately there is one that isn't at stake anymore because of Zimmerman's actions.
Having your skull pounded against pavement meets both criteria.
Do you even have a clue about what I am talking about!!??
I was heavily in favor of Zimmerman's guilt, I'll admit it; but, from the beginning, it was mostly because he got out of his car. Now, when all of this evidence finally comes out, it may be it wouldn't have mattered whether he got out or not (but I doubt that).
Yes. We absolutely ARE going to allow people to follow people and ask them questions. Martin was an unknown person looking to Zimmerman like he didn't belong, walking around, looking at houses in a neighborhood with a recent history of burglary. It's not too much for Zimmerman to ask for an explanation, though Martin had no obligation to provide it to him. However, Martin did have an obligation not to attack, violation of which led directly to his death.
Following someone asking them questions is not the same as opening fire, regardless of the legal authority of the 911 dispatcher. Also, robbery is one of the crimes in which self-defense using deadly force is legally, if not morally, justified in Florida.
Having your skull pounded against pavement meets both criteria.
It is not clear that Zimmerman did not do what the 911 operator asked him to do. On the 911 call, the operator asks him if he is following him. Zimmerman responds that he is, the operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responds, "Ok."
Even if we accept all your premises, explain how the same does not apply to Martin.
Zimmerman wasn't beating Martin's head on the ground, and Martin didn't kill Zimmerman in self-defense.
1. Your link omits an eyewitness account corroborating Zimmerman's account.
Not sure where you are coming from here, but if Martin "attacked" first, then nothing else matters. That's assault. If he dies from actions he instigated, oh well....and nothing, NOTHING, justifies attacking another person unless they have assaulted you first (self defense) or you are in fear of great bodily harm or death. There a lot of facts here that will come to light soon (I hope), then we will have a better idea of what happened. But as yet there hasn't been any mention by anyone of Zimmerman attacking Martin first...just "following" is not justification.[/QUOTE]
