In Reply: "Pretending to be "Sheriff Zimmerman" wasn't against the law..." Trayvon Martin

In reply to the following comment at: Fox Tampa breaks silence on Trayvon shooting witness - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

Patrick Klinedinst commented: "Last time i checked 911 dispatchers have no legal authority. They are not LEO's"
---

Funny that everyone gives that same response, like it's on the talking point list, or something...

I never suggested that the dispatcher's words were a command that carried the force of law... I said they were the words of a person trained to talk to people who find themselves in dangerous, adrenaline-charged situations, and that anyone with the brains God gave 'em would've followed the dispatcher's suggestion. (Even police officers themselves don't charge in and confront folks they believe to be up to no good without back-up, if they can avoid doing so.) I find it awful hard to believe that there are more'n a handful of law enforcement professionals that would advise a civilian to do what Zimmerman did, or defend his actions as smart or safe after the fact. No, pretending to be sheriff Zimmerman against the advice of the dispatcher probably wasn't against the law. But it wasn't smart, and it resulted in the fight (no matter which one of 'em laid hands on the other first, a fact that no witness except Zimmerman is able testify to, given that Martin is no longer with us) and the death of Trayvon Martin.

In Reply: "If George Zimmerman had just stayed in his car and waited for the responding officers, both he and Trayvon Martin would be home with their families..."

In reply to the following comment at Fox Tampa breaks silence on Trayvon shooting witness - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

Bill Logan commented:
"NO gun was INTRODUCED......Z was on the ground being relentlessly PUMMELED per EYE witness.......tra von HAD THE LEGAL DUTY to STOP the ATTACK once the other party becomes defensless....HE DID NOT and was subsequently in the midst of an assault and battery."
---

Obviously, the other party (Zimmerman) wasn't defenseless enough... He was fully able to shoot and kill Martin. Trayvon Martin should've been armed (so he could "stand his ground" and defend himself against the creepy stranger who was following him) or he should've knocked that man clean out, so he was no longer in danger of bodily harm (like being shot, fer'instance.) Once you commit to physically defending yourself against someone you believe intends to grievously harm you, you don't stop until you're sure your attacker is incapacitated enough so that s/he can no longer do so. (If George Zimmerman took any classes on using his weapon for self-defense, he was likely taught the same. Once you've committed to using your weapon to defend yourself, you don't shoot to wound your assailant.)

My take is that they were both innocent, but each believed the other guy was dangerous, based on actions (and maybe a touch of distrust for someone ethnically different from them, as well)... If Zimmerman had just stayed in his car and waited for the responding officers like he was instructed to do, neither man would've been in any danger from the other or suffered any injuries, and both would be home with their families today.

In Reply: "I don't know what the outcome ought to be, but George Zimmerman ought to be tried before a jury of his peers for killing Trayvon Martin."

In reply to the following comment at Fox Tampa breaks silence on Trayvon shooting witness - Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

John Lucier posted:

"Yet, this older, aggressive, paranoid, and ARMED male, who was told to remain in his car, had the right to kill this young man? That's what you're all saying"

Yet this young, physically fit member of a football team had the right to assault a fat 35 year old man, pin him on the ground and beat him bloody for asking him what he was doing?

We don't know what transpired in certain passages of time but I don't think you're clear on the law here.

He created the outcome? There were certain lines crossed, we're not sure by whom. It was wrong for Zimmerman to "stalk" Martin though probably not illegal. It was wrong for him to stop and approach Martin, though probably not illegal. Now we come to the legality part- who assaulted whom first? it's not clear and I don't think we have any witnesses to call on for that. They can be yelling N***** and H**** P********* at each others' faces all day, no laws are broken.

SO if all we have is the eyewitness who claims Zimmerman is getting beat by Martin, substantiated by the reports by police about the grass stains and blood on Zimmerman, everything up to that point is either not illegal (by Zimmerman) OR is complete speculation. THEREFORE for legal purposes we begin with Martin assaulting Zimmerman, Zimmerman legally justified in both carrying concealed weapon, and using it in self defense under Florida law.

Zimmerman shouldn't be charged and if he is he'll be acquitted. (based on the facts we have in front of us now.) That doesn't mean he's not a complete dick BTW who probably should have gotten the beating Martin was giving him long ago. The law won't care about that.
---

The fact that Martin was apparently winning at the time "John" (the eyewitness) saw them in no way proves that Martin started the fight, nor does the fact that Zimmerman was losing justify his shooting Martin (especially if it was Zimmerman who was the first to lay hands on the other.)

There is little argument that it was Zimmerman who sought out and confronted Martin, and I wouldn't be surprised that Martin would make an awful credible argument that he feared for his life and was defending himself as best as he was able, against some creepy stranger with a gun in his waistband who was following him, were he not dead and unable to tell his side of the story as effectively as Zimmerman was able to tell his...

I don't know for sure what the outcome ought to be, but there's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman ought to be tried before a jury of his peers for killing Trayvon Martin. Both sides deserve to have their day in court.