Hey stupid...............did you not hear the 911 call MADE BY ZIMMERMAN? The 911 operator TOLD HIM NOT TO FOLLOW THE KID.
Zimmerman already fucked up.
Too bad you can't see that you retarded sperm slurping colon jousting cock smoker.
ABS, calm down. A dispatcher's advice is just that, advice, not a legal order that anyone must obey. The real first question, again, is did Zimmerman chase Martin when he apparently ran, without Martin having committed a crime? Even that is NOT criminal, but it IS poor judgement. THe main question, though, is what happened next. When Martin struck Zimmerman (it's reasonably conclusive that he did so) did he have sufficient LAWFUL cause to do so? Absent some major fact we don't know, that's what this case turns on (if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin had lawful cause to strike Zimmerman.)
That white guy stalked that kid and killed him. I dont care if the kid tried to defend himself...(like you would have done), he killed an unarmed kid screaming for help. How can YOU be in jeopardy when you are chasing someone?
I dont care if that kid victim here got in a hit because HE felt his life was in jeopardy. Zimmerman stalked, chased down and shot that kid.
PERIOD.
That's your opinion. Unfortunately, the facts as we know them at this point won't support a conviction. Let's take it out of the context of this particular case. Suppose I'm walking through your neighborhood. YOu think I look suspicious, so you follow me. I decide to run, and you chase me. You catch up to me, and ask what I'm doing. I ask why you chased me.YOu have not produced a weapon, nor have you touched me. Am I allowed, legally, to hit you, even just once? Of course I'm not! You haven't attacked me; you have not committed any crime (merely chasing me is not one); all you have done is ask a question. I may not like it, BUT, if I hit you at that point, and you haven't threatened me, put your hands on me, or produced a weapon of any kind (even if you have one concealed on you), then
I'm committing assault and battery, If you hit me then,
I have no legal recourse, because I started the fight!
Now, take it a step further. Let's say that when I hit you, I knocked you down. If I then jump on you, and continue to hit you, and I don't stop, you most certainly have the right to try to stop me. What if you can't; how far can you go to get me off of you?
The answer to that, depends on the law in that jurisdiction. Where I live, if you contributed to the situation in any way, Including chasing me, or even not running away from me when I became hostile, you can't pull a weapon (if you have one) and claim self-defense; that's the way the law reads. However, and it's a big HOWEVER, in FL, that is not what the law says.There, you don't have to avoid me, or run from me. So, if I continue to beat you the law says that If you reasonably believe I am not going to stop, and therefore I may seriously hurt you, you have the right to use whatever force is required to make me stop, including lethal force. Unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you attacked me in the first place, or that I stopped attacking you after I knocked you on your butt, you can shoot me, claim self-defense, and you'll walk.
Now, would I have done what Zimmerman did? No, when the kid ran, I'd have let him go; I haven't seen him commit any crime, after all. Chasing him is therefore poor judgement; not worth the risk of a confrontation. If a confrontation HAD occurred, I don't think I'd just shoot the kid, either, even if legally justified; the moment I got him off me, assuming I could, I'd have probably simply advised him I had a gun (and showed him, if he did not immediately back off when so informed). If he attempted to renew the attack at that point, THEN I would have shot him.( and THAT clearly IS self-defense).
