And there's nothing illegal about following someone. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

I'm not saying Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I'm saying we don't have enough info in these articles to determine if he did or not, or if the POLICE did anything wrong by not arresting him.

pointless non-sequitur.
NOBODY IS SAYING it is illegal to follow someone...

The point is that if you ARE following someone, it's kind of hard to claim you are fearing for your life when you kill that person.
(and to help give you a clue, that bold-faced part is the REAL reason for wanting a jury to examine this case.)


These decisions should be made at trial.
It is NOT up to the police to evaluate such things.
ESPECIALLY when there is an obvious refutation to any attempt to claim: "in fear of great bodily harm or injury"

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Depends. Did the guy just physically attack Zimmerman when Zimmerman was talking to him? Or did Zimmerman initiate the attack himself? You all are acting like you know all the facts--you DON'T. It depends on a number of factors. there isn't enough info here to know.

Again, no one is saying a court shouldn't decide. But police can't just arrest someone unless they've broken the law. If they truly felt the guy acted in self-defense, they aren't SUPPOSED to arrest him.

You realize that analysis of facts is something that would occur at trial...



The police arrest someone when there is probable cause.
There is NO DISPUTE that Zimmerman killed the teen-ager.
That's probable cause.



I object whole-heartedly to using a cop's "feeling" on a violation of the law as justifiable.
If the guy acting in self-defense is undisputable, then I can understand leeway.

Given the circumstances of this crime and the gun-toting killer pursuing the unarmed victim, that negates any pretense to "undisputable".

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

'Fraid not. There are any number of scenarios where a "gun toting" person (concealed carry laws) can use their weapon to defend against a perpetrator who endangers them even if the perp has no gun himself. Again, there isn't enough info here for us to really know.

And again, cops HAVE to make judgment calls. Who's to say it WASN'T indisputable that this was self-defense? We don't know.

Do you understand the meaning of words...
It negates the PRETENSE to UNDISPUTABLE.

As I have previously laid out, if one FOLLOWS a person they claim to present a bodily threat, that OBVIOUSLY creates a logical dissonance.
It would OBVIOUSLY BE disputable because following somebody is NOT a rational act for one claiming fear of bodily harm.

Now, I'm not saying THE OUTCOME will always be a certain way.
I am talking about the status of DISPUTABLE, and thus should be a question for the courts.


Again, do you understand the meaning of words…
I am not saying that there is no case where a person could claim fear of bodily harm.
I am saying that such an act negates the PRETENSE of UNDISPUTABLE.

In other words, that conclusion is CLEARLY disputable…


Again, do you understand the meaning of words???
Look up “undisputable” and get back to me…

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

I never said there was. What I did say is that it calls into question the man's CLAIM that it was self defense when he was ****ing following the unarmed dude that was supposedly threatening his life, and THEN got out of the car and confronted him.

__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.

The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?

Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

[walks out of the room]

The Mayor: He's got a point.

--DIRTY HARRY, 1971

Now that is clearly NOT disputable.

that doesn't change the self-defense argument. You are bringing up this issue that Zimmerman followed the guy, as if it invalidates the claim of self-defense when the confrontation took place. It doesn't.

And apparently the cops believed otherwise, since they didn't arrest Zimmerman. So it follows here that we don't have all the information. (And it's not like that's uncommon in news articles!)

Based on what you've read in these limited "news" articles? You have got to be kidding me ...
How is it CLEARLY disputable? the only thing you've even put forth on that is that Zimmerman was following the guy. Big whoop.

Too bad this case isn't anything remotely close to being as cut and dry.