DropEmJayBird wrote:He then spends TWO MINUTES... TWO WHOLE MINUTES on the phone with the operator, talking about where he would meet the officer, He hangs up at 7:15.
The call log starts at 7:09:34 and is ended at 7:13:40. GZ gets out of his car at ~7:11:44.
I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but exactness is important in discussions like this; the cops arrived literally seconds after the shooting.
And there is still an 80 or 90 second gap between when GZ end the 911 call and when neighbors call to report the fight. So where you question what the victim was doing for a period of time, I'm more interested in what the perpetrator was doing. In my eyes, every single second GZ spent out of his car following TM was a second that made his ability to claim self defense less credible. Because I don't have any problem at all believing that those seconds built up the notion (from TMs perspective) that he was being pursued with ill intent. And if I think someone is following me with ill intent, the last thing I want to do is show them where I live.
MWB wrote: shmenguin wrote:
count2infinity wrote:May the record show that there is no law against seeing something suspicious and following to see what's going on. Keep in mind here, I am not arguing that Zimmerman should not be punished for his moronic actions, I'm just saying that the prosecution has not done enough to get a guilty verdict, IMO.
Yeah, pretty much.
That's a silly notion that simply leaving his car made it open season for violence without him being able to defend himself. If that were the case, we'd be living in a horrific society.
I don't think anyone is saying that him leaving the car made it open season for violence. The point is, he took a proactive decision in leaving his car instead of a passive decision of staying in his car. Making that proactive choice was the first step that led to the other things that happened. Up to the point that GZ left the car, it does not seem that TM made any proactive choice to engage GZ. That doesn't mean that GZ was looking for a fight or that he went with the intent to harm TM, it just means that he made a choice that led to the altercation; a choice that he could have avoided quite easily.
Yeah, no one is saying that it was 'open season for violence'. Just that the ability to claim self defense was seriously diminished.
count2infinity wrote:But that isn't illegal MWB, it doesn't make him guilty of murder.
Again, no one is saying it's illegal or indicative of guilt. But it changes the analysis of the fact pattern, considerably.
Kraftster wrote:From what source should new laws be derived?
Burning, talking shrubbery.
ffemtreed wrote:With the injuries that Zimmerman had, I don't doubt for a second he was in fear for his life when he fired that single shot.
Do I doubt he was getting beat up? Not at all. But his 'injuries' were mended with two Band-aids, and the investigating police detective didn't find GZ's story credible at all, refuting the claim of self defense, and recommended charging him with Manslaughter.
I've had worse 'injuries' playing hockey.
ffemtreed wrote:The guy walking down the street late at night looking into every car and trying every door handle would be a good example.
Are you saying this in relation to TM? Or just a general example? Because in the case at hand it was neither late at night, nor was TM peering into parked cars and trying the door handles.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, as a general rule. Just making the distinct point about this particular case.