I didn't say it mattered with the law. I merely stated objectively how others felt, and explained why they felt it was better and simpler without that law in place hypothetically. Good grief, read before just being belligerent.
So it was a strawman then? I didn't actually read your argument. I am just being belligerent?
Who feels that?
''We don't need you to do that'' is as good as saying we don't require your services, in other more blunt words, stop. I never said it was a crime, I'm again, merely stating that people view it as Zimmerman's fault because he was told to not follow Trayvon in not-so-ambiguous terms. If he hadn't acted as a self appointed crime fighter, the whole scuffle would not ensue, seeing that Trayvon was already running away.
It is not relevant if they told him to stop or not. It simply doesn't matter. Even if he did act as a "Self appointed crime fighter", following a criminal is not illegal. Being followed by an armed man may call for a call to the police and running away, but you could hardly call it ok for him to go straight to attacking the armed man, so how is it Zimmerman fault, that is if Zimmerman's account is correct?
And you have to hand it to Martin. He must have been really confident in himself, believing that he can outrun a car and fight an unarmed man, if Zimmerman is telling the truth. If Martin is telling the truth you are a necromancer.
So it was a strawman then? I didn't actually read your argument. I am just being belligerent?
Who feels that?
Various people I have came across, and most likely Raven whom your question was directed towards. And yes, I do feel you're overtly belligerent when I'm playing Devil's advocate.
It is not relevant if they told him to stop or not. It simply doesn't matter. Even if he did act as a "Self appointed crime fighter", following a criminal is not illegal. Being followed by an armed man may call for a call to the police and running away, but you could hardly call it ok for him to go straight to attacking the armed man, so how is it Zimmerman fault, that is if Zimmerman's account is correct?
Legally it might not. I'm not a lawyer. Again, I'm playin DA in stating the other side of the coin, the side that Martin's supporters are taking. He followed Martin to apprehend/confront him when Martin did nothing wrong, starting a chain of events that could have been prevented if it wasn't for his moment of want to be a vigilante. Whether that led to Martin being cornered and fighting back, or Zimmerman being threatened has not been clarified.
Also, what else should Martin have done other than run when he sees a man with a gun come to him? Walk? Also, what unarmed man? Zimmerman was armed.
Various people I have came across, and most likely Raven whom your question was directed towards. And yes, I do feel you're overtly belligerent when I'm playing Devil's advocate.
You got a lot out of one paragraph of a guy who isn't coming back.
Aren't I always overtly belligerent?
Legally it might not. I'm not a lawyer. Again, I'm playin DA in stating the other side of the coin, the side that Martin's supporters are taking. He followed Martin to apprehend/confront him when Martin did nothing wrong, starting a chain of events that could have been prevented if it wasn't for his moment of want to be a vigilante. Whether that led to Martin being cornered and fighting back, or Zimmerman being threatened has not been clarified.
That is like saying it was the girl's fault she got *****, because she was wearing a short skirt. It is insane and blaming the victim, assuming Martin was not the victim. Zimmerman was completely in the law with his actions (Except possibly the shooting, since we really don't' know what happened), so blaming the event on him is insane.
Also, what else should Martin have done other than run when he sees a man with a gun come to him? Walk? Also, what unarmed man? Zimmerman was armed.
Running makes since. Trying to fight an armed man doesn't. I suppose I would, personally, run and hide while calling the police instead of my girlfriend.
Ah small logistics mistake, I meant to make the words go in the correct order "He thought he could take an armed man unarmed" or something to that effect.
You got a lot out of one paragraph of a guy who isn't coming back.
Aren't I always overtly belligerent?
It's a common view his supporters hold.
Yes, so?
That is like saying it was the girl's fault she got *****, because she was wearing a short skirt. It is insane and blaming the victim, assuming Martin was not the victim. Zimmerman was completely in the law with his actions (Except possibly the shooting, since we really don't' know what happened), so blaming the event on him is insane.
We aren't blaming him for acting in self-defense, but blaming him for pursuing and causing the first out of the chain of events.
Trying to fight an armed man doesn't. I suppose I would, personally, run and hide while calling the police instead of my girlfriend.
We aren't blaming him for acting in self-defense, but blaming him for pursuing and causing the first out of the chain of events.
So your not blaming the girl for getting *****, but for leaving the house with a short skirt that lead to her ****?
It all depends on who acted first.
No it doesn't. If you see an armed man fallowing you, you run and call the cops. You don't attack him. Unless I don't get what you are saying?
Then charge him for harassment or disorderly conduct instead.
For what? Following someone who, if Zimmerman's account is correct, is an insane and violent criminal? No sane man attacks an armed man, and a violent man usually doesn't attack anyone.
*Shrugs*. Why would he assault Zimmerman anyway? I am just assuming that mentally stable....What is the opposite of a criminal? That a mentally stable law abiding citizen isn't going to assault an armed man?
It has always been the view of his supporters and the newspapers supportin him.
Arguing by analogies is not always logical because an analogy is not the issue however similar it seems. Furthermore, Zimmerman can be blamed if he was the one cornering Trayvon and if he attacked Trayvon. So yes, we can blame him for being the aggressor if he attacks first because he perpetuated it even as Trayvon ran off.
I said if Zimmerman cornered him, leaving him no choice but to fight him off. Trayvon did run off but Zimmerman pursued him.
I'd guess it was that 'fight or flight' reaction. He saw the gun, perceived it as a threat at close range, and was wired to fight.
Except he was already running. And apparently talking to his girlfriend. So why wouldn't you, I don't know, call the cops? And Zimmerman's story puts him going back to the car when Martin attacked him, if I remember correctly, after he ran away, so it isn't a fight or flight reaction unless he decided after running to come back and fight for some reason.
No in the phone call there is the clear sound of Zimmerman unbuckling his buckle, getting out, then walking off to find Trayvon when Trayvon had ran off.
No in the phone call there is the clear sound of Zimmerman unbuckling his buckle, getting out, then walking off to find Trayvon when Trayvon had ran off.
Yep....Which is why he was walking back to the car when it happened, according to him. If I remember correctly.
Considering the fact that Zimmerman's account had him attacked by Martin, you know, outside of the car....
