In response to portfolio1's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious. If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.
Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious. But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street. C'mon. People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job. Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.
Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say. You would have to be in that position. I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent. He wasn't reported for merely walking home.
Reported by whom? Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid. why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion? It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.
Zimmerman committed no crime. It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen. It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him. It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.
Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business. It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law
All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.
No it doesn't "prove" that. The evidence is ambiguous. That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead. So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom? What did he attack him with? His words?
There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's. There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins. There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked. There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching.
Martin was shot through the heart. Whose injuries were more serious again? Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight. And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked." He had cuts. There very likely was a scuffle. But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it. Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot. I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening. Wouldn't you? I would hope so.
The only person who committed a crime here is Martin. Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter. He was the only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.
Martin wasn't convicted of anything. Innocent until proven guilty, no? Or does that only apply to Zimmerman? No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been. Can you deny he assaulted him.?
Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?
Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.
So. That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home. He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.
While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops. They weren't the ones in danger. I was, for simply doing my job.
Did you shoot them? No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun. One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me. I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.
Apparently, so was he.
Much of what you say is that Zimmerman has a "good track record" of acting like a police officer. But the fact of the matter is that the police have refused to allow him to become a policeman because he is not the sort of person the want. It actually reflects the very opposite of what you are claiming.
In any case:
1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house
2. Self appointed, large, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)
3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself
4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.
You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.
Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.
He wasn't trained as a law enforcement official (neither are security Guards) but he was trained by the police as a neighborhood watch captain and licensed to carry a gun, which involves additional training.
They have to go through this training to get the distinction.
They are not trained to pursue or interfere but they are trained to be the eyes and ears of the authorities.
They are also trained to report suspicious activity. Suspicious activity is anything that appears differently than what a normal person might do.
According to the officer that trained Zimmerman, something like walking around in the rain with no purpose, would be considered, suspicious or contrary to what a normal person would do in that situation.
Though it's not their job to pursue or follow, it is reasonable to follow to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person, at a distance. He had been recently praised for his watch, following a burglary subject, leading to his apprehension.
There is no evidence of him being a vigilant and confronting with guns a blazing or at all.
He did not get out of his car to confront after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow. He was already out of the car when he made that call.
There is no evidence to suggest that he was confrontational at all but merely following to not lose sight of him. He did express concern that he would get away and was likely trying to keep an eye on him.
I don't believe his intent was to kill anyone that day which is what you(some) are inferring.