bob wrote:So, GZ was "wasn't" following TM, but to the extent that he "was" following TM he was following the instructions of a 911 dispatcher...
bob wrote:...in a way perhaps somewhat analogous to the undercover officer being present in a bar in plain clothes?
Look, whether GZ followed TM is irrelevant. The moment TM attacked GZ, and GZ reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily injury, GZ was justified in using lethal force. Its really as simple as that. In fact, in virtually every common law country, this has been the law for many, many years.
You want to claim that GZ was following TM, and some want to go further and assert that GZ was hunting TM and that GZ was out for blood. But, none of the facts that we know support that line of thinking.
Some of you want to argue that GZ was at fault for having a gun. He was not at fault for having a gun. He has a valid license to carry. Some of you want to argue that GZ took a gun to a fist fight. But, you don't have any clue as to why GZ carried the gun. In fact, GZ purchased the gun and got himself properly licensed to carry the same at the recommendation of an animal control officer. There is a pit bull running free in the community and GZ and many others in the community had been menaced by this dog on multiple occasions. The animal control officers had been called to the community many times, and GZ had considered buying pepper spray for use if needed against the dog. The officer advised GZ that pepper spray would take several moments to take effect and that the dog could attack before the spray worked. It was the officer who advised GZ to get a gun. The narrative that GZ wanted to have a gun so as to play cop is false.
bob wrote:Following someone around in a dark neighbourhood "might" be threatening enough to justify a punch in the face. I don't think so really but then again I wasn't there. What I do know is that in a lot of places you'd be lucky to escape with just a punch in the face.
bob... with all due respect, as you are and have always been one of my favorite posters and people... that is simply nonsense. GZ was acting as a neighborhood watch. He was coordinating his watch with the 911 dispatcher and the cops. The 911 call is over 4 minutes long. If TM actually felt threatened by a short guy watching him, TM should have gone right home to his father's house. The more than 4 minutes time that elapsed would have been plenty of time for poor little TM to get himself home. That isn't what happened. We know that TM initiated the confrontation with GZ. We know that a fight ensued. We do not know who started the physical altercation. But, we know that TM was on top of GZ and was punching GZ in the face and was repeatedly slamming GZ's head off the hard concrete. We have at least one eye witness to this, and we have injuries to GZ that are consistent with this account. We have a photo of the back of GZ's bloody head that has been verified as being taken three minutes after the fight ended. We have police statements and EMT personnel statements regarding GZ's injuries. The person who took the photo of GZ's bloody head has stated that he saw clear powder stains on TM's hoodie.
Those are the facts that are available to us.
I don't believe that GZ was following TM, other than to the extent that the 911 dispatcher asked GZ to keep a watch on TM and tell the 911 dispatcher what TM was doing... when the 911 dispatcher wondered if GZ was following TM, the dispatcher advised GZ not to, and GZ replied affirmatively and then began discussing where he would meet the cops when they arrived at the community. At that point, GZ was no longer following TM. So, how did GZ and TM meet? By that time, TM should have easily made it back to the safety of his father's house. I believe that TM doubled back to confront GZ, and I expect that TM initiated the physical altercation. I doubt that GZ was waving his gun around, as if he was, I don't think TM would have confronted GZ.
Being followed in a place where your house is located and where you could easily take shelter there is not so reasonably threatening as to justify confrontation and violence. Why didn't TM simply answer GZ'd inquiry when GZ asked what TM was doing?
bob wrote:I don't believe that anyones head was "pounded on the concrete." The scars on the back of Zimmerman's head look like he got scratched. Did they check under Trayvon's fingernails? How about the cat's? Maybe the cat did it.
Well, fortunately for GZ, the presumption of reasonable fear is easy to meet. GZ got those injuries somewhere, and I don't think it was a cat that caused them.
I find it amazing that people who are from common law nations and jurisdictions are struggling to understand the right to self defense...