Do you agree that Zimmerman would have been a lot better off if he had obeyed the police operator telling him not to follow Martin? He would still be in his Sanford condo instead of the Sanford slammer - and facing a second degree murder charge.

You're right, following is not chasing. It is often referred to as stalking. Why would you assume that Martin was not or at the very least attempting to be a law abiding citizen tha night?

Zimmerman's claim was that Martin was someone he didn't know and was acting "suspicious" (didn't exactly define suspicious, tho) and he thought he was on drugs or something. Where or what is his basis for determining and/or assuming someone is on drugs? Much has been said of both their pasts, but that night Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin and Martin didn't know anything about Zimmerman, so both their previous transgressions are moot.

Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes for a minute. He was being followed by someone HE didn't know. From all indications thus far he was simply on his way home on foot doing nothing wrong. This person that he did not know, did not identify himself in any way, was not even in a marked vehicle, begins following him. Suppose he might have been afraid? He started running toward the back door presumedly of the home where he was staying with Zimmerman in hot pursuit (Zimmerman could be heard on one of the 911 tapes saying, "He ran".

Clearly stated on the neighborhood watch sign is that "suspicious behavior would result in the summoning of the authorities" (paraphrased) which Zimmerman had done. No where did it state that someone from the neighborhood would follow on foot. To me, this is where Zimmerman made his mistake....not following protocol. Had he done so, there would be no discussion, no charges, no one dead. Because of his actions after his initial call, many lives have been ruined.

It just does not sound like self defense in the Martin murder.
 

Bill Cosby: Trayvon Martin Case About Guns, Not Race

We will have to wait and see if the authorities find that the stand your ground law applies in the Zimmerman case. I doubt though that a good argument can be made that this was self-defense. Without that law, Zimmerman's goose looks like it is cooked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...rayvon-martin/

I posted some links but stated no opinion about defending oneself. Look at the Florida SYG law. It is so poorly written that it could be used to justify murder. If a neighbor had a heated argument with another neighbor and a gun was handy just such an incident could occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Neighbor shoots neighbor over number of trash bags on curb and argument about this issue--http://caribbeancricket.com/topic/1016897

Rep Dennis Baxley, the prime sponsor of the "stand your ground" law in 2005, has stated that the law does not apply in the Trayvon Martin case, as did Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the law. Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey, is the only person that has seen all the evidence in this case, and based on that evidence, she charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder the highest charge she could file without a grand jury.

Ms Corey has the evidence collected by Sanford Police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, her own investigators and the FBI. The key evidence will probably be the autopsy report, which will show if Martin was in a fight and the trajectory of the bullet; and Zimmerman's hospital report, which will show what injuries he sustained.


Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote | Fox News

I do not know that he didn't take the operators advice. The 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that," refering to following Trayvon. Zimmerman replied, "okay." One would presume that he agreed with the operator. Perhars he did or perhaps he didn't. There is no proof either way. Lacking any proof to the contrary, we'll have to take his word for it. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.

It may have happened just as Zimmerman said. Then what?

I have to defer in your view of Zimmerman and Martin.

If the 911 Dispatcher told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that", which is reported, and Zimmerman followed Martin anyway, it's not a violation of law. Even if the dispatcher "ordered" Zimmerman to desist from following Martin, it's not against the law if Zimmerman continued. He was under no legal obligation to heed the warning of the 911 dispatcher.

It might have been stupid, but you've already addressed people with guns who are stupid.

Now, if Martin attacked Zimmerman as is reported, that is assault. If Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, the sidewalk is considered a weapon, in my opinion.

Nowhere was it ever said that Zimmerman brandished his weapon. I don't believe Martin would have attacked Zimmerman in the manner he did if he knew Zimmerman was armed.

Of course I have no way to really know that, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Richielion, you are correct with the sidewalk being a weapon. Only two people know what really happened and one of those isn't talking. So I, for one, will not make any decision of what, when, where, how or why until all the evidence is brought out and a jury makes the final decision. I might not agree with them, as in the Casey court, but we have to go with what a jury decides.

Not heeding the directions of the 911 operator might or could be used against Zimmerman, as he was told that a officer was in route. We will just have to wait and see. But you are right, Zimmerman could do has he pleased and did not have to heed the 911 instructions. But I think he could have saved himself a lot of heart ache if he had.

About Martin attacking Zimmerman, you have to remember that Martin was a 17 year old kid and they don't make the best decisions on anything. He might not have cared one way or the other. We will never know.

No matter if Zimmerman was in the right or in the wrong - I think we can both agree his life will never be the same again - and not in a good way.

That would be a good assumption, however, one day i'll tell you a tale that rebuts that view.

Because of people of a particular ilk.

You're right; his life will never be the same, and maybe it would have been his life that ended that night.

Maybe if he wasn't armed he might be dead or in a coma now, or to some other extent badly injured, if he was not able to stop the alleged brutal assault of Martin. Of course, that's assuming the tale is as told by him.

Geezzzz, You write--"If he was not able to stop the alleged ,"brutal assault of Martin". You have to be kidding,The guy was punched what one or two times in the nose. Sure did not look like he was brutalized walking out of that police car.Think half the people discussing this never have been in a fight their whole life.Just because you are taking some licks,you do not open up on him.Man Up Guys.

The key word is "alleged"

"punched in the nose"?; Geezzz, haven't you seen the released picture of the back of his head that seems to support his story of having his head slammed into the concrete by Martin??

You make lot of assumptions with little to go on.

Here's a link if you're actually interested in evidence contrary to your early conviction of Mr. Zimmerman.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...CP4CdBfZhpcM2K