Friday, June 29, 2012 11:23:27 AM
You're absolutely right, Musuko42, I am simply going on my own belief that Z caused the confrontation. But, it`s a logical assumption. Z is the one who was concerned about M. Z is the one who called the police. Z is the one who pursued M after being told following was unnecessary. And, in the end, as I`ve said before, Z was the one with the gun, and thus the greater responsibility, IMHO, to exercise extreme caution and judgment.
Do you believe that Zimmerman following Martin constituted an initiation of a confrontation?
Yes. Clearly. As I`ve pointed out to Gerry below, you don`t just follow a lone walker, at night, without *some* sort of intent. By his own testimony, Z did *not* identify himself as a citizen watch person, he didn`t explain why he was following M., he did not take the opportunity to diffuse the situation.
Again, I`m not calling for his head, or for him to spend forever in prison. But, I am calling for some responsibilit
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:31:13 AM
Well, Musuko42, here's a super conservative site`s version of events (I believe 5Cats gave us this that link). And, for purposes of discussion, even it`s arguably biased presentation will work.
It says that Z reports to 911 that M is walking around the clubhouse and then checking Z out, walking toward Z`s truck. No contact is made, no confrontation. Then, Z claims that M is running away. Z pursues! What happens next is anyone`s guess, this is controversy, but, what`s clear is that Z pursues M against the wishes of the 911 operator. The initial confrontation, then, seems clear, by all accounts, to be on Z.
Again, I`m not saying to lock him away forever, but, Z is *not* faultless here. He confronted a man, most likely at least somewhat aggressively from the sound of agitation in his voice from the call, and with a gun on. He
"That would seem consistent with his having confronted Martin in the first place."
Zimmerman's account is that Martin approached him on both occasions (once at the truck, and then during the fatal incident), not the other way around. There are no other witness statements or peices of evidence that I am aware of that says otherwise.
From where are you drawing your evidence to make that kind of statement?
Friday, June 29, 2012 8:48:12 AM
Gerry, it seems clear that either one of them could have deescalated the situation. I agree. Am I saying Martin was an angel? No. However, I am saying that I can understand if he felt he was being targeted because of his race (or sexual orientation, or gender, etc.) that he might get his back up a bit! Perhaps we all would in similar situations? If we get a little pissy and even push back, do we deserve to die?
And, to be sure, we're also painting Zimmerman as a saint if we say that he was *just* defending himself from an all out attack by Martin. Z could have walked away, too. And, do we know for sure that he wasn`t bowing up his chest a little, too, when Martin came back? All rooster-like? That would seem consistent with his having confronted Martin in the first place. But we have no way of knowing now because only one of them is alive and healthy to tell the story. The other is dead.