Federal authorities have announced that they are now intervening in the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. That will certainly enhance the completion of forensic evidence, which we discussed earlier as critical to a case like this one. I have previously cautioned that this is not such an easy case as has been suggested, even with the 911 tapes. One of the greatest barriers is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.
I am as angry about this shooting as others. However, there remain difficult questions under the existing evidence. The intervention of the Justice Department adds an interesting element While racism has been alleged, the statement by the Justice Department notably does not lay out the basis for intervention and does not say that local police asked for the assistance. That may produce questions from the family why this is a federal matter as opposed to a local matter. While Zimmerman is described as “white,” his family has insisted that “George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends.” That does not necessarily mean that this is not a hate crime or civil rights violation. However, it is possible that Zimmerman acted out of his zeal as a “watchman” as opposed to race — the stated view of the police chief.
The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa states “The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident.” Cooperating is a different matter than a request for assistance. If they were not asked for assistance by the police, the question is whether the Justice Department views the local police as itself somewhat suspect in the handling of the case. We previously discussed legitimate complaints about aspects of the police investigation.
The most significant issue is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The law protects citizens in their use of lethal force in self-defense. The law, found in 20 states, is an expansion of the protection afforded under Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” laws for shootings in the home. I have long been a critic of those laws.
The key component of the law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed.
The concern of these laws is that the use of reasonable force is already protected under the common law. The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force. The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law. The law states in pertinent part:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.
I have said that aspects of the case remains murky. That is not to say that an indictment cannot be brought on the existing evidence, as I has said before. Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls. Additionally, some have argued that the tape of Zimmerman has him using a racial slur, though many others have said that he is actually saying “punks.” An audio forensic expert could answer that question, which would relate directly to the purpose of the federal investigation.
Source: Washington Post
I have been thinking over my life and the times I was cornered into a physical confrontation. There really have been very few. The last time was a few years ago when I chased down and tackled a purse snatcher in a parking lot. After I had him down and was sitting on him and had him in a leg lock hold, I heard a bystander say, “Did you see what that old guy did? He nailed the thug’s ass?” I suspect that at least part of the reason no one ever tried to get physical with me after about the fourth grade was my size. By the time I was in high school, I was already well over six feet and fit. FWIW, I am the same size as the average NFL linebacker in both height and weight.
My forte has always been to use words. Funny, I have extracted confessions from people in a matter of minutes after others have worked on the situation for hours or days. I have read Sun Tzu as well as Milton Erickson. Verbal ju jitsu as it were.
MCM,
“Now what Gene is getting at, and I concur, is that there was already plenty of protection for this under old laws that didn’t need to be tweaked.”
Yep. I believe that is the heart of JT’s contention as well.
BTW, it’s really nice to have someone else posting here who seems to actually understand Sun Tzu in the proper context. Despite his fearsome reputation, the man was about attaining victory without conflict wherever and whenever possible. I find that he and Machiavelli are two of the most misunderstood and misrepresented strategists quoted today with Miyamoto Musashi following at a close third.
This is one of the things I do often with my congressional contacts, clarify language and what is unnecessary. I haven’t a full battery of legal knowledge like you or others do, but I do love language and its meta. When a law already does TaskA, writing it to perform TaskA to PersonA’s approval seems silly.
And yes, I’m a big fan of Musashi as well.
In the lead up to the Iraq war, I was surrounded by lots of gung ho former military buds who said George Bush is right to invade Iraq. To each of them I said, “So then SunTzu was wrong?”, knowing each of them claimed at least to be well versed in the Art of War.
“no, you just have to read what he’s saying and you’d realize we can win!”
one poor sap said to me.
“but Master SunTzu was adamant, the greatest militarist can be seen by the lack of conflict, where as the poorest…’seize cities’. It is an admission of failure when you have to invade, then even more to be bogged down for 10 years. All this could have been avoided if that adviser to King Hilu had been acknowledged.
I abhor its use in ‘sales’. Anyone who tries that around me gets a pretty swift rebuke.
Musashi, whole other world. I’d love to see a major motion picture of his life. A truly interesting character in history. One point in my life I started tracking down the factual realities behind the classic Shaw brother and other kung fu films. Many stories aren’t just made up heroes but real people who left myths behind like Wong Fei Hung, Bei Mei, and Huo Yun Jia. Bruce Lee’s character Chen Zhen is a fictional character who is supposedly a student of Huo Yun Jia. At the time that movie came out I was learning from Jinwoo academy teachers and his role was so inspirational to us because he featured a classic photo of Master Huo Yun Jia in the movie.
I had long assumed the characters were simply fictional. As I found many were not, though myth had set in, a whole world opened up. And that is just in the Chinese arts world. Trying to learn Togakure Ryu, you have to also get a full history course in all the shoguns, great warriors and its a whole lesson all over again. I admit, I’m very rusty there after years because I didn’t spend as much time on it. Iga mountain is home to one of my teachers and that is about all I know about that. lol
This is my life’s interest along with understanding SCOTUS decisions and general semantics.
Same here, Gene, Very much appreciate your words. I’ve been reading Turley’s blog for a while but rarely spend the time reading the comments because I read his posts via mail.
Great to meet you!.
There you go painting arguments in absolutes again. Every fight, like every case, is different. Appealing to probability is a formal logical fallacy. I don’t give a shit what you believe, Tony. You still don’t know what you’re talking about in re the duty to retreat. Conflate it however you like to make you think you do though. Like I said earlier, I’d expect the sun to turn in to cream cheese before I’d expect you to admit you’re wrong. Unlike MCM, I’ve seen your act many times before, but even he has picked up on your predictable flaw.
@Gene: It sounds like you are saying that if I fought instead of left, and in the fight I threw my assailant and he landed badly and broke his neck and died, or my routine choke hold initiated a stroke or heart attack that killed him, there is absolutely zero chance I could be prosecuted for even manslaughter in New York State. That there is absolutely zero chance a zealous prosecutor that wants to make an example of me might pull this statute out, claim I had a duty to retreat, and thus I sacrificed my claim of self-defense. That there is zero chance any judge would agree with him.
If that is what you are saying, then I simply do not believe you; because it would mean, as I said, that these words really mean nothing. Martial arts are an inherently lethal force, just like a knife or gun. Sure, you can use all three to stop somebody without killing them, but martial artists are trained to maim and kill. If the fight resulted in a death, it is pretty obvious deadly force was used, even if inadvertently.
I still believe this is bad law. It does not say, “may not intentionally use deadly physical force,” it says “may not use deadly physical force.”
Other than some blocking, dodging and deflection action, almost any strike or throw one makes is potentially deadly physical force.
@Idealist: And here, on Smolin’s blog, is the latest and hottest indictment of String Theory. F-Theory is now a zombie, and String Theory is once again a mathematical pastime with no link to reality.
Tony,
I’d like to reward your above post quoting the New York law by saying, thank you for posting the law which references the conditions you’d be living under. This along with that in that post you explained your position without the chest puffing language. I don’t begrudge the chest puffing language, mind you, puff away. I don’t begrudge your desire not to retreat.
To reward the toned down version, I’d like to tell you why, in my very vain self-centered position, it was more useful. Because the topic is self-defense, because I have many years practical fighting experience and street/club fighting experience, and because I found value in life after someone showed me mine too was worth something, my whole offering to this is that treating ‘retreat’ in a negative way inhibits our ability to use it wisely.
When that term or any term gets loaded with our personal ‘stuff’, it is hard to tell if the person can fully utilize it. Retreat is a part of a matrix of combat techniques. Advance, retreat, delay, surprise, confuse, and many more aspects are needed to engage mindfully in any combat, one-to-one or between nation, no difference. When someone argues to remove one because they think it is “weak”..(well perhaps they could give a good argument for this but…) they’re running up against many centuries of tried and tested sciences on military tactics.
And the attempt to distinguish between ‘military’ service training and ‘martial arts’ training becomes useless when they actually are derived from the same location, the need to attack or defend and the science behind attaining victory.
The context we’re discussing this is in is important. Self-defense. You have no qualms busting up theories about physics. I applaud you. My knowledge of physics is pedestrian at best. I’m able to understand the concepts discussed because I’ve always allowed that to flow without hesitation to tune in. But I haven’t done the math, or the practical application.
Kung Fu – Effort towards a study over a period of time. “Time-Energy”
There are only a few areas where I have truly applied my sciences, and martial arts is one of them. I did this to walk back from the pathological need to “stand my ground”. It is the “stuck on stupid” I mentioned earlier. “I challenge you to a fight!” would be the general statement from opponent (not literal) and my body would say, “fuck yeah!”
But what were the rules in our day? “he who throws the first punch”
well..that’s not hard to get. nation states do that all the time.
Problem? It totally abdicates self-control to other people. All it results in is reactionary behavior. I can’t afford that, you can’t afford that, and others cannot afford that.
I’m under the full presumption that you’re going to run most of this topic through a moral matrix that says, “I know I’m a good guy” or something to that equivalent. You know best what your morals really are. I have no doubt that you’d be more honorable than most. I ask that you move it away from you and ask, “do I trust others to be able to be disciplined enough inside to see that the threat upon them is not worth taking a life? that this hasn’t risen to that level?”
This is what I do when even checking a conflict now. Sometimes, just chiming in or getting in the middle and reacting makes it worse when a second longer of patience and everyone goes back to auto-pilot. Again, anecdotal, but I’ve been there. My desire to kick the ass of a bully is at least as strong as yours. It has been my life long conviction. I don’t have “cheneywatch” in my name because the bully is favored…he’s a thug who hides behind real fighters.
I sought to challenge your view in good faith. I razzed you and you razzed back. Nothing here is personal for me outside the “fuck you” jabs that needn’t go that far. There is truth to the notion that ego is easily provoked because it needs to defend. It isn’t personal, that is scientific. Ego’s are the protective cocoon that keeps us safe. It can also drive a battle to unnecessary loss.
Taste the peach
You can teach me all day long about physics, do the math in front of me, but until I do that myself, walk through the failed formulas, learn what constructs hold up, and taste its fruit, your descriptions will be esoteric at best.
Like a veil from which I cannot see, I know you are able to see physics in a multi-dimensional manner that gives you flexibility to see its parts and whole. I don’t worry if you get the whole or think you get the whole, because I can see you can maneuver through its matrix.
Likewise, in martial application and theory, I have applied myself in many different areas including logical fallacy, or as I sometimes call it…the house of feeble constructs.
Just like martial arts, when the application fails it should be retooled or dismissed. It is a science not unlike yours. The basic equations become larger formulas with permutations and the ongoing examination of its integrity. I’m not your local dojo type. I love to travel the world to visit with my teachers and engage this topic. We discuss any conflicts we’ve been through and look to see what can be learned in it. “was energy wasted, time wasted, resources wasted, what was the goal, what was the loss?”
Master SunTzu is misunderstood by those with ambition to win a war because he didn’t teach along those lines. He taught specifically to stop war. In fact, many characters that describe these terms like “wu shu” the wu is a composite character that basically means “stop the beating” It is a defensive mindset from so many angles.
I know you aren’t interested in going out and being all gung ho to shoot someone. Your words reflect a person frustrated with policy that allows bad behavior to ruin the lives of perfectly good folks having a perfectly good day. I am with you there. I think there are areas we can examine that would produce this much easier than “stand your ground” laws will ever do.
I think there are areas of the Castle Doctrine I might easily agree with depending on the language of the statute. Killing someone because they stole your horse used to be a no-brainer. Killing them because they were stealing your TV is not. Assuming all precautions were taken to not be a target, things do happen and if you’re in your own home…that is your last safe place.
Now what Gene is getting at, and I concur, is that there was already plenty of protection for this under old laws that didn’t need to be tweaked. I think it is rather pathetic that ALEC and NRA can gin up money over and over again by claiming “they’re going to take your rights” then raking in the dough. To give you a similar criticism in my MA experience, dojos or ‘self-defense’ classes exploiting women and children’s fears to teach them bullshit karate that will defend against nobody who s really dangerous and fills their heads with trophies and belts. We call these “belt factories” in the field. No diff than the NRA, turns lots of people out on the street who are more dangerous to themselves and others.
Your matrix might be discounting this as “that’s not me” and you’re right. But it is still out there on a daily basis all the same. I run into it all the time in the US. Most of my local experience is DC, Maryland and Virginia based, lately. People are being hyped up in Virginia from time to time by local con artist radio jocks into buying and packing up on guns and bullets because “Obama is going to take away your right to defend yourself and Eric Holder said…”
This plays to the fears of people and does little to do to protect them.
As Gene said, and I’ve experienced, you’d have to show me a case where a person was convicted of assault or more while not backing down from a bully who was threatening them or someone else and that they had the opportunity to END the combat without loss of life. Lets drop the retreat part and simply talk about it from proportional response. If you can find me a story where a person was convicted in a self-defense situation and they didn’t back down, I’d love to see that case. I’ve been exactly a person who didn’t back down in a public space, was defending others not myself (standing?) wasn’t asked to do so. Before it even became a glint of a trial in anyone’s eyes, the prosecutor was clear I had no choice given the conditions of the environment and all the mutually intersecting testimonies.
I’m not here to belittle you. I was bantering your belittle phrases out of good jest and you can throw them back at me all you wish. I will say, I know others might not get that joke, but we can. I’m Scot through and through, We love self-deprecating humor. It is just a form of humor to us. As the Gascon said once, “you have this before you and the best you could come up with was,…big nose?”
But shouldn’t get in the way of this serious conversation. And frankly, I care enough about both Jonathan Turley’s blog and Trayvon Martin and his family to not exploit this for ego. I’m serious with you, mate. We need all hands on deck for the best of our society and thinking in terms of “mine” isn’t suitable for public policy discussion in some contexts.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on m-theory. Is it also a fad? Do you see these theories as unavoidable steps in our developmental understanding or are they boutique examinations of physics that have more financial and wizbang value than real scientific understanding of the nature of our quantum universe?
More important do you believe people who say, “I could never learn that?”
Tony,
The key you’re missing here is the very specific use of the word “deadly” in the NYS law. There is a difference between reasonable force in self-defense and deadly force. Nothing – I repeat NOTHING – in the NY statute prevents you from kicking someone’s ass in self-defense. It prohibits you from killing them if you have the option of leaving and provides several exceptions, all of which is in line with the common law doctrine. Again, you’ve conflated an absolute that doesn’t exist. You’re cherry picking and to no greater avail than before. You still don’t understand the duty to retreat. It’s becoming clear that part of why you don’t understand it is that you don’t understand the hierarchy of violence either, hence, you do not understand proportionate response.
Mine is from April 2011 when I was there, but understood nothing.
Seems to be the same base url.
Thank for the Smolin review.
Tony C.
Could this be Woit’s home page? It was saved but math is not for me, as my algebra teacher said. How I got a BSEE from NCSU, I’ll never know.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3643
If you like Smolin’s book, I would very much recommend Peter Woit’s book, “Not Even Wrong.” Woit is a math man, and if I recall (after five years) I believe he goes into more detail about the crumbling mathematics of string theory.
I was looking for Woit’s home page for you, since I remembered he links to his book, and found this: Woit reviewing Smolin’s book! (favorably) 🙂
@Idealist: Your latest only supports your opinion.
That is your opinion; I think it speaks to the truth of my stance, it shows the facts to back up my claim, the law says you must withdraw from battle if you can safely do so. There is no magic in interpreting the law, a central tenet of the law is that it means what it says in plain and common English. How else would you interpret the New York State law, without redefining the words into meaning nothing at all?
Because that is what would have to be done, redefine “you must retreat” into “it is okay to stay and fight.”
Thanks for the apology, I apologize in kind for my insults.
Tony C.
Smolin touched on that in his book, “The problem with physics”.
(It might have been trouble instead of problem, but never mind)-
A low profile is certainly wise. And sorry for the taunt, My apologies for the low assault. You are indeed a scientist, but a poor arguer as most of us are. Your latest only supports your opinion. But that’s OK. That WAS(?) your purpose?
Tony C.
GREAT
But some people pull guns and fire when they have the “stand your ground to give them a way out. Very few would depend on their martial law skills as you do.
But the law has to take into account the great majority, which hope you realize do exist. Shoot when in doubt had been in force in Europe since 1000 to 1500 AD. Then the king said NO.
Hopes this helps us all in this dilemma. Thanks for the law citation.
I reply because feel you deserve the courtesy. BFN
@Idealist: He won’t answer direct questions like I asked about his specialty, published papers, journals, etc.
I post anonymously, for a reason. I am a non-tenured research scientist at a large university, which happens to be politically polarized and filled with vindictive people above me fighting over many, many tens of millions of dollars, including the tiny fraction that funds my department, my lab, my research, and the team upon which I serve.
When the elephants dance, the mice get crushed, and these people are political animals that really care nothing about scientific merit (unless it comes with positive publicity and reflected glory). I post anonymously out of caution.
From New York State Law, Penal Code, Part 1, Title C, Article 35, paragraph 15:
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
The exceptions do not invalidate the duty to retreat, at least for me. Read the language. If somebody is swinging a bat and threatening to bust my head if I do not leave the park, because he doesn’t approve of my kind, he is about to use deadly physical force and I am required by New York law to leave, rather than engage.
Specifically, I do not think the bat swinger is committing any of the crimes listed, I am not in my home, I am not a police officer.
So if I stand there, when I could have left, and deflect the bat and in the ensuing fight the bat swinger falls and breaks his neck and dies, I am not assured of being able to claim it was self-defense: I may be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, because the bat swinger did allow me a safe path to retreat: Accede to his demand and leave the park.
What is “in my head” is that I disagree with this law, and I agree with the spirit of standing one’s ground, which I mean in the literal sense. Unlike the New York State law, I believe I should have the right to refuse to leave, and literally stand there. Let the bat swinger approach and make his move, and if he does that, and I defend myself, and in the struggle he dies, it should not even be possible to call that a “murder” instead of a “self-defense.” He swung a bat at me! Nevertheless in New York, the possibility clearly exists, because lethal force is not legally justifiable if a safe path of retreat exists. Lethal force in self defense is not protected if you could have walked away from the fight.
Now everybody feel free to try and twist the words of this law to say something it does not say, or claim my hypothetical is flawed, or whatever you need to do to continue feeling like you are right and I am wrong. I understand, your ego just cannot bear to be wrong.
Lawyers and all, jump in: Lawyers can be wrong too, in every case tried, some side loses. Even if the lawyer is right, judges can be wrong, Turley’s blog is filled with judges and lawyers misinterpreting the law. In a child custody case I attended, the judge read the law from the bench and told the lawyer the law would be interpreted exactly as written (which meant, “you lose.”)
This law reads as it is shown, and some DAs and some judges will interpret it as literally as it appears, without nuance. As long as it is on the books, New York is a state where you may not be able to claim “self defense” if you could have walked away. In my opinion, that is bad law.
As far as “run away” being hyperbolic, that is a quibble without a difference. The “duty to retreat” is not a duty to maneuver, or to change position, it is a duty to leave in order to avoid battle while under threat of assault, and if you do that by backing away, walking away, or running away, the result is the same. If you do not turn tail, and you choose to stand there and wait and see if he actually assaults you, then you might be denied the claim of “self defense” should he end up inadvertently dead.
What is NOT “in my mind” is any right to escalate, or attack, or provoke an assailant (other than by my mere presence), or to shoot because I “feel threatened.” What IS in my mind is what I consider common sense: If I am not the aggressor, and I get attacked, anything that happens to the aggressor happened in self-defense and I should not be denied that claim of self-defense because I could have avoided the fight by running away.
MCM,
missed this nice post, particularly this:
“….When a fight is threatened anywhere near me, I really seek to know the nature of the suffering in the aggravated person. This is where the center of the storm is, right?….”
That’s where it is. If we all could keep it cool and look for the center.
Just concentrating on that can calm your reaction and help finde the best, most peaceful way out.
What PE said.
I, a 60 year old white woman who wears what we used to call a hooded sweatshirts (hoodies) takes walks every day and evening including through gated communities. I have never been chased, harassed injured or threatened, accused of being on drugs or something, not even so much as asked what am I doing there. This particular situation is racial. I too think we must await the surfacing of a decent investigation and flesh out the facts, but this has obvious racial overtones that must not be ignored.
My son who works with at risk youth told me there is a script when being confronted by police and security element. Avoid cops at all costs, walk away, be brief, be polite, answer questions in a specific way. I was horrified when I learned this was necessary for many children in the community to learn. Sadly it is a tool to use until these horrible racial divides disappear. I have never been stopped by police, hauled out of a car and had the shit beaten out of me for being who I am.
This young man Trayvon is known to be a wonderful kid and I applaud his parents for raising such a great kid. Even so I worry more desperately about the harmless but less likable mouthy, pissed off (with good reason) kids who don’t do well in school are not particularly warm and who are just kids being kids. Are they to be executed as well because they wear hoodies and are not so polite? They too deserve justice and should not be threatened with murder for being in the world.
When I grew up the police were the good guys, there was this sense of decency. But in years following I have myself witnessed way too many police harassing youth/adults for being nothing more than who they are. For every story like Trayvon’s there are hundreds like it that have not come to light.
Justice for Trayvon. Justice for all. Isn’t this America still?
It’s clear that he exited his vehicle and ran for about 10 seconds, but that he stopped after the dispatcher told him too. During the two minutes of conversation that followed, it’s quite obvious he wasn’t running after anyone.
He said “he ran”, not “he’s running”.
And he said “I don’t know where this guy is”.
He was on the phone with the dispatcher for 2 minutes from the time he originally said “he’s running” and then got out of his car. That’s more than enough time for Martin to have gotten back to the house where he was staying.
It’s obvious, therefore, that Martin did not beat feet home. He stuck around for some reason, either because he didn’t think Zimmerman was really a threat, or he wanted to get into it with him.
“he didn’t think Zimmerman was really a threat, or he wanted to get into it with him.”
we have no indication of Martin’s mindset about “get into it” with anyone. we do have mindset statements from Zimmerman about “assholes always get away”.
and where do you read that he “got out” of his car? he was in a truck.
“if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a lef, and then they go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck..”
“what address are you parked in front of”
“I don’t know it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address”
Nothing indicates he left his vehicle in this call itself.
I don’t get why Professor Turley keeps saying Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher’s instruction not to follow Martin, when there’s actually no indication that he kept following after the dispatcher told him not to, and indeed, the 911 tape indicates that he almost certainly DID stop following.
Can someone help me out with this?
GWLaw99grad,
In the transcript after Zimmerman is told “we don’t need you to do that” and he responds “okay” he then says “he ran” presumably about Trayvon. So the question next for me is, if this call happened where Zimmerman stated he was, passed the clubhouse, past the left turn and mailboxes, where he claims he was sitting.
Considering the witness account of a confrontation, Zimmerman had to have exited his vehicle, thus he had to have kept following him. It seems more of an inductive statement than observed in the call.
“what’s your name”
“george….he ran”
description of where George is located follows before the call ends.
“these assholes always get away” would also lead me to believe he at least sought to pursue. This is my read from the transcript itself.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Now, adding to this mix the comments from witnesses about a confrontation, Zimmerman had to have exited his vehicle. I’m not sure the public has been given much more than that.
.”My first (almost) blog life experience.” has been at Turley,s since Fall…