TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:I know it wasn't lawful, but IMO had he used some common sense he wouldn't be in this position. I post how many times to be a good witness?

Fortunately, neither stupidity nor foolishness are crimes. If they were, most people would probably be deserving of the death penalty.

texanjoker wrote:As to the other post, I don't follow this close enough, but if he was going back and confronted that would be a lot different if he was still trying to play cop. I have my suspicions and we may never know what really happened. Regardless this case is tragic in so many ways. He probably had good intentions and put himself in a place he couldn't get out of.

Not really. Not if he was the one who was attacked. Following a suspicious person is not a crime. So regardless of whether Zimmerman continued to follow or started back to the truck, if Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman, then it was selfdefense. If Zimmerman was the aggressor...... Totally different issue.

texanjoker wrote:Once the lawyers on both sides get done trying to ban this or that, the jury will hear what evidence is left. They will then make their decision.

I don't disagree. But as Charles has stated, the dispatcher's suggestion was not a lawful order and so whether Zimmerman followed it or not is completely immaterial. I'd be surprised if the prosecution tries to present it as such (even though the media already has). That case is going to come down to the physical evidence and, unless there something not yet released (entirely possible), its all in Zimmerman's favor.

G26ster wrote:

texanjoker wrote: While the dispatcher advice is not a lawful order, had he obeyed it vs trying to play cop he would not be in this position. It will be curious to see what the jury does when they hear all the facts vs what the media is playing for them.

Perhaps I missed it in the media. What evidence was presented that Mr. Zimmerman "continued" to follow Mr. Martin "after" the dispatcher said, "that's not necessary"? I recall Mr. Zimmerman saying at that point he returned to his vehicle but enroute was confronted by Mr. Martin. If true, how is that failure to obey the dispatcher?

It's not (as I'm sure you know). Additionally, on the 911 recording you can hear Zimmerman responding to the dspatcher's "order" ("you don't need to do that" is hardly an order not to follow) by saying "ok". At which point, according to Zimmerman, he started returning to his vehicle and was confronted by Martin. And there's been no evidence released to date that contradicts his narrative in any way.