Charles L. Cotton wrote:
1. You continually ignore the fact that the only illegal act was committed by Martin when he assaulted Zimmerman. The evidence supports this and the jury had to believe that Zimmerman did not provoke the confrontation in order to find he engaged in lawful self-defense thus finding him not guilty.
2. In your item number 2 you claim Zimmerman was "wrong." What do you mean by "wrong" in this context? His actions certainly were not unlawful, so you must be applying your personal standard of conduct. If it's not your personal standard, then what do you mean by "wrong?"
3. Doing something unwise doesn't make you a "batman" as you falsely claim. By your theory, I would have been playing "batman" when I, on at least a half dozen occasions, have followed drunk drivers while reporting them to the police. Only two of those times occurred when I was a police officer (off duty). Don't tell me that's different from the Zimmerman/Martin matter. It isn't. I was following them because the dispatcher kept asking me for locations. At any time the drunk could have taken the offensive against me forcing me to defend myself, just as Martin attacked Zimmerman when he was on his way back to his vehicle.
4. Why you persist in using pejorative descriptions like "batman" when describing acts that are entirely lawful is beyond comprehension.
Chas.
1. I am not ignoring this fact. As “Billitt" stated, Zimmerman could have been committing harassment in the fact that based on an ear witness’s testimony Martin felt a creepy individual continued to follow him causing Martin to feel threaten. Martin would have to testify to Zimmerman’s actions to have harassment charges filed (But we will never get that statement). The lead detective during the interrogation specifically stated to Zimmerman that he believed Martin was terrified of Zimmerman based on his behavior. Regarding the confrontation, on Cooper’s exclusive interview with juror B37, she stated they only considered events from when the proven punch was thrown. Not who initiated the confrontation.
2. “Wrong” not unlawful. I clearly stated my personal view as well as many on this very thread have in other threads, and stated in the CHL course I took; “when carrying, avoid confrontations as best possible.” He had already taken the “right” course of action, reporting suspicious behavior. “Wrong” was when he departed the vehicle and went in the direction Martin, this alleged nefarious character, had disappeared. So I change my “wrong” comment to “imprudent”. In a court of law, that could translate to “negligent”. So much so, the homeowner’s association settled out of court.
3. Following someone that is committing an act that could immediately endanger others at a safe distance is a noble act. However, it could also be an imprudent one if the noble individual themselves create a negligible event (I won’t list all the possible scenarios). Some agencies require their officers while off duty to retain their lawful powers. Therefore, you were not playing Batman due to your lawful right in 2 of the 6 occasions. The other four are debatable.
4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.
