In article <
suhms758o5giod54f...@4ax.com>
* US * wrote:
>
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294006/standing-your-ground-and-vigilantism-robert-verbruggen
>
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:07:03 -0500, deadrat <
a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >On 6/2/12 6:57 PM, * US * wrote:
> >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:28:05 -0500, William Hale<
bil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> In article<_
uGdnaOCctid1VfS...@giganews.com>, deadrat<
a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/2/12 7:28 AM, * US * wrote:
> >>>>> Zimmerman said "OK" when he was told he wasn't
> >>>>> supposed to continue following his victim. That was
> >>>>> a lie, because he then continued to follow his victim.
> >>>>
> >>>> Zimmerman says he stopped. Is he lying? I don't know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Police dispatchers not on the scene are not empowered to give orders to
> >>>> citizens in public places, even if OK means "OK, I'll stop." and not
> >>>> "OK, I understand."
> >>>
> >>> True, the police dispatcher is not empowered to give orders to citizens.
> >>> However, Zimmerman cannot say that he thought it would be a good idea to
> >>> continue following Martin (well, he can say it and probably mean it, but
> >>> the argument that Zimmerman didn't know that it might be a bad idea
> >>> wouldn't hold since he was recommended not to).
> >>>
> >>> Similarly, people are using the fact that Zimmerman was a neighborhood
> >>> watchman as a support for the actions he took. If the neighborhood watch
> >>> program approved of following suspicious people, reporting people
> >>> without cause, carrying a gun, etc, then Zimmerman could use that as
> >>> justification for his actions. However, neighborhood watch explicitly
> >>> disapproves of those actions.
> >>>
> >>> If the police dispatcher told Zimmerman "Yes, keep an eye on the suspect
> >>> until the police got there", then Zimmerman would have more support for
> >>> the actions he took as being valid and ok. But, the police dispatcher
> >>> didn't tell Zimmerman to keep following Martin, but just the opposite.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, it was important for the police dispatcher to tell
> >>> Zimmerman not to keep following Martin even though it was not binding,
> >>> since that put Zimmerman at his own risk and responsible for what
> >>> happens.
> >>
> >> Excellent point.
> >
> >It has no legal importance whatsoever. Zimmerman was responsible for
> >his actions that night not to act with reckless disregard. A police
> >dispatcher could neither relieve him of that responsibility nor increase it.
>
> Zimmerman had no justification
Too bad it wasn't you getting your skull pounded on the ground.
Then we could say Traycon had no justification to do that to
you, but it wouldn't matter because you'd be dead.