Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[Rip]

It still seems so pointless, if he hadn't followed him none of this would have happened. It almost seems like he was trying to get a rise out of the person so he had an excuse to kill him. Then he could go round be the big I am having shot someone.

The whole thing is just so wrong on so many levels, guilty, not guilty etc 1 person is dead, 1 family have lost a son and nothing good can come of the whole thing yet it seems we never learn anything from it.

Talk about a stretch.

So I guess you are upset they didn't charge him with Murder I seeing how you apparently think it was premeditated?

Following him was premeditated seeing as he was told to stop or did he follow him accidentally!!

As to a stretch, thats the whole problem with your society and violence, everything is an accident, a stretch, won't happen can't happen, we need to be safe blah blah. You go round killing each other like it's an ok thing to do, heck he looked at me funny in my house, he seemed dangerous, i need 15 guns in case we get invaded and so on yet all you conitue to do is kill each other.

For a civilized society you sure kill a lot of each other that maybe that's why the rest of the world looks at you with a sense of distaste and dislike.

Back to the point, are you saying that if he didn't follow him he would still have been killed by him, exactly and that is no stretch.

I'm saying it is a free country and a person has the right to not be attacked by someone they have not attacked. Whether they were following them or not and furthermore that someone who is physically attacked should be able to defend themselves.

Attacking someone who has not broken the law or poses a specific identifiable physical threat can result in your death without any legal recourse against the person responsible for your death. Something I have no problem with.

[RunningMn9]

I didn't realize the homicide investigator on the scene felt the evidence was inconsistent. Can you point me to a link where it talks about this?

It's further up in the thread. The homicide investigator in charge of the case when it happened recommended that he be charged (not sure if they said what he should be charged with). The prosecutor declined to file charges, and the investigator filed an affidavit that explained that he did not find Zimmerman's story credible (his story is the only reason he wasn't charged, since there is no dispute that he shot and killed Martin).

That's why I questioned the predictable group that came out rushing to Zimmmerman's defense. What did they know that the homicide investigator didn't?

[Rip]

I didn't realize the homicide investigator on the scene felt the evidence was inconsistent. Can you point me to a link where it talks about this?

It's further up in the thread. The homicide investigator in charge of the case when it happened recommended that he be charged (not sure if they said what he should be charged with). The prosecutor declined to file charges, and the investigator filed an affidavit that explained that he did not find Zimmerman's story credible (his story is the only reason he wasn't charged, since there is no dispute that he shot and killed Martin).

That's why I questioned the predictable group that came out rushing to Zimmmerman's defense. What did they know that the homicide investigator didn't?

I would like to see the affidavit.

Sounds like it is based more on gut than actual evidence.

It looks like the defense attorney thinks so as well and has set the table for making that obvious in the trial.

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

But Gilbreath also said Zimmerman's claim that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager was "not consistent with the evidence we found." He gave no details.

Legal observers said the questioning of Gilbreath was strategically smart for O'Mara since the investigator's statements can be used at a later date to either contradict other testimony or be used to decide how to question other witnesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/expe ... 5SC0atSSSQ

[GreenGoo]

I would like to see the affidavit.

Sounds like it is based more on gut than actual evidence.

Yeah, Rip will be the judge of that!

It's awesome, given how little has been clarified over the last month+, that people are judging the opinion of the "man" on the scene as questionable, from their armchairs while reading about it on the internet.

[RunningMn9]

I would like to see the affidavit.

As would I, which I mentioned several pages ago.

Sounds like it is based more on gut than actual evidence.

It doesn't sound like anything. Well, that's not true. It sounds like the homicide investigator did not find Zimmerman's account of events credible based on the evidence obtained during his investigation, which led him to recommend that Zimmerman be charged. It doesn't sound like anything else, since we haven't seen it (and likely won't).

It looks like the defense attorney thinks so as well and has set the table for making that obvious in the trial.

I'm *shocked* that the defense attorney would appear to think this. *SHOCKED*.

Also, I don't believe that Dale Gilbreath is the homicide investigator in question. I believe he is the lead investigator for the new prosecutor. As I understand it, two different investigators have examined the evidence and interviewed Zimmerman, and drew the same conclusion - his version of events doesn't jive with the evidence they have.

I'd like to understand why they have concluded that, before reaching a conclusion on whether or not I think that Zimmerman was justified in shooting and killing Martin.

He gave no details.

In the affidavit. I'm assuming that someone will ask him to expand upon that during the trial.

[dbt1949]

WE WANT THE ANSWER NOW!

[Rip]

I would like to see the affidavit.

Sounds like it is based more on gut than actual evidence.

Yeah, Rip will be the judge of that!

It's awesome, given how little has been clarified over the last month+, that people are judging the opinion of the "man" on the scene as questionable, from their armchairs while reading about it on the internet.

How do you know my chair has arms? Have you been peeping in my windows again?

[msduncan]

The affidavit

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC to express doubts about the prosecution’s charges of second-degree murder:

Dershowitz slams special prosecutor Angela Corey hard, saying he thinks “what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged.” He described the affidavit of probable cause as “thin,” “irresponsible,” and “unethical.”

What’s most intriguing about the point Dershowitz makes is that the documents leveling the charge against Zimmerman don’t lay out the necessary conditions for second-degree murder, which requires a “depraved” indifference to human life.

[mike]

The affidavit

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC to express doubts about the prosecution’s charges of second-degree murder:

Dershowitz slams special prosecutor Angela Corey hard, saying he thinks “what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged.” He described the affidavit of probable cause as “thin,” “irresponsible,” and “unethical.”

What’s most intriguing about the point Dershowitz makes is that the documents leveling the charge against Zimmerman don’t lay out the necessary conditions for second-degree murder, which requires a “depraved” indifference to human life.

Yay!!!! You won the game!!! Go Fight Win!!! Now Go Romney!!! Yay!!!

[RunningMn9]

That's the affidavit filed by the new prosecutor, not the one filed by the homicide investigator. In the event that you thought they were the same.

That said, I don't think the prosecution has a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a 2nd degree murder conviction.

[GreenGoo]

I would like to see the affidavit.

Sounds like it is based more on gut than actual evidence.

Yeah, Rip will be the judge of that!

It's awesome, given how little has been clarified over the last month+, that people are judging the opinion of the "man" on the scene as questionable, from their armchairs while reading about it on the internet.

How do you know my chair has arms? Have you been peeping in my windows again?

I assumed your arms had chairs of their own.

[msduncan]

That's the affidavit filed by the new prosecutor, not the one filed by the homicide investigator. In the event that you thought they were the same.

That said, I don't think the prosecution has a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a 2nd degree murder conviction.

No actually I misinterpreted your request. I thought you wanted to see the new affidavit. I don't think the original is out there having searched a good deal for it.

[msduncan]

The affidavit

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC to express doubts about the prosecution’s charges of second-degree murder:

Dershowitz slams special prosecutor Angela Corey hard, saying he thinks “what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged.” He described the affidavit of probable cause as “thin,” “irresponsible,” and “unethical.”

What’s most intriguing about the point Dershowitz makes is that the documents leveling the charge against Zimmerman don’t lay out the necessary conditions for second-degree murder, which requires a “depraved” indifference to human life.

Yay!!!! You won the game!!! Go Fight Win!!! Now Go Romney!!! Yay!!!

I agree good sir! Go Romney, indeed!

[El Guapo]

That's the affidavit filed by the new prosecutor, not the one filed by the homicide investigator. In the event that you thought they were the same.

That said, I don't think the prosecution has a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a 2nd degree murder conviction.

I'm not sure why 2nd degree murder would be so unlikely. My understanding of 2nd degree murder is that it requires intent to kill but does not require premeditation (necessary for 1st degree). So if Zimmerman confronts Martin intending only to find out whether he's up to no good; a confrontation ensues --> Zimmerman unreasonably fears great bodily harm and shoots Martin with the intent to kill him --> 2nd degree murder.

What I'm not sure about is the "depraved" requirement. I don't think that's typically a part of 2nd degree murder (unless it just refers to the requirement that you intended to kill), but then this is Florida so who knows what it means.

Generally I'm 95% checked out on this case. Zimmerman was charged, the process is being followed. There seems to be reasonable case both for and against conviction, so I don't think there's much to do beyond letting things work themselves out.

[gameoverman]

When I was on a jury in a murder case here in So Cal I remember 2nd degree being more like this:

If you do something, like shooting someone, in such a way that their death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action, that can be 2nd degree murder.

So if you fired a gun in the air and that bullet killed someone, that would not qualify, since it does not stand as foreseeable to say a bullet fired in the air is going to kill someone. I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

However, if you put the gun to someone's head and fired it would be hard for you to argue you didn't realize he might die when you shot him, since it's foreseeable that a gunshot to the head will be fatal.

So if you apply that to this case they'd have to establish that Zimmerman could expect the shot he fired to be fatal. Personally, I don't think a shot to the torso automatically qualifies as 2nd degree, because there are any number of areas you might hit that wouldn't be fatal. How is the prosecution going to prove Zimmerman deliberately aimed at a fatal area as opposed to just hitting a fatal area while firing in Martin's general direction?

[Arcanis]

When I was on a jury in a murder case here in So Cal I remember 2nd degree being more like this:

If you do something, like shooting someone, in such a way that their death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action, that can be 2nd degree murder.

So if you fired a gun in the air and that bullet killed someone, that would not qualify, since it does not stand as foreseeable to say a bullet fired in the air is going to kill someone. I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

However, if you put the gun to someone's head and fired it would be hard for you to argue you didn't realize he might die when you shot him, since it's foreseeable that a gunshot to the head will be fatal.

So if you apply that to this case they'd have to establish that Zimmerman could expect the shot he fired to be fatal. Personally, I don't think a shot to the torso automatically qualifies as 2nd degree, because there are any number of areas you might hit that wouldn't be fatal. How is the prosecution going to prove Zimmerman deliberately aimed at a fatal area as opposed to just hitting a fatal area while firing in Martin's general direction?

I think firing at Martin is good enough for those requirements, but they also have to prove it wasn't self-defense which would be an exception to the general rule you stated. That is where this whole case will hinge, does the jury think it was self defense or not.

[Unagi]

When I was on a jury in a murder case here in So Cal I remember 2nd degree being more like this:

If you do something, like shooting someone, in such a way that their death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action, that can be 2nd degree murder.

So if you fired a gun in the air and that bullet killed someone, that would not qualify, since it does not stand as foreseeable to say a bullet fired in the air is going to kill someone. I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

However, if you put the gun to someone's head and fired it would be hard for you to argue you didn't realize he might die when you shot him, since it's foreseeable that a gunshot to the head will be fatal.

So if you apply that to this case they'd have to establish that Zimmerman could expect the shot he fired to be fatal. Personally, I don't think a shot to the torso automatically qualifies as 2nd degree, because there are any number of areas you might hit that wouldn't be fatal. How is the prosecution going to prove Zimmerman deliberately aimed at a fatal area as opposed to just hitting a fatal area while firing in Martin's general direction?

???

Wha??

If one were to fire a gun at someone, I don't think it's reasonably for anyone to sit there and say I assumed my shot would be 'non fatal'.... you are firing a gun at a person. That's a big deal.

This is why cops don't shoot at people that are running away from some non-violent crime.... Not even just to slow em down.

Frankly - I would think that shooting a gun in the air - that TOO should be 2nd degree murder.... (IMO)

You say this:
" I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed."

I agree.... I bet they normally don't hit anyone.... but I don't shoot guns off into the air for ONE REASON: I could kill someone.
If someone else out there is shooting a gun into the air with the idea: I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

Well... fuck.

[Unagi]

That is where this whole case will hinge, does the jury think it was self defense or not.

Speaking academically here:

If I start a fight, for what ever reason... let's call it 'fear' - can I later be losing that fight and then resort to 'self defense' ?
A jury would need to decide if that 'fear' was rational or not, I would think. I mean - was this a person that was breaking into my home - or just some guy that got on the train before me?

The self-defense Defense seems to be directly related to if one agrees with the original threat. I'm not sure I would see Martin as the threat that Zimmerman did.

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

[Rip]

That is where this whole case will hinge, does the jury think it was self defense or not.

Speaking academically here:

If I start a fight, for what ever reason... let's call it 'fear' - can I later be losing that fight and then resort to 'self defense' ?
A jury would need to decide if that 'fear' was rational or not, I would think. I mean - was this a person that was breaking into my home - or just some guy that got on the train before me?

The self-defense Defense seems to be directly related to if one agrees with the original threat. I'm not sure I would see Martin as the threat that Zimmerman did.

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I think the evidence will show the physical altercation was initiated by Martin. To me that is where the case hinges. Which frog jumped first?

[Paingod]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

Speaking academically here:

If I start a fight, for what ever reason... let's call it 'fear' - can I later be losing that fight and then resort to 'self defense' ?
A jury would need to decide if that 'fear' was rational or not, I would think. I mean - was this a person that was breaking into my home - or just some guy that got on the train before me?

I would believe that if you started the fight and ended up killing someone in self defense, you'd easily be on the hook for at least a manslaughter-type charge. Starting the fight is a crime in itself, and if you had avoided it you wouldn't have needed to kill someone to save your life.

[Unagi]

I think the evidence will show the physical altercation was initiated by Martin. To me that is where the case hinges. Which frog jumped first?

Even if one of those frogs had to get out of his pond and chase the other frog down a small river before that other frog finally 'jumped first' ?

How many times did Zimmerman "hop" before this turned into something he couldn't hop over.

I haven't heard a thing about why Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, and everything that I do hear seems to hinge on moments after Zimmerman basically demanded an audiance with Martin.

[Carpet_pissr]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

translation from the Southern: "please do not do that"

[Unagi]

Starting the fight is a crime in itself, and if you had avoided it you wouldn't have needed to kill someone to save your life.

yeah, that's the thing I was trying to articulate.

Thanks!

[Unagi]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

Sounds like the cop didn't think Martin was someone that needed a Neighborhood Watch to watch over him. Sounds like the sober word of the law was: Hey, there is no problem now - why go make one? And then that guy ends up dead ?? This sounds like a no-brainer. Zimmerman got brave enough to fight someone that he was afraid of, then he shot him when he started to lose. The suggestion of the cop helps color the scene. There was no need to confront Martin. This isn't Stand Your Ground.

[gameoverman]

???

Wha??

If one were to fire a gun at someone, I don't think it's reasonably for anyone to sit there and say I assumed my shot would be 'non fatal'.... you are firing a gun at a person. That's a big deal.

This is why cops don't shoot at people that are running away from some non-violent crime.... Not even just to slow em down.

Frankly - I would think that shooting a gun in the air - that TOO should be 2nd degree murder.... (IMO)

You say this:
" I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed."

I agree.... I bet they normally don't hit anyone.... but I don't shoot guns off into the air for ONE REASON: I could kill someone.
If someone else out there is shooting a gun into the air with the idea: I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

Well... fuck.

It goes to intent though.

Manslaughter for instance, you did something that did in fact kill someone but without the intent of killing someone(maybe firing a gun into the air).
2nd degree murder- the above EXCEPT knowing that what you did could reasonably be expected to lead to that person's death.
1st degree murder- the above PLUS premeditation.

[noxiousdog]

I agree.... I bet they normally don't hit anyone.... but I don't shoot guns off into the air for ONE REASON: I could kill someone.
If someone else out there is shooting a gun into the air with the idea: I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

Well... fuck.

That logic leads to if you kill someone with a car, you could be tried for second degree murder. Anytime you get behind the wheel, you could kill someone.

30,000 people die each year in traffic accidents. There were 554 accidental firearm deaths in 2009 according to the CDC.

[Rip]

I think the evidence will show the physical altercation was initiated by Martin. To me that is where the case hinges. Which frog jumped first?

Even if one of those frogs had to get out of his pond and chase the other frog down a small river before that other frog finally 'jumped first' ?

How many times did Zimmerman "hop" before this turned into something he couldn't hop over.

I haven't heard a thing about why Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, and everything that I do hear seems to hinge on moments after Zimmerman basically demanded an audiance with Martin.

Yep, frogs go where they want no frog has the right to jump another unless of course they have jumped onto HIS lilly pad.

[Isgrimnur]

I agree.... I bet they normally don't hit anyone.... but I don't shoot guns off into the air for ONE REASON: I could kill someone.
If someone else out there is shooting a gun into the air with the idea: I bet most times when guns are fired in the air no one is even hit much less killed.

Well... fuck.

That logic leads to if you kill someone with a car, you could be tried for second degree murder. Anytime you get behind the wheel, you could kill someone.

30,000 people die each year in traffic accidents. There were 554 accidental firearm deaths in 2009 according to the CDC.

I believe the term "reasonable expectation" belongs in there somewhere.

[Captain Caveman]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

They also informed him that a cop was on the way. What did he hope to accomplish by not waiting and instead confronting someone while packing heat?"

[Rip]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

They also informed him that a cop was on the way. What did he hope to accomplish by not waiting and instead confronting someone while packing heat?"

I didn't get the impression he sought to confront him as much as keep eyes on him.

[Anonymous Bosch]

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

No, Zimmerman ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the suspect during his 911 call (and dispatchers are not cops).

[El Guapo]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

Speaking academically here:

If I start a fight, for what ever reason... let's call it 'fear' - can I later be losing that fight and then resort to 'self defense' ?
A jury would need to decide if that 'fear' was rational or not, I would think. I mean - was this a person that was breaking into my home - or just some guy that got on the train before me?

I would believe that if you started the fight and ended up killing someone in self defense, you'd easily be on the hook for at least a manslaughter-type charge. Starting the fight is a crime in itself, and if you had avoided it you wouldn't have needed to kill someone to save your life.

I've mentioned this before, but the SYG law says that it applies to someone who was "attacked" in a place where they have a right to be. So going by the language I think if Zimmerman initiated the fight then he was not "attacked" and so would not get to invoke SYG.

That would raise the question of what happens if you attack someone and then suddenly have cause to fear for your life. Does standard self-defense law then apply (so you'd need to flee if you have reasonable opportunity to do so)?

[Arcanis]

If you initiated the attack then killed the person when they fought back it should not fall under SYG. It should fall under the laws for killing someone while you yourself are in the process of committing a crime, normally first degree murder if any of the crime shows I've seen are accurate.

[Unagi]

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

No, Zimmerman ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the suspect during his 911 call (and dispatchers are not cops).

Fair enough. it wasn't a cop.

Still - there was a time when Zimmerman was in a position where someone else was in a position to suggest that he didn't "follow and engage"

"Follow and Engage" is what he did.
That's at the opposite end of the spectrum from "Stand Your Ground".

[Rip]

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

No, Zimmerman ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the suspect during his 911 call (and dispatchers are not cops).

Fair enough. it wasn't a cop.

Still - there was a time when Zimmerman was in a position where someone else was in a position to suggest that he didn't "follow and engage"

"Follow and Engage" is what he did.
That's at the opposite end of the spectrum from "Stand Your Ground".

I think engage would need to be very specifically defined. Is that kept in sight, or verbal confrontation? It could easily be misinterpreted as attacked.

[Exodor]

I think engage would need to be very specifically defined. Is that kept in sight, or verbal confrontation? It could easily be misinterpreted as attacked.

Did Martin drag Zimmerman from his vehicle?

[Rip]

I think engage would need to be very specifically defined. Is that kept in sight, or verbal confrontation? It could easily be misinterpreted as attacked.

Did Martin drag Zimmerman from his vehicle?

No, is there a law against leaving your vehicle to maintain visual range on someone you think may be up to no good?

[msduncan]

Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

I believe he wasn't specifically "ordered" not to follow Martin, I think the wording was more "you don't need to do that"

Remember too that Zimmerman referred to multiple burglaries in the neighborhood and the fact that the police had failed to catch or even ID the people involved because they always got away before the cops got there.

[msduncan]

(I'm also totally NOT up on all the facts of this case)
Wasn't Zimmerman actually told by a cop to not push it with this person that he found to be a problem, but then he pushed it - and Martin ended up being more of a fighter than Zimmerman really wanted?

No, Zimmerman ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the suspect during his 911 call (and dispatchers are not cops).

Fair enough. it wasn't a cop.

Still - there was a time when Zimmerman was in a position where someone else was in a position to suggest that he didn't "follow and engage"

"Follow and Engage" is what he did.
That's at the opposite end of the spectrum from "Stand Your Ground".

That is very debatable. The story coming out of his camp is that he followed to monitor and then Martin jumped him when he lost track of where he was. I haven't listened to the entire 911 call but I believe he acts as if he's lost track or sight of where Martin was.

[msduncan]

I think engage would need to be very specifically defined. Is that kept in sight, or verbal confrontation? It could easily be misinterpreted as attacked.

Did Martin drag Zimmerman from his vehicle?

No, is there a law against leaving your vehicle to maintain visual range on someone you think may be up to no good?

Apparently we are supposed to not take any action whatsoever to defend our neighborhoods that are being burglarized over and over. I think we are supposed to rely on mother-government to ineptly respond and hope that they get lucky.

Following and keeping someone in sight is NOT an unreasonable thing to do when you are on the horn with authorities. What happened after that is what the trial will hinge on.