« A Note on Martin/Zimmerman Affair, With A Comment on Murder Stats | Main | Pacific Rim (2013) »

Monday, July 15, 2013



"Firing "a warning shot" or even pointing a weapon at someone (say, a police officer) can land you in the slammer, while falling well short of murder."

What does this remotely have to do with this case? There's no evidence that Zimmerman did anything even remotely like this. And getting out of your car to follow a suspicious person at a distance so as to better direct the police, which is the most anyone has ever been able to show that he did, is not only not comparable to either of these actions, it's not irresponsible at all. Everyone claiming that somehow it was is only doing so from the comfort of hindsight. There are stories in the media every week about someone taking the initiative to check out suspicious behavior and stopping someone up to no good. And in every one of those cases, virtually everyone, even all those in the media now vilifying Zimmerman, laud these people as exemplary citizens, heroes even.

And we don't know that Trayvon was not up to no good himself. There's no evidence that he was, but then there's no evidence that he wasn't either. Anyone who listens to the recording without bias can hear that Zimmerman suspected Trayvon because of his behavior, not his race or choice of attire. Trayvon was slowly walking back and forth on a dark street, in the cold February rain (yes, even in Florida the rain is cold in February), and stopping to stare at the houses on that street. I don't care who you are, that's suspicious behavior. Just because he was on his way home does not mean he wasn't planning to do something he shouldn't on the way. It's just as possible that Zimmerman's attention interrupted his plans to break the law.

After all, it would have hardly been out of character for Trayvon, who already had a history as a budding violent felon, gleefully beating people for entertainment, involved with drugs and illegal guns, and caught once already (though not charged because of school district police policy) involved in a burglary. No, we don't have any evidence that he was about to break into one of those houses, but for all we know that's just because Zimmerman's attention made him change his mind. Either is just as likely from what we do know.

So Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin, while not wise in hindsight, simply cannot by any realistic measure be deemed to be "irresponsible" from the perspective of someone sitting where he was that night.


Well said, Rob. I can only add that according to Zimmerman, he was getting a house number so he could tell where the alleged suspicion person was going. http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852#.UeUub6zgJOR Um, wouldn't that be his job? He was part of a watch for the neighborhood. A reasonable person would agree that the captain of a watch group seeing someone he is suspicious of and appears to him to maybe be on drugs is only doing his job. Pretty much everything Zimmerman has said has come out in the trial as being according to his account. We have no reason to doubt the house number claim. Conclusion, not criminally liable.

Ken Blanchard

Zimmerman should not have left his car to follow Martin. He had alerted the police concerning his suspicions. Following a person who had not done anything wrong, so far as GZ could know, increased the chances of a confrontation before police could arrive. Doing so with a weapon dramatically increased the chances of a fatality. This was reckless behavior.

It is one thing to encourage people to keep a watch on their neighborhoods and be good citizens. It quite another to encourage them to play cops and robbers with loaded guns. I continue to think that GZ should have been held legally accountable for this recklessness.


Ken, you are changing the facts as we know them. We have seen any testimony that does not essentially back up Zimmerman's story. Therefore there is no reason to doubt what he has said about his actions. Zimmerman was not following Martin. He went to see a house number. He was on his way back to his truck when Martin ATTACKED him. Zimmerman was doing his job. Had Zimmerman not had a weapon, he very likely would be dead instead of Martin. Being without a weapon could be considered reckless. Not legally responsible. And, I would argue, he has been held legally accountable. That was the trial.


This article is bogus, for lack of a better word. The stand your ground law was not used in the case because Zimmerman only acted in self defense. This case was not about the events that lead up to the altercation; it is not illegal to carry a gun and follow someone, nor is it illegal to wear a hoody carrying skittles. Neither one of them broke a law, until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Not only did he assault, he proceeded and continued to attack, which turns into a felony charge. Had Martin been alive, he would have been in serious trouble. The law backs up Zimmerman.. and rightfully so.

The comments to this entry are closed.