I saw this blog entry which is purportedly written by a police officer. It shows again, why George Zimmerman’s story of what happened during his confrontation with Trayvon Martin does not coincide with reality.
First, George Zimmerman was not a police officer, wasn’t trained as a police officer and had none of the obligations or benefits of being a police officer. If he had been a police officer, when he first encountered Trayvon Martin, he would have been in a police cruiser instead of a civilian truck and Martin would not have wondered who he was or what his intent might be, which is very important.
The behavior that the civilian Zimmerman thought was “suspicious” may well not have been considered to be suspicious by a police officer or even given that officer “probable cause” to investigate. Had the police officer chosen to investigate, he could have simply rolled down his window and asked Trayvon Martin what he was doing or where he was going. Would Martin had run from him or her? Well we will never know, but there would have been no reason for him to. He was not doing anything illegal and could have simply told the officer I am heading “home.” He had every reasons to “run from” Zimmerman since he had no idea why he was staring at or following him!
That’s one of the reasons why neighborhood watch rules dictate that volunteers call the police, not carry firearms and not follow “suspects.” It was Zimmerman’s disregard for these regulations which led directly to the deadly confrontation. It would not have taken place but for his actions!
Martin may have hit Zimmerman, but outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving story, there is no evidence that Trayvon hit him first or at all. Consider Zimmerman’s own videotaped interviews. He stated that he followed Martin first in his truck and then on foot and when Martin asked him what he wanted, he did not identify himself or his intent and reached quickly into his pocket? Zimmerman’s actions were aggressive and provocative and if Martin hit him at that point, it would have been in self-defense, i.e. he had a reasonable belief that Zimmerman was going to cause him death or great bodily injury, i.e, Zimmerman could have been reaching for a gun. Of course, according to Zimmerman: (1) Martin hit him 12+ times slamming his head into the concrete each time (2) Martin tried to suffocate him by putting his hand over his mouth, (3) Martin tried to wrestle His gun away from him. Again, there is no forensic or independent evidence to support any of this.
Going back to the blog:
“During the uproar over the Trayvon Martin court case, I heard a lot of intelligent, educated people comment that “All Trayvon did was hit Zimmerman. That’s no reason to shoot someone.”
“Last year an El Paso, Texas police officer was beaten to death by an unarmed 17 year old. The teenager punched the officer, knocked him backward onto the concrete, then straddled him and beat him severely. The officer never regained consciousness and died nine days later.”
Now, that is quite similar to what Zimmerman claimed Martin did to him, yet he didn’t die…far from it. He had 2 scratches on the back of his head and a bloody nose. No coma, no concussion, no loss of consciousness, no skull fracture, no hospitalization, no headache, not even any secondary medical care. Common sense, not to mention forensic evidence, indicates that Martin did not pound Zimmerman’s head into the pavement 12+ times, if he even did it once. Does anyone really Zimmerman is telling the truth about that?
“Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”
Well anyone risks getting beaten or shot by anyone (not just a young thug) they “start a fight with.” Why would you commit a criminal act (assault) like that? So the blogger is suggesting that you carry a gun so that if you a “start a fight”, i.e. assault someone, and in anticipation of the possibility of losing the fight and/or being severely beaten, you shoot the person you “attacked” … in self defense, before anything can happen to you? Basically what the evidence shows Zimmerman did!
So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can retaliate or defend themselves? That’s what I suspect Zimmerman did and what the blogger appears to be recommending! Let’s look at the law:
Well in the scenario the blogger sets forth, if you attack someone and then shoot them, it wouldn’t be self defense, since you would be shooting the person before trying to escape any danger or reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury!