In reply to wintertree:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> Except "going for a walk" is very different to "getting in a flap over someone going for a walk, calling it in to the police, disregarding their advice to drop it, stalking the walker - at night, and carrying a gun, and almost certainly challenging the walker."
>
Interesting use of language there.
"getting in a flap over someone going for a walk"
He doesn't sound particulary "flapping" on the phone. Unfortunately he had no idea that Martin was simpy "going for a walk".
The (unsupported) implication appears to be that Zimmerman made calls to the police about everyone he saw "going for a walk".
Bear in mind that professional trained officers can get this judgement wrong - De Menezes' entirely innocent actions - eg getting off then immediately back on buses, were interpreted as counter surveillance techniques (and indeed could have been taking stright from counter surveillance 101). I know that I have stop searched people who have been going about their lawful business - purely because I believed their activity was suspicious.
"disregarding their advice to drop it"
Well they did say "You don't need to do that" in response to his suggestion that he was following Martin. However they also said
"Just let me know if he does anything"
"Just let me know if he does anything else"
"Which way is he running"
"Which entrance is he running towards"
"stalking the walker"
Well - he was actually a running off. You say "stalking" it could quite easily be "following"
"and almost certainly challenging the walker"
Again - clearly from what happened a confrontation occured. We have simply no way of knowing if that was as a result of Zimmerman shouting at Martin or Martin confronting Zimmerman. Similarly there is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman's intention was to challenge rather than follow Martin, aware that the police would be attending to meet him so that he could point out the suspect.
> Let's ask a panel or independent experts which of those two actions they feel has a reasonably high chance of causing a tragedy.
>
> If Zimmerman couldn't foresee this potential consequence of his action then he's bloody thick.
>
> I suppose you could say the kid should have foreseen the consequences of "going for a walk in Florida whilst being black"
Because "being black" is what you have decided was the key factor in this incident?
I agree that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a risk that confronting someone you believe to be a burglar might end in violence.
Similarly it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out on behalf of BOTH parties - that if you get in an argument, for whatever reason, in the street at night it might turn in to a fight.
A couple of people have intimated on this thread that if anyone had the temerity to challenge their legitimate behaviour at night time they would "get what's coming". An utterly bizarre attitude - with an equally serious chance of going wrong if the person they challenge is bigger, stronger or a better fighter than they are, or even if not - they end up injuring someone who quite reasonable asked them what they were doing.
A chain of events was set in motion that day that inexorably led to the death, and could have been avoided in so many ways.
Zimmerman could have shouted from the car.
Martin could have walked up to the car and asked "Is everything alright?"
Any confrontation could have been resolved verbally rather than physically.
And - as per Zimmerman's account, Martin could have avoided punching him in the face knocking him to the ground.