Trayvon Martin...is anyone following??

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Zimmerman was no police officer.

 

 

 

Why does any of this matter? If he had served time for a previous crime he STILL had the right to walk to a store and back home again without being accosted.

 

He didn't have the right to assault someone, which if true, is why the shooting ultimately occurred.

[Mrs Mungo]

He didn't have the right to assault someone, which if true, is why the shooting ultimately occurred.

 

That is a huge if. We do not know who assaulted whom. You are taking Zimmerman's story at face value. You are taking the word of a man with a record of domestic abuse and assault against a police officer, that he was the one who was confronted...when we hear him cursing and aching for a confrontation moments before in his own 911 call.

[Joker]

He didn't have the right to assault someone, which if true, is why the shooting ultimately occurred.

 

Did he have the right if Zimmerman assaulted first? Zimmerman made the phone call. Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin. Martin's gf on the phone heard the initial exchange and scuffle. We don't know who started it but only one is still alive to testify. I believe Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in the safety of his car ~ which is what dispatch advised as well. I just don't get the mentality that Zimmerman should take zero responsibility for what happened.

[Lovin Learnin]

He didn't have the right to assault someone, which if true, is why the shooting ultimately occurred.

 

So, theoretically, a man can follow another man until he provokes a reaction, and it would be ok to use deadly force because of that reaction. I'm curious what you believe the correct response should have been from Martin when he was being pursued.

[Slartibartfast]

Did he have the right if Zimmerman assaulted first? Zimmerman made the phone call. Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin. Martin's gf on the phone heard the initial exchange and scuffle. We don't know who started it but only one is still alive to testify. I believe Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in the safety of his car ~ which is what dispatch advised as well. I just don't get the mentality that Zimmerman should take zero responsibility for what happened.

 

:iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

So, theoretically, a man can follow another man until he provokes a reaction, and it would be ok to use deadly force because of that reaction. I'm curious what you believe the correct response should have been from Martin when he was being pursued.

 

People who know me IRL would be shocked if I didn't react to someone following me. I would have said something if someone was following me and it wouldn't be polite.

[LucyStoner]

He didn't have the right to assault someone, which if true, is why the shooting ultimately occurred.

 

But he did have the right to walk on a public sidewalk without being approached at all by someone who just called him a name on tape to a dispatcher. The shooting occurred because the shooter chose to shoot the victim.

 

I find it interesting that the shooter has previously pled to an assault on an officer and entered a diversion program for that, called the police 46 times fairly recently (here that gets you put on the "slow response PITA list") and been reported to the police for domestic violence. And that he is a really, really active NW who has tried, thus far, unsuccessfully to become a police officer. I am glad to learn that he was not able to become on officer. Yet these things don't seem to be acknowledged by his supporters as pointing to a man with something of a history of violence. Frankly to me, it all sounds like a dude with an anger problem trying to play hero wannabe cop. Obviously, I don't know for sure what he was doing or thinking or his motivations but really? Assaulting an officer, DV and 46 911 calls, many for non emergency situations? It is also interesting to me that the people making him out as a hero are failing to mention that he was diverted out of the CJS on a assault charge, ironically, of a police officer, yet they simultaneously point to the victim's school record. :confused:

Edited March 27, 2012 by kijipt

[Corraleno]

Police officers are *trained observers*. I have done neighborhood watch training. It takes about an hour. The two are not comparable.

 

And according the linked article, it wasn't even a real Neighborhood Watch group — it was an "unofficial" group started by Zimmerman himself:

The organization was not registered with the national Neighborhood Watch program, but was set up with the assistance of the Sanford Police Department. Zimmerman initiated the program, according to Wendy Dorival, the department's volunteer coordinator.

 

Jackie

[warriormom]

My suspicion is that when the case goes before the grand jury more details will come out that will explain why this is an open and shut case. Evidence is being withheld from the public ( after the disaster of the Casey Anthiny trial).

 

I think the first article is a well rounded view of Z. I could not find one on T. Most of the articles on T nominate him for sainthood or chastise him as the devil himself. Unfortunately T committed his first crime with the wrong person by assaulting Z. He paid with his life which is unfortunate. Walking in a neighborhood with Skittles, carrying a concealed weapon with a permit and talking to someone you deem as suspicious are not crimes...., but beating someone's head in (no matter how justified you feel) is.

 

Z is not a racist nor is he white. The only racial tensions right now are coming for the ACLU which should be protecting Z too since he is also a minority. I am sick of the race card being played. At this point, I feel like we have a reverse racism issue here in America. :rant:

[warriormom]

People who know me IRL would be shocked if I didn't react to someone following me. I would have said something if someone was following me and it wouldn't be polite.

 

Yes, a rude response is justified and reasonable. An assault is not justifiable or reasonable.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, a rude response is justified and reasonable. An assault is not justifiable or reasonable.

 

If someone assaulted me I would fight back.

 

There is NO proof of who hit first. Zip. Zero. None. We are arguing about the word of ONE man, who has a history of violence.

[LucyStoner]

There has been no evidence presented that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact.

 

But there is ample evidence that he:

 

-initiated contact and chose not to stay in his car.

-has a history/reports of aggressive behavior including pleading and getting diversion for assaulting a police officer plus a DV report.

-Calls the cops all.the.time on 911 for non-emergent matters and

-called the person he shot an expletive on tape.

 

Yet we should just take his word that it was a justified shooting? That seems like a HUGE assumption.

Edited March 27, 2012 by kijipt

[Joker]

My suspicion is that when the case goes before the grand jury more details will come out that will explain why this is an open and shut case. Evidence is being withheld from the public ( after the disaster of the Casey Anthiny trial).

 

I think the first article is a well rounded view of Z. I could not find one on T. Most of the articles on T nominate him for sainthood or chastise him as the devil himself. Unfortunately T committed his first crime with the wrong person by assaulting Z. He paid with his life which is unfortunate. Walking in a neighborhood with Skittles, carrying a concealed weapon with a permit and talking to someone you deem as suspicious are not crimes...., but beating someone's head in (no matter how justified you feel) is.

 

Z is not a racist nor is he white. The only racial tensions right now are coming for the ACLU which should be protecting Z too since he is also a minority. I am sick of the race card being played. At this point, I feel like we have a reverse racism issue here in America. :rant:

 

So, Trayvon's first assault gets him death. Zimmerman's first few (assaulting a police officer, domestic assault) get him nothing, but there's no racism going on and/or no existing problem. :001_huh: Is that seriously what you take out of this?

[Slartibartfast]

At this point, I feel like we have a reverse racism issue here in America. :rant:

 

Reverse against whom? Neither person in this scenerio is white.

 

Why should the ACLU do anything for Zimmerman?? Who would they sue? Twitter for being mean at him? Me for calling him a liar liar pants on fire?

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

My suspicion is that when the case goes before the grand jury more details will come out that will explain why this is an open and shut case. Evidence is being withheld from the public ( after the disaster of the Casey Anthiny trial).

 

Or all the facts won't come out. They rarely do.

 

I think the first article is a well rounded view of Z. I could not find one on T. Most of the articles on T nominate him for sainthood or chastise him as the devil himself. Unfortunately T committed his first crime with the wrong person by assaulting Z. He paid with his life which is unfortunate. Walking in a neighborhood with Skittles, carrying a concealed weapon with a permit and talking to someone you deem as suspicious are not crimes...., but beating someone's head in (no matter how justified you feel) is.

 

You are the one making assumptions here, assuming the shooter is telling the truth. Even his own witness only saw part of the action.

 

Z is not a racist

 

You don't know that.

 

nor is he white.

 

And that is not relevant. Again, the friend we had who was *murdered* under this law was white. The "race card" is a red herring.

 

But there is ample evidence that he:

 

-initiated contact and chose not to stay in his car.

-has a history/reports of aggressive behavior including pleading and getting diversion for assaulting a police officer.

-Calls the cops all.the.time on 911 for non-emergent matters and

-called the person he shot an expletive on tape.

 

Yet we should just take his word that it was a justified shooting?

 

Exactly.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But there is ample evidence that he:

 

-initiated contact and chose not to stay in his car.

-has a history/reports of aggressive behavior including pleading and getting diversion for assaulting a police officer plus a DV report.

-Calls the cops all.the.time on 911 for non-emergent matters and

-called the person he shot an expletive on tape.

 

Yet we should just take his word that it was a justified shooting? That seems like a HUGE assumption.

 

The tape is inconclusive at best. Btw, the physical evidence and an eyewitness support his claim.

You seem hung up on the fact he left his vehicle. He had as much right to do that as Martin did to be on the street, right?

[LucyStoner]

The only racial tensions right now are coming for the ACLU which should be protecting Z too since he is also a minority.

 

What? :confused:

 

Maybe you don't know that the ACLU defends the first amendment rights of people and is not an organization that picks clients based on race or gets involved with criminal justice cases unless first amendment issues are in play? They have gone to bat for white supremacists' right to march. I am a member and I have received no action alerts or communications materials from them on this- the organizations I see as active in this and who are filling my email box with news on this case are not the ACLU.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is a huge if. We do not know who assaulted whom. You are taking Zimmerman's story at face value. You are taking the word of a man with a record of domestic abuse and assault against a police officer, that he was the one who was confronted...when we hear him cursing and aching for a confrontation moments before in his own 911 call.

 

Please quote where he was "aching" for a confrontation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, theoretically, a man can follow another man until he provokes a reaction, and it would be ok to use deadly force because of that reaction. I'm curious what you believe the correct response should have been from Martin when he was being pursued.

 

He should have continued home. Based on what we know, Zimmerman did not engage in any illegal behavior.

[Slartibartfast]

He should have continued home. Based on what we know, Zimmerman did not engage in any illegal behavior.

 

"What we 'know'" =/= "what he 'said.'"

[Mrs Mungo]

The tape is inconclusive at best. Btw, the physical evidence and an eyewitness support his claim.

 

The physical evidence only shows he was punched, not that he was punched first. The eyewitness did not see how the fight started. The only thing we have is his word. Again, we hear him on the 911 tape, "These ********. They always get away." And we are to believe he didn't do the confronting? Confronting someone with "fighting words" is not always protected under free speech.

 

You seem hung up on the fact he left his vehicle. He had as much right to do that as Martin did to be on the street, right?

 

This is what I'm talking about. In most states people have a "duty to retreat." If you can leave the area, then you should. You shouldn't be following people, looking for a fight and then wind up shooting someone. That is not okay. That is *exactly* why duty to retreat laws exist.

[LucyStoner]

The tape is inconclusive at best. Btw, the physical evidence and an eyewitness support his claim.

You seem hung up on the fact he left his vehicle. He had as much right to do that as Martin did to be on the street, right?

 

You seem hung up on the fact that there is supposedly an eyewitness who 100% agrees with Zimmerman. It does not concern you that this person is a friend of the shooter? That at best he is likely biased in favor of his friend and at worst was enlisted by the shooter to lie for him? People who shoot unarmed kids to death usually have an incentive to make it look like it was not their fault, no? It also does not bother you that the shooter was not injured severely enough to require one bit of medical attention that night? What sort of life threatening assault on a public sidewalk does not require medical attention?

 

If a man accosts you on the street, pushing him down and/or punching him makes it perfectly ok for him to shoot you dead? Not use the weapon to tell the you to back off? Not shoot you in the hand? Ok to kill you? Would you feel ok if someone with the shooter's background approached you or your child presumably in an accusatory manner in the dark?

Edited March 27, 2012 by kijipt

[warriormom]

Yes at 21 he had a scuffle with police which I acknowledge in the attempt to look at all sides of this case.

 

The voice heard crying for help on another 911 call (with a neighbor) was not T but Z. T's father denied that the cries for help were his sons. Z's friends and family heard the same 911 tape and acknowledge that it was Z's cries for help. Just an interesting tid bit.

 

Again, when you have been cut off by a driver, nearly run over or any other time that your adrenaline is at an all time high....have you said something that you regret? I know I have. Even Cops say things on reality TV that has to be bleeped out when stress is at an all time high. Heck, real housewives say terrible things that they don't mean when stress is at an all time high. One racist remark, does not make one a racist.... just like one lie does not make a liar. Z mentored a black child, has family and friends that are black....oh and I love that they bring up that a majority of the kids he calls the police on are black....well it is a predominately black neighborhood. That would make logical sense.

 

Anyways, you have your opinion. I have mine. We will see what the impartial grand jury decides....another reason why America is the best country on the planet :)

 

 

 

But there is ample evidence that he:

 

-initiated contact and chose not to stay in his car.

-has a history/reports of aggressive behavior including pleading and getting diversion for assaulting a police officer plus a DV report.

-Calls the cops all.the.time on 911 for non-emergent matters and

-called the person he shot an expletive on tape.

 

Yet we should just take his word that it was a justified shooting?

[Slartibartfast]

One racist remark, does not make one a racist....

 

Yes, it does.

 

How was he in a stressed situation when the guy was just walking down the sidewalk? Does a black guy walking down the sidewalk compare to someone cutting you off in traffic? Is he in the wrong just for being there?

 

And it certainly doesn't look good if you make it right before you shoot them.

 

The neighborhood is 51% black.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sis

[Lovin Learnin]

Yes, it does.

 

How was he in a stressed situation when the guy was just walking down the sidewalk? Does a black guy walking down the sidewalk compare to someone cutting you off in traffic? Is he in the wrong just for being there?

 

And it certainly doesn't look good if you make it right before you shoot them.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

Please quote where he was "aching" for a confrontation.

 

Have you heard the 911 call?

 

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something

These *******s. They always get away.

 

He’s running

 

(he curses again, maybe there is a racial epithet)

 

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him?

 

Zimmerman:

Yeah.

 

OK.

We don’t need you to do that.

 

And why this?

Zimmerman:

It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible]

 

 

 

A man who had called 911 *at least 46 times*, often on black kids. This includes calling on one kid he describes as, "7 to 9 years old" in the call!

 

 

You don't think he was looking for a fight?

 

 

He should have continued home. Based on what we know, Zimmerman did not engage in any illegal behavior.

 

Neither did Trayvon, based on what we know.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He should have continued home. Based on what we know, Zimmerman did not engage in any illegal behavior.

 

"What we 'know'" =/= "what he 'said.'"

 

All we have is Zimmerman's statement and what the eyewitness saw. Martin's girlfriend did not report hearing a "confrontation" during their call.

[Slartibartfast]

All we have is Zimmerman's statement and what the eyewitness saw. Martin's girlfriend did not report hearing a "confrontation" during their call.

 

No, the eyewitness did not see the beginning. All we have is what Zimmerman said. So there is no "what we know" there is a 911 tape that is pretty shocking IMO.

 

If someone was following me, then running after me I would have felt threatened and maybe have fought too.

[warriormom]

So when someon calls someone a b$&@$ because they take their parking space or cut them off do they truly think the other is a female dog or terrible woman? In a sane state of mind, one may ration that was unfair or inappropriate. That is why when someone says something nasty in public there is usually an apology. Usually to really label someone a liar there needs to be a pattern. Same with racism....

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Mrs. Mungo - you have a flawed understanding of "duty to retreat" in self defense laws, and you are misapplying it in relation to this case. *IF* Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when assaulted, and he was on his back as he and the witness claim, he no longer had a "duty go retreat". That stipulation would also not kick in until he believed he was in danger and possibly in need of self defense, and would have nothing to do with him initially following Martin.

 

As far as what we "know", until there is evidence to the contrary that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, those claims are simply idle speculation.

[Slartibartfast]

So when someon calls someone a b$&@$ because they take their parking space or cut them off do they truly think the other is a female dog or terrible woman? In a sane state of mind, one may ration that was unfair or inappropriate. That is why when someone says something nasty in public there is usually an apology. Usually to really label someone a liar there needs to be a pattern. Same with racism....

 

Do you not see a pattern there?

[Joker]

All we have is Zimmerman's statement and what the eyewitness saw. Martin's girlfriend did not report hearing a "confrontation" during their call.

 

Really? Trayvon told his gf he was being followed, then she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman replied with asking Trayvon why he was there. We don't really know what happened next. Zimmerman approached and confroted Trayvon about his presence in his own father's neighborhood. I just can't get around the fact that Zimmerman could have stayed in his car but chose to pursue and confront Trayvon instead. If you're taking the eyewitness testimony, I think you have to accept the testimony of the gf who was on the phone at the time.

[LucyStoner]

So when someon calls someone a b$&@$ because they take their parking space or cut them off do they truly think the other is a female dog or terrible woman? In a sane state of mind, one may ration that was unfair or inappropriate. That is why when someone says something nasty in public there is usually an apology. Usually to really label someone a liar there needs to be a pattern. Same with racism....

 

 

But if that someone follows up calling the parking space snatcher a b!tch with accosting her and then shooting her dead we can conclude that this someone is:

 

-overly aggressive

-over reacted

-caused the death of someone else for not much of a reason

-pursued a path of escalation rather than deescalation

 

On a board where so many people quote the Bible, I am surprised no one is referencing it here. Thou shalt not kill. Blessed on the peacekeepers. Turn the other cheek.

Edited March 27, 2012 by kijipt

[warriormom]

I think it would be stressful to be In a crime ridden neighborhood (with shootings and burglaries that have happend) trying to look out for my neighbors.on top of that, seeing someone who seems suspicious in my neighborhood.... Maybe that is just me....

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Have you heard the 911 call?

 

Nothing in the transcript has him saying one word about wanting a confrontation. You are projecting. Again.

 

Also, weren't the 46 calls to the police and 911? Over a period of what, like 4 years or so? And didn't they include calls reporting things other than suspicious persons (vandalism,etc)? If so, that changes what the call volume implies greatly.

 

This guy

(he curses again, maybe there is a racial epithet)

 

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him?

 

Zimmerman:

Yeah.

 

OK.

We don’t need you to do that.

 

And why this?

Zimmerman:

It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible]

 

 

 

A man who had called 911 *at least 46 times*, often on black kids. This includes calling on one kid he describes as, "7 to 9 years old" in the call!

 

 

You don't think he was looking for a fight?

 

 

 

 

Neither did Trayvon, based on what we know.

[/color][/left]

[Slartibartfast]

I think it would be stressful to be In a crime ridden neighborhood (with shootings and burglaries that have happend) trying to look out for my neighbors.on top of that, seeing someone who seems suspicious in my neighborhood.... Maybe that is just me....

 

Are black people suspicious?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Really? Trayvon told his gf he was being followed, then she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman replied with asking Trayvon why he was there. We don't really know what happened next. Zimmerman approached and confroted Trayvon about his presence in his own father's neighborhood. I just can't get around the fact that Zimmerman could have stayed in his car but chose to pursue and confront Trayvon instead. If you're taking the eyewitness testimony, I think you have to accept the testimony of the gf who was on the phone at the time.

 

Right, and nothing she heard indicates Zimmerman did anything wrong.

[Joker]

Right, and nothing she heard indicates Zimmerman did anything wrong.

 

 

It also doesn't indicate that Martin did anything wrong. We do know that Martin wasn't the one that felt Zimmerman was suspicious though. Zimmerman admitted to dispatch that he was following Martin. Zimmerman pursued, and he didn't have to. Martin would still be breathing had Zimmerman stayed in his car.

[Slartibartfast]

Mrs. Mungo - you have a flawed understanding of "duty to retreat" in self defense laws, and you are misapplying it in relation to this case. *IF* Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when assaulted, and he was on his back as he and the witness claim, he no longer had a "duty go retreat". That stipulation would also not kick in until he believed he was in danger and possibly in need of self defense, and would have nothing to do with him initially following Martin.

 

 

No, she stated that the "duty to retreat" comes into play when he *gets out of his car and chases him*

 

He should not have gotten out of his car. He should not have chased him. Duty to Retreat means you TRY to avoid conflict, you don't actively pursue conflict.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. Mungo - you have a flawed understanding of "duty to retreat" in self defense laws, and you are misapplying it in relation to this case.

 

You are mistaken, I really do understand it quite well.

 

*IF* Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when assaulted, and he was on his back as he and the witness claim, he no longer had a "duty go retreat". That stipulation would also not kick in until he believed he was in danger and possibly in need of self defense, and would have nothing to do with him initially following Martin.

 

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

 

As far as what we "know", until there is evidence to the contrary that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, those claims are simply idle speculation.

 

Florida guidelines for licensed gun owners state: "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman."

 

Regarding the Neighborhood Watch guidelines:

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing sobecause hehas a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

 

 

The 911 operator is clearly surprised that Zimmerman is following Martin, and tells him, "we don't need you to do that."

 

 

 

Could Zimmerman have avoided this confrontation? Yes. Therefore, does Duty to Retreat apply? Yes, it does. Was Zimmerman acting within the guidelines of the Neighborhood Watch *or* the concealed carry guidelines? No. Was he playing cop? Yes.

 

 

I think it would be stressful to be In a crime ridden neighborhood (with shootings and burglaries that have happend) trying to look out for my neighbors.on top of that, seeing someone who seems suspicious in my neighborhood.... Maybe that is just me....

 

Again, my parents had their door busted down a couple of weeks ago in a very gun-friendly state. But, the state doesn't give them the right to prowl the streets looking for criminals to get into confrontations with.

[Joker]

Are black people suspicious?

 

Apparently! Especially if they're wearing a hoodie. Strangely enough, my dd (who is fair skinned and red haired) can wear one on her walk to and from school every day and not have a single problem.

[Slartibartfast]

Apparently! Especially if they're wearing a hoodie. Strangely enough, my dd (who is fair skinned and red haired) can wear one on her walk to and from school every day and not have a single problem.

 

I wear hoodies all the time, if someone chases me I am going to go ahead and shoot first so there is no confusion.

[LucyStoner]

Right, and nothing she heard indicates Zimmerman did anything wrong.

 

Would you feel safe if someone was following you in the dark? Do you have no right to question or fight back from a self appointed NW dude who was suspecting you of doing nothing other than walking?

 

If you carry a gun for protection do you have to shoot it for protection? Methinks an unarmed kid would back away from a gun if given the opportunity.

[warriormom]

Or if the parking space snatcher gets out of the car.....you try to confront them by chasing them down the parking lot. Is it reasonable for them to turn around and deck you then to start bashing your head into the concrete? You cry out for help but everyone just calls 911 rather then try to come to your assistance. So you

 

A. Let them possibly kill you. Hey you deserve it since you followed them.

B. hope for brain injury. Being able to talk and control your faculties are overrated. After all I do deserve it for following this fine young gentleman who is using me as a punching bag.

C. Take the gun out of your holster and shoot the parking space snatcher. After all you are trying to defend yourself. It is me or them.

 

At this point the issue is not the parking space, but your life being in danger. Regardless of how you got there, it is your right to defend yourself even if it means using deadly force. Just because you carry a concealed weapon does not mean you intended to use it on the person who took your parking space. Yes, your friends, family and police would think you were stupid for following the parking space snatcher....but should you be faulted for protecting yourself after having your head bashed in?

 

Case closed. Goodnight everyone.:tongue_smilie:

 

But if that someone follows up calling the parking space snatcher a b!tch with accosting her and then shooting her dead we can conclude that this someone is:

 

-overly aggressive

-over reacted

-caused the death of someone else for not much of a reason

Edited March 27, 2012 by cabreban

[Donna T.]

I want to share an article written by Val at The Hinky Meter. Val really has a gift for thinking clearly and providing information with clarity. I am just getting up to speed on Trayvon's case and found this article helpful. It is followed by many links to various news articles.

 

Trayvon Martin case: What a hot steaming tragedy

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2012/03/26/trayvon-martin-case-what-a-hot-steaming-tragedy/http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2012/03/26/trayvon-martin-case-what-a-hot-steaming-tragedy/

[Mrs Mungo]

Also, weren't the 46 calls to the police and 911? Over a period of what, like 4 years or so? And didn't they include calls reporting things other than suspicious persons (vandalism,etc)? If so, that changes what the call volume implies greatly.

 

Look at the number of times in the recent past he has called to report the "suspicious activity" (i.e., presence of) black males.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

[Slartibartfast]

Or if the parking space snatcher gets out of the car while you are trying to confront them by chasing them down. Is it reasonable for them to turn around and deck you then to start bashing your head into the concrete? You cry out for help but everyone just calls 911 rather then try to come to your assistance. So you

 

A. Let them possibly kill you. Hey you deserve it since you followed them.

B. hope for brain injury. Being able to talk and control your faculties are overrated. After all I do deserve it for following this fine young gentleman who is using me as a punching bag.

C. Take the gun out of your holster and shoot the parking space snatcher. After all you are trying to defend yourself. It is me or them.

 

At this point the issue is not the parking space, but your life being in danger. Regardless of how you got there, it is your right to defend yourself even if it means using deadly force. Yes, your friends, family and police would think you were stupid for following the parking space snatcher....but should you be faulted for protecting yourself.

 

Case closed. Goodnight everyone.:tongue_smilie:

 

You should be faulted for causing a conflict that resulted in the death of a child. I wouldn't call you stupid I would have called you a piece of crap that belongs in jail.

 

It's fun to be flippant but a child is still dead.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are mistaken, I really do understand it quite well.

 

Clearly, you do not.

 

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

 

You don't have to avoid the conflict until there clearly is one.

 

 

Florida guidelines for licensed gun owners state: "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman."

 

Regarding the Neighborhood Watch guidelines:

 

 

 

The 911 operator is clearly surprised that Zimmerman is following Martin, and tells him, "we don't need you to do that."

 

Zimmerman was still engaged in a lawful act, and there was no imminent conflict.

 

Could Zimmerman have avoided this confrontation? Yes. Therefore, does Duty to Retreat apply? Yes, it does. Was Zimmerman acting within the guidelines of the Neighborhood Watch *or* the concealed carry guidelines? No. Was he playing cop? Yes.

 

Where was he playing cop? Did he try to arrest Martin? Not that we know of. You, again, are making assumptions not supported by any facts.

 

Also, under your (incorrect) interpretation of "duty to retreat", my simply walking into the same location as someone who might decide to start a conflict with me would require me to immediately exit the area.

 

 

 

Again, my parents had their door busted down a couple of weeks ago in a very gun-friendly state. But, the state doesn't give them the right to prowl the streets looking for criminals to get into confrontations with.

 

Red herring. Asking why someone is in an area does not equal a "confrontation". Assuming anything more than that occurred is assuming facts not in evidence.

[LucyStoner]

Apparently! Especially if they're wearing a hoodie. Strangely enough, my dd (who is fair skinned and red haired) can wear one on her walk to and from school every day and not have a single problem.

 

Yup.

 

Me in a hoody = a white mother battling the baby weight or a former hipster music fan clinging to her proof of concert attendance.

 

My husband in a hoodie = a trendy looking white dude saying hey! My wife bought me this nifty artsy hooded sweatshirt at Threadless for Christmas.

 

My brother in a hoodie = a 200+ pound 6 foot tall black and tattooed threat? :confused:

[warriormom]

I would rather be an alive piece of crap and leave my fate to a jury.....boy, adult or eldely person.....i do not care.

 

I do not raise my children to beat someone's head into the concrete even if someone is unkind, rude or makes a false accusations. Defend yourself? Yes but not abuse someone because they question you. To be fair, I also teach them to leave police business to the police. That is what 911 is for.

 

You should be faulted for causing a conflict that resulted in the death of a child. I wouldn't call you stupid I would have called you a piece of crap that belongs in jail.

 

It's fun to be flippant but a child is still dead.

Edited March 27, 2012 by cabreban