Zimmerman/Martin Case

[Gameface]

Do you feel Zimmerman's actions are different from pursuit, as you mean it there? Why?

No, not really. I made the statement specifically because I think Zimmerman's actions are an example of what an armed person should not do.

So, I don't think what Zimmerman did was right, and there's a dead kid as a result. It's a tragedy and I've never said otherwise. But I don't think there's a proper legal standard to apply that was in place before the incident took place that would have prohibited Zimmerman from doing what he did, armed or unarmed. So I can't say his actions resulted in the forfeiture of his right to defend himself with lethal force.

If Zimmerman got physical first or made threats to Martin before any physical altercation then I believe based on the current standard Zimmerman was not justified in using lethal force. I put the odds in my own mind at about 50/50 that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation (separate from initiating the non-physical confrontation that caused Martin to flee) that led to the fatal shooting. The problem is that the only first-hand account we have is from Zimmerman, which is why I'm so sure he'll walk.

 

[One Brow]

I don't know if pursuit itself is the standard or not. It's a common theme on law procedural TV shows, but that means little.

 

[Gameface]

I don't know if pursuit itself is the standard or not. It's a common theme on law procedural TV shows, but that means little.

Well, if someone punches me and runs around the corner I can't follow them around the corner and shoot them claiming self defense. But I don't think there are any laws in regard to carrying a concealed weapon that limit your ability to do anything that would be acceptable if you were not armed. So, if Zimmerman was not armed and he wanted to harass all the young black men that walked through his neighborhood by following them around I think he would be within his rights to do so. He could claim he was just performing his neighborhood watch duties and that anything these young black men did out in public was out in public and he should be free to also move around out in public and keep an eye on them. If one of them runs because they don't like him following them around Zimmerman could also run to keep up. Nothing illegal about that. If they ran to a dead end and Zimmerman caught up they are not free to physically assault him. ONLY if Zimmerman threatened them or initiated a physical altercation would these young black men have the right to respond in kind. If one of them punched first Zimmerman would be free to use whatever means necessary to stop the attack.

I suggest that a person carrying a concealed weapon should be prohibited from performing neighborhood watch type functions. They should be barred from going from a "safe" location into a clearly dangerous situation or any sort of violent confrontation. They should be barred from physically engaging anyone during a crime or confrontation. So, like I said, if a guy grabs the old lady's purse on the street and runs past you, you are not allowed to grab him because you have a gun, and because the situation is not life threatening you would absolutely not be allowed to brandish your gun in order to stop the thief. If you were unarmed it would be perfectly legal for you to wrap the guy up and tackle him.

Florida went the opposite direction with their "stand your ground" rule. Now, I support the idea that if attacked you should not be legally required to run away. What I don't like, however, is the notion that a concealed carry weapon hold can go out into town looking for trouble and when he only finds suspicion he manufactures a confrontation that in his own mind justifies the use of deadly force.

 

[Stifle Tower]

^^^Good post, gameface. Already repped you for something else today. IMO, Zimmerman overstepped his bounds. At most, he should have watched and followed, but never confronted. That is the responsibility of trained, law enforcement officers. Not sure if there will be a conviction. At the very least, the concealed carry permit should be permanently revoked.

 

[Stoked]

Well, if someone punches me and runs around the corner I can't follow them around the corner and shoot them claiming self defense. But I don't think there are any laws in regard to carrying a concealed weapon that limit your ability to do anything that would be acceptable if you were not armed. So, if Zimmerman was not armed and he wanted to harass all the young black men that walked through his neighborhood by following them around I think he would be within his rights to do so. He could claim he was just performing his neighborhood watch duties and that anything these young black men did out in public was out in public and he should be free to also move around out in public and keep an eye on them. If one of them runs because they don't like him following them around Zimmerman could also run to keep up. Nothing illegal about that. If they ran to a dead end and Zimmerman caught up they are not free to physically assault him. ONLY if Zimmerman threatened them or initiated a physical altercation would these young black men have the right to respond in kind. If one of them punched first Zimmerman would be free to use whatever means necessary to stop the attack.

I suggest that a person carrying a concealed weapon should be prohibited from performing neighborhood watch type functions. They should be barred from going from a "safe" location into a clearly dangerous situation or any sort of violent confrontation. They should be barred from physically engaging anyone during a crime or confrontation. So, like I said, if a guy grabs the old lady's purse on the street and runs past you, you are not allowed to grab him because you have a gun, and because the situation is not life threatening you would absolutely not be allowed to brandish your gun in order to stop the thief. If you were unarmed it would be perfectly legal for you to wrap the guy up and tackle him.

Florida went the opposite direction with their "stand your ground" rule. Now, I support the idea that if attacked you should not be legally required to run away. What I don't like, however, is the notion that a concealed carry weapon hold can go out into town looking for trouble and when he only finds suspicion he manufactures a confrontation that in his own mind justifies the use of deadly force.

I do not like that paragraph the way it is written. But seeing as it is written by you I am willinng to bet there is more to it.

I see no reason that a CC individual cannot tackle that purse snatcher you mentioned simply because he is a CC holder. Also what about more intense situations. Such as Trolley Square, Tucson or the Aurora? A CC should legally be able to draw and confront the shooter. Not saying they must do it but they should be able to.

Granted that a CC does not make you a cop and I'd agree on the CC not drawing on minor things like a purse snatcher. But by making it illegal you penalize the CC holder.

 

[Gameface]

I do not like that paragraph the way it is written. But seeing as it is written by you I am willinng to bet there is more to it.

I see no reason that a CC individual cannot tackle that purse snatcher you mentioned simply because he is a CC holder. Also what about more intense situations. Such as Trolley Square, Tucson or the Aurora? A CC should legally be able to draw and confront the shooter. Not saying they must do it but they should be able to.

Granted that a CC does not make you a cop and I'd agree on the CC not drawing on minor things like a purse snatcher. But by making it illegal you penalize the CC holder.

I think there should be a higher standard of responsibility and caution if you want to go out into public with the ability to use lethal force with the squeeze of a trigger. I think it SHOULD limit your actions to a certain extent.

I don't want to hamstring a CCW holder so that they question doing the right thing in the heat of the moment and possible end up not taking appropriate action to save their own life. I don't want to threaten people with legal ramifications from making innocent minor mistakes within the larger context of having to deploy their concealed weapon and use it.

But I also don't want having a CCW to embolden carriers leading them to believe they should intervene wherever they can. Thinking "I have my concealed weapon so I'm going to go confront this big drunk guy who's speaking inappropriately to those young ladies. If he takes it the wrong way I don't have anything to worry about because I have my gun." If you want the option to defend yourself with a gun then I think you should stay out of any situation where you are not justified in brandishing your concealed weapon. An unarmed person trying to tackle a purse snatcher is taking a pretty big risk. They are going to be very aware of that fact. An armed person might again think that they're going to go for it and see if they can be the hero. If the purse snatcher then tried to break free using force how could you argue that shooting them was unjustified?

I also don't like situations like we had when a neighborhood watch volunteer in Utah was confronted by the father of some girls they were keeping an eye on. Both parties felt their action were in the right. The NWV was patrolling the neighborhood and watching what he considered to be suspicious and the father was trying to stop a couple dirty old men from harassing his daughter. The result was two otherwise (as far as I know) law abiding citizens getting into a quick-draw showdown in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

If you're carrying a concealed weapon you shouldn't be getting in wrestling matches with criminals. Period. Your gun might become unconcealed for one (a violation of the law if the situation doesn't warrant lethal force) or the criminal might be able to get it away from you. A wrestling match over a purse then becomes a wrestling match over a gun...now where there was not one a situation justifying lethal force has been created BY THE CONCEALED WEAPON HOLDER. That's a bad paradox in my book.

 

[Stoked]

^^ The above reply confirms for me that there was more to it. I like the part where you talk about not hitting CC holders with legal ramifications.

 

[PearlWatson]

His reply still didn't address the core problem of his original post:

I suggest that a person carrying a concealed weapon should be prohibited from performing neighborhood watch type functions.

So you want the neighborhood watch to be vulnerable to the dangerous people they are watching out for. They might as well be sitting ducks in the comfort of their own home like they were before they got involved.

Screw that. With crap parents abdicating their responsibility we need more men, not less, getting involved to protect neighborhoods from the skittle hoodlums on the loose looking for ways to support their pot habit.

 

[Gameface]

His reply still didn't address the core problem of his original post:



So you want the neighborhood watch to be vulnerable to the dangerous people they are watching out for. They might as well be sitting ducks in the comfort of their own home like they were before they got involved.

Screw that. With crap parents abdicating their responsibility we need more men, not less, getting involved to protect neighborhoods from the skittle hoodlums on the loose looking for ways to support their pot habit.

I guess what I'd say is, I think the neighborhood watch organizations should bar people from being armed while performing any official neighborhood watch duties or if they are actively pursuing someone. If at any point they feel the situation is unsafe or could become unsafe they should go to safety and call the police.

I don't think there should be a law that specifically prohibits being part of the neighborhood watch and having a concealed carry weapon. That's too vague and not really what I was trying to say.

I think it's enough to say that concealed carry weapon holders should not insert themselves into a crisis that they are not a part of and have every opportunity to avoid. If you want to stand your ground that's fine. If while standing your ground the crisis comes to you then do what you've got to do I guess. But if you're standing in relative safety and people are running past you to get away from a crisis don't run the other way to see what you can do. Get yourself to safety and defend yourself if necessary.

I have never had a concealed weapon permit, but from what I understand this is essentially what they preach in the class. Your concealed weapon is for the defense of yourself and your family against the threat of death or grave bodily harm. That's what it's for. It is not an insurance policy against the ramifications of you initiating and/or inserting yourself into crisis.

 

[PearlWatson]

I guess what I'd say is, I think the neighborhood watch organizations should bar people from being armed while performing any official neighborhood watch duties or if they are actively pursuing someone.

Yeah, that's the same crap you essentially said the first time.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, that's the same crap you essentially said the first time.

If it's the neighborhood militia or vigilante group then be armed. I think it's good policy for neighborhood watch groups, founded on the principle of observing and passing information on to police, to not have their volunteers carry weapons. To me it's a matter of what they want to represent. If the neighborhood watch wants to also perform a vigilante function I think it also raises the risk that their volunteers would face retribution in kind for whatever other members of the neighborhood watch decide to do. If, on the other hand they want to be a neutral observe and report organization it would be pretty reprehensible for someone to attack them unprovoked.

 

[PearlWatson]

If it's the neighborhood militia or vigilante group then be armed. I think it's good policy for neighborhood watch groups, founded on the principle of observing and passing information on to police, to not have their volunteers carry weapons. To me it's a matter of what they want to represent. If the neighborhood watch wants to also perform a vigilante function I think it also raises the risk that their volunteers would face retribution in kind for whatever other members of the neighborhood watch decide to do. If, on the other hand they want to be a neutral observe and report organization it would be pretty reprehensible for someone to attack them unprovoked.

Yeah, if they want to represent sitting ducks they should do it without weapons.

I have a real problem with your equating their protecting their neighborhood with weapons with "provocation." It is reprehensible to be attacked while protection of their homes and family either way.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, if they want to represent sitting ducks they should do it without weapons.

I have a real problem with your equating their protecting their neighborhood with weapons with "provocation." It is reprehensible to be attacked while protection of their homes and family either way.

Not ever what I said.

I don't equate being armed with a provocation. I do however see the role of a neighborhood watch volunteer as one that BENEFITS from being unarmed. You disagree. I'm cool with that.

 

[PearlWatson]

Not ever what I said.

I don't equate being armed with a provocation. I do however see the role of a neighborhood watch volunteer as one that BENEFITS from being unarmed. You disagree. I'm cool with that.

The "benefits" of being unarmed is martyrdom. Hooray. What a brave dead guy!

 

[One Brow]

So, if Zimmerman was not armed and he wanted to harass all the young black men that walked through his neighborhood by following them around I think he would be within his rights to do so. He could claim he was just performing his neighborhood watch duties and that anything these young black men did out in public was out in public and he should be free to also move around out in public and keep an eye on them. If one of them runs because they don't like him following them around Zimmerman could also run to keep up. Nothing illegal about that.

Frankly, while it might vary from one jurisdiction to another, I'm sure that's not universally true. At the very least, it's highly threatening behavior, particularly when you are denying that you are following them at all.

 

[One Brow]

The "benefits" of being unarmed is martyrdom. Hooray. What a brave dead guy!

For example? Most neighborhood watch volunteers are unarmed. Whose been killed doing that?

 

[PearlWatson]

There have been burglaries around my area. I don't go following every random teenager I see, especially at 7 PM when I imagine most burglars do their work.

This was part of his phone call to 911:

He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."

Apparently because he was walking around in the rain. Hey Zimmerman, **** you. Sometimes I enjoy just walking around in the rain. It's relaxing, and it clears the mind. Hell they made a song about it in the 60s for chrissakes, it's hardly some unusual activity. Should I be subjected to 911 calls from asshats like you because I'm out minding my own business and not breaking the law? I'm praying, just praying, that the 911 operator would tell you to go **** yourself and clear the line for people who are calling with real problems. The real tragedy would be if someone having a heart attack had to wait a second longer so this clown could spout his nonsense about people who are not committing crimes.

Again, I've changed my tune on this case in general in terms of his guilt, or the evidence they have, but all the mall cop jokes are appropriate to him. Martin as far as I know was out there minding his own business, and if Zimmerman would have just kept on driving to the store he wouldn't be in this mess and he wouldn't have killed someone.

I understand his perspective. I disagree with it and hate people like him. There's the difference.

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or is on drugs." What does that even mean? Since when is this rent a cop qualified to know any of that. So Martin was walking around in the rain stoned. Who cares, I did that all the time as a teenager. Doesn't mean I need an idiot cowboy to go calling the cops on me. And I don't get the connection of finding a place to light up and casing a property at all, unless possibly you are sneaking into someone's back porch area to do that. Which seems rather risky to me. When I went and found places to light up in, I tended to avoid residential areas altogether. At the very least I would find some trees to hid in. From the map it appears he was on a greenbelt area that separated the townhouses, and it appears there are plenty of far more worthy places to get high at, even if between the complexes. It seems like sneaking into someone's back porch area at 7 pm (not exactly a time people are asleep or away from their house) would be pointless when there are plenty of better areas within easy walking distance.

So yeah, I get that Zimmerman is this gung ho rent a cop who really thought he was protecting his community. Most jackasses who butt into other people's business believe they are doing it for some "greater for society" motive. Doesn't mean his perspective is correct or that he should have just minded his own business.

I get that you sympathize with every pothead out there but Zimmerman's neighborhood was his business.

Of course you don't follow "random" teenagers in your neighborhood. Either does Zimmerman. He followed a 6 foot something guy who looked like he was casing the place, like recent burglars of similar description.

Every dummy on the planet is "qualified" to spot someone up to no good. It ain't that hard.

But hey I hate people who try to protect their wives and neighbors too. They are the suckiest people on the whole damn planet.

 

[PearlWatson]

For example? Most neighborhood watch volunteers are unarmed. Whose been killed doing that?

That's nice that you have access to the neighborhood watch database of statistics (NWDS) but I don't have that luxury, so I'm at a 2 way disadvantage seeing as us gun lovers can't count up the # of times guns have prevented something from happening...you know because it didn't happen.

 

[One Brow]

Of course you don't follow "random" teenagers in your neighborhood. Either does Zimmerman. He followed a 6 foot something guy who looked like he was casing the place, like recent burglars of similar description.

You mean, young, black male? Wow, that's not at all insulting or racist. Zimmerman just went around following young black men.

That's nice that you have access to the neighborhood watch database of statistics (NWDS) but I don't have that luxury, so I'm at a 2 way disadvantage seeing as us gun lovers can't count up the # of times guns have prevented something from happening...you know because it didn't happen.

As has been mentioned, the majority of households in the US do not have guns, and the neighborhood watches are under recommendations to not intervene in crimes, so they don't have a particular need for guns.

Also, I didn't ask you to count up the number of times guns prevented crimes. I asked you who's been killed on neighborhood watch while not wearing a gun. Is it something more common than when you are out taking a walk? Murders do get reported, after all.

 

[PearlWatson]

You mean, young, black male? Wow, that's not at all insulting or racist. Zimmerman just went around following young black men.



As has been mentioned, the majority of households in the US do not have guns, and the neighborhood watches are under recommendations to not intervene in crimes, so they don't have a particular need for guns.

Also, I didn't ask you to count up the number of times guns prevented crimes. I asked you who's been killed on neighborhood watch while not wearing a gun. Is it something more common than when you are out taking a walk? Murders do get reported, after all.

Zimmerman had no control over the race of the recent burglars and it ain't racist of him to notice that they happened to be black.

I can't really trust your "majority of households" assertion seeing as gun owners ain't exactly going to offer up whether they have guns to government busybodies, unless they absolutely have to.

As I said I don't have access to the NWDS as you seem to. I'm sure any murder related to neighborhood watch is automatically flagged for that beautiful database.