gdanaher wrote:If Zimmerman had read the Neighborhood Watch Handbook
Irrelevant if Z was running an errand and saw someone he thought suspicious on his return home....as the police report apparently says --then he wasn't acting in any neighbor watch capacity, wasn't "on watch."
gdanaher wrote:then obeyed the 911 operator when told to hang tight until an officer arrived
Where's your evidence he was told to "hang tight." According to a statement by the city Manager, the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" and did not issue any command or lawful order to Z not to do anything.
gdanaher wrote:maybe even turn and demand why I was being followed
And you'd be within your rights to do so. What you would not have a right to do is throw a punch at the guy just for following you or not showing you the respect you think you deserve.
THANK YOU!
Anyone still chasing the red herrings of Zimmerman
1. not following NW guidelines
2. not "obeying" 911 dispatcher's commands
really needs to re-examine the circumstances as we now believe them to be.
speedsix wrote: but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...
The NW rules do not have the force of law. Even the 911 operator did not 'order' him to stop when he said he was following -- just "We don't need you to do that". That is not a command to stop. There were no laws broken by either party (at least that we know of) until one of them touched the other. That unwanted touch, be it a touch or a punch was an assault, and seems to me that would determine the aggressor at that point.
...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)
And what would it get me? In order for the police to do anything to me, I'd have to have broken a law. Or do you think they'd throw me in jail overnight just to teach me a lesson? Make up a charge they know is bogus? What? Give me a strongly-worded lecture, maybe?
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
speedsix wrote:...the "facts" keep changing like a kaleidoscope(yes, I had to look it up), but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...
...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)
...we have only ONE witness (so far) of who touched, hit, or shoved who first...but that's not relevant to what I'm saying here...he went against all his training and played police, following and chasing a "suspect"...who hadn't DONE anything but walk down the street...or it wouldn't have happened...making a call from his car wouldn't have caused what followed...no matter whose version or which "reliable" witness account you choose to believe...and you're either a NW captain or a "concerned citizen"...but not both...whether or not you're wearing your cape...can't have it both ways...
I agree with you for the most part, that Zimmerman put himself in harm's way, but the left is using this to attack self-defense concepts and further an anti-gun agenda, promote Obama's reelection, and possibly even to provoke civil unrest. The media is deliberately lying to advance these agendas and attempting to manipulate and inflame emotions --by for instance, showing an old photo of a much younger and smaller Martin (that make him look angelic) and unflattering photos of Zimmerman (to make him look unreliable). It is not in the interest of justice or individual rights to distort, exaggerate, manipulate, or lie about the facts of this incident, as is being done by those seeking to use this killing to advance a political agenda.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.
It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.
I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.
As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.
Jusster
IMO, Playing police would mean that Z would have stopped and questioned Trayvon, maybe tried for apprehension. Did he do that?. Second, it isn't against the law to trail someone whom you think is suspicious, nor is it a justifiable means to attack someone; just because they were following you? By your admission, Z instigated the confrontation, so by following someone you, for whatever reason is your own, deem suspicious then you're asking for a a broken nose...? Sorry, but simply trailing someone is a non-aggressive act that does not justify an aggressive solution, therefore I don;t see why we're saying Z automatically is the aggressor, without any details as to whom actually 'threw the first punch".
And how do you know that he didn’t stop and question Martin? Based on Martin’s GF’s statements Martin asked Zimmerman why are you following me and Zimmerman responded with what are you doing here. Nobody knows what was said that started the fight.
I agree with gdanaher. You say it’s not a crime to follow someone but I would disagree depending on the context. When the person runs from you and you chase them is that still considered non-aggressive? If I were doing nothing wrong and I noticed a “suspicious” person following me. I attempt to run to avoid a confrontation only to find moments later that you chased after me. At that point I would probably feel threatened. Do I then have the right to stand my ground?
speedsix wrote:...the "facts" keep changing like a kaleidoscope(yes, I had to look it up), but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...
...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)
...we have only ONE witness (so far) of who touched, hit, or shoved who first...but that's not relevant to what I'm saying here...he went against all his training and played police, following and chasing a "suspect"...who hadn't DONE anything but walk down the street...or it wouldn't have happened...making a call from his car wouldn't have caused what followed...no matter whose version or which "reliable" witness account you choose to believe...and you're either a NW captain or a "concerned citizen"...but not both...whether or not you're wearing your cape...can't have it both ways...
...they'd tell the person found following someone who "looked suspicious" that that was a great way to start trouble...and tell them to mind their own business...report things that seemed suspicious and stay out of it...for sure...just like the NW rules were written...by the police dept who sponsored them...it's not about force of law...it's about doing what he was taught to do and not doing what he was taught not to do...similar to a security guard's acting outside his authority or a cop acting outside his...if he's going to be part of the solution...there are rules to follow...instead, he chose to be part of the problem...and look what he caused...by his actions...even BEFORE he opened his mouth...it's common sense...or, in this case...complete lack of it...observe and report as he was taught to do...we wouldn't be having this discussion...he started the whole thing...and what happened afterwards...we may never get the truth of...
...don't start none and there won't BE none surely applies to this case...the descent into chaos isn't surprising...
speedsix wrote:...they'd tell the person found following someone who "looked suspicious" that that was a great way to start trouble...and tell them to mind their own business...report things that seemed suspicious and stay out of it...for sure...just like the NW rules were written...by the police dept who sponsored them...it's not about force of law...it's about doing what he was taught to do and not doing what he was taught not to do...similar to a security guard's acting outside his authority or a cop acting outside his...if he's going to be part of the solution...there are rules to follow...instead, he chose to be part of the problem...and look what he caused...by his actions...even BEFORE he opened his mouth...it's common sense...or, in this case...complete lack of it...observe and report as he was taught to do...we wouldn't be having this discussion...he started the whole thing...and what happened afterwards...we may never get the truth of...
...don't start none and there won't BE none surely applies to this case...the descent into chaos isn't surprising...
Sooo.... my 'punishment' for not following the rules WOULD be a strongly-worded lecture...
It most CERTAINLY IS about force of law. The end results, whether it be a murder conviction or an acquittal, or no charges filed, its ALL about the force of law.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
...if you would stay on the subject of the post you challenged, then you could admit that this: "It most CERTAINLY IS about force of law. The end results, whether it be a murder conviction or an acquittal, or no charges filed, its ALL about the force of law." is not true or applicable to what I posted...nor what I just replied...you're ignoring both posts' content and talking about the events that happened AFTER what I posted about...because it "sounds good"...I wasn't talking about anything in what you said here...and you know it...you're trying to justify what he did initially...and you can't...so you have to go back to something else...
...he was wrong...he started it...he ignored everything he'd been told in training...was told by the dispatcher not to follow(semantics aren't important...we all know what she communicated...and he said OK)...and still, backed up by the latest "true story" issued by police...followed for several minutes...ANY communication...ANY asking what the guy was doing there...was totally wrong...like I've been saying it was...and THAT'S what started this fiasco...whether he's charged, convicted, acquitted, or rewarded for what might have happened after...that's not what I was talking about...clearly...and what I WAS talking about is not about the force of law...
speedsix wrote:...if you would stay on the subject of the post you challenged, then you could admit that this: "It most CERTAINLY IS about force of law. The end results, whether it be a murder conviction or an acquittal, or no charges filed, its ALL about the force of law." is not true or applicable to what I posted...nor what I just replied...you're ignoring both posts' content and talking about the events that happened AFTER what I posted about...because it "sounds good"...I wasn't talking about anything in what you said here...and you know it...you're trying to justify what he did initially...and you can't...so you have to go back to something else...
...he was wrong...he started it...he ignored everything he'd been told in training...was told by the dispatcher not to follow(semantics aren't important...we all know what she communicated...and he said OK)...and still, backed up by the latest "true story" issued by police...followed for several minutes...ANY communication...ANY asking what the guy was doing there...was totally wrong...like I've been saying it was...and THAT'S what started this fiasco...whether he's charged, convicted, acquitted, or rewarded for what might have happened after...that's not what I was talking about...clearly...and what I WAS talking about is not about the force of law...
I don;t care what he ignored. I don't care what rules (not laws) he broke. He was NOT told not to follow. He was where he was legally entitled to be.
The entire subject SHOULD only be concerned with the interaction between the individuals.
With that, I'm out.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target." Never Forget.
speedsix, I don't read into any comments an attempt to "justify" Zimmerman's decision to leave his vehicle and pursue.
on the subject of Neighborhood Watch, what is and is not binding under the law IS important for this case because many are trying to use Zimmerman's stupid decision against him as pretext to a murder indictment.
I am a member of my Neighborhood Watch program. I'm not the "captain". And frankly we don't ever "patrol" the neighborhood - just contact neighors, exchange phone/email info, email or Facebook alert each other to relevant crime info, organize National Night Out and perhaps a few other smaller barbecues or whatever just to let neighbors meet each other.
I have never been handed any set of rules, though I know the national organization instructs some form of observe & report only, and I'm trained to do this anyway based on my participation in the broader "CHL culture". But let's say there was some sort of non-binding rules I was to follow as a NW member. Am I to follow those rules at all times when I'm in the neighborhood? Most if not all NW groups, and certainly the more active Citzens on Patrol groups, advise not carrying firearms. So does my membership in my NW mean I should not ever carry my gun when I leave my house because I will be traveling through my neighborhood? If I'm making a run up to the grocery (as Zimmerman claims to police), does my membership in NW group supercede my CHL authority to carry a weapon or my 2A rights?
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).
It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?
A-R wrote:
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).
It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?
I think his participation in a Neighborhood Watch program is exactly what is leading people to paint him as a "wanna be cop".
Now it doesn't matter at all legally (if he was indeed "not on watch" when he confronted Martin) that he is a NW member, but its part of what has helped drag him through the court of pubic opinion with a guilty sign hung around his neck.
It'll be interesting when it all shakes out who said and initiated what (if we ever learn the facts...which I'm doubtful of at this point. Already too much of a circus for facts to be important to most people).
bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.
It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.
I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.
As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.
Jusster
IMO, Playing police would mean that Z would have stopped and questioned Trayvon, maybe tried for apprehension. Did he do that?. Second, it isn't against the law to trail someone whom you think is suspicious, nor is it a justifiable means to attack someone; just because they were following you? By your admission, Z instigated the confrontation, so by following someone you, for whatever reason is your own, deem suspicious then you're asking for a a broken nose...? Sorry, but simply trailing someone is a non-aggressive act that does not justify an aggressive solution, therefore I don;t see why we're saying Z automatically is the aggressor, without any details as to whom actually 'threw the first punch".
And how do you know that he didn’t stop and question Martin? Based on Martin’s GF’s statements Martin asked Zimmerman why are you following me and Zimmerman responded with what are you doing here. Nobody knows what was said that started the fight.
I agree with gdanaher. You say it’s not a crime to follow someone but I would disagree depending on the context. When the person runs from you and
you chase them is that still considered non-aggressive? If I were doing nothing wrong and I noticed a “suspicious” person following me. I attempt to run to avoid a confrontation only to find moments later that you chased after me. At that point I would probably feel threatened. Do I then have the right to stand my ground?
Jusster
From your reaction I can tell you don't have all the facts, that's OK, neither do I, but I am not rushing to condemn anyone in the absence of details. That .is my point here. Someone bridged the gap between a verbal and physical confrontation. It was That action alone that should be examined as the one despicable for the cause of the shooting. I don't know which party is guilty here, but again, I'm not rushing to throw the book at Z like so many here and elsewhere are.
GBousley
Flash and Web Developer http://texaschlapp.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Texas CHL Location Database, Android App and Information http://GBousley.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A-R wrote:speedsix, I don't read into any comments an attempt to "justify" Zimmerman's decision to leave his vehicle and pursue.
A. but, as the "facts" change,(often), folks are ignoring the fact that HE started the whole thing...and is morally responsible...regardless of what folks here think we "should" be talking about...the Grand Jury will start at the beginning...and they will find out the things I posted about Z...LEGAL or not won't matter...it's part of the story...and they'll hear it and it will have a large bearing on what happened later...that's what I was addressing...and that's what some think "shouldn't" be talked about here...
on the subject of Neighborhood Watch, what is and is not binding under the law IS important for this case because many are trying to use Zimmerman's stupid decision against him as pretext to a murder indictment.
A. what I posted about (NW) isn't at all binding under the law...the LAW comes into play after he began this fiasco...it will show the Grand Jury a lot about him and his mindset...but doesn't relate to the law on what happened after
I am a member of my Neighborhood Watch program. I'm not the "captain". And frankly we don't ever "patrol" the neighborhood - just contact neighors, exchange phone/email info, email or Facebook alert each other to relevant crime info, organize National Night Out and perhaps a few other smaller barbecues or whatever just to let neighbors meet each other.
A. reading their handbook tells us what they are supposed to do in Sanford...and what they are not supposed to do...which varies in some respects across the nation...he's way outside the guidelines of HIS city's Watch...which he agreed to when he became affiliated with them...
I have never been handed any set of rules, though I know the national organization instructs some form of observe & report only, and I'm trained to do this anyway based on my participation in the broader "CHL culture". But let's say there was some sort of non-binding rules I was to follow as a NW member. Am I to follow those rules at all times when I'm in the neighborhood? Most if not all NW groups, and certainly the more active Citzens on Patrol groups, advise not carrying firearms. So does my membership in my NW mean I should not ever carry my gun when I leave my house because I will be traveling through my neighborhood? If I'm making a run up to the grocery (as Zimmerman claims to police), does my membership in NW group supercede my CHL authority to carry a weapon or my 2A rights?
A. Not legally, no...and as long as you didn't do anything to the detriment of the NW's rules...it would never come up...nor would it have with him...if he had just made the call and gone on about his business...when he got out of his vehicle and started following the guy, armed...that's where he went against all they'd taught him...and shows he wanted to do things HIS way instead...even after being "waved off" by the dispatcher and telling the dispatcher OK...he kept doing it his way...
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).
It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?
A. morally, it does...a citizen who didn't know better and did the same thing would be ignorant...Z was trained better...warned against exactly what he did...and going against that to play police and follow and question the guy is precisely what makes it so wrong for him...he'd been taught that that was trouble...and dove off into it anyways...and someone died because of it...he caused this death (morally, not legally) as surely as if he'd shot the guy the bird and then it proceeded to this end...he acted totally irresponsibly for his level of knowledge of such things...
(I tried to answer in green...didn't work...my answers are after the A.s...)
Last edited by speedsix on Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A-R wrote:
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).
It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?
I think his participation in a Neighborhood Watch program is exactly what is leading people to paint him as a "wanna be cop".
Now it doesn't matter at all legally (if he was indeed "not on watch" when he confronted Martin) that he is a NW member, but its part of what has helped drag him through the court of pubic opinion with a guilty sign hung around his neck.
It'll be interesting when it all shakes out who said and initiated what (if we ever learn the facts...which I'm doubtful of at this point. Already too much of a circus for facts to be important to most people).
And the fact that he decided that a 17yo (black) young man walking home from the corner store was suspicious enough to call the police and follow even though he was not breaking any laws. I think that played an even bigger part in the escalation then him being part of NW. I agree with you, we will probably never know all the details of this case.
