Stand Your Ground in Danger

[pinkpistol]

Apologies if this has been said, but I believe it's extremely important to point out the difference between a perfectly good law, i.e. "stand your ground," and a shooter who may be operating outside the law. I welcome an inquiry to sort out the facts from the fiction in this shooting. But again, the law isn't at fault.

And I'm not a lawyer.

[gdanaher]

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).

Wow, I agree with you. Scary.

But in some industries, a higher level of training implies a higher responsibility. Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs. Zimmerman might not have been 'on duty' at the time, but he has read the rules/suggestions, has been told that the police don't need him to follow. He could have chosen to stay in his car, stay back a half block, and waited for the police to arrive. There has been nothing to indicate that there was any immediate threat to persons or property other than Zimmerman not recognizing Martin, so what was his rush? His case is not helped much when the college where he has been taking criminal justice classes asks him to stay away until the smoke clears.

[Jusster]

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.

You are right, I don’t have all the facts and I would agree with you except for the fact that people are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. They do look at the persons actions before and after the event that would allow a jury to determine what they believe actually took place. To say that they only need to focus on who threw the first punch is not reality as we know it.

Jusster

[A-R]

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...

Good rebuttals. On the above quoted portion, I agree he's way outside his guidelines but one of my overriding points was - if he's NOT actively patrolling for NW, just going to grocery store, does he have to FOLLOW those guidelines to a T? At what point does he remove his NW cap and become just George the citizen again? Not saying that a citizen should pursue either - just saying that hanging the noose of NW captain around his neck may have been premature and beside the point.

I absolutely agree with you that Zimmerman was STUPID to pursue Martin at all. But I'm starting to wonder based on new info, confusing timeline, etc., whether Zimmerman may have actually reconsidered 911 operator's "we don't need you to do that" caution and been returning to his vehicle when Martin confronted him.

And even if Zimmerman DID stupidly pursue Martin, I'm still not convinced his stupidity rises to the level of criminality IF (and that's a BIG IF) Martin did in fact throw the proverbial first punch. For Martin to be justified in punching AND pouncing upon and continuing to beat on Zimmerman (as alleged) then Zimmerman would have to be provoking Martin and/or committing a crime that warranted such a violent response from Martin. While following someone is certainly a pretext to potential harm, is it enough by itself to warrant not just threat of force/deadly force but actual USE of force/deadly force by Martin against Zimmerman? What IMMINENT danger REASONABLY required Martin to IMMEDIATELY (allegedly) beat the snot out of Zimmerman?

[VMI77]

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...)

Morality informs the law, it doesn't define it. What may be immoral --and I'm not necessarily agreeing that what Z did prior to the shooting was immoral-- is not necessarily illegal. Also, under the LAW, ignorance is no excuse. It sounds like that is really what you're saying too. But at this point, we don't really KNOW that Z did what you say he did --to wit, that he "followed" M. Another recent account says he got out of his vehicle, looked to see where M was going, then returned to his vehicle....and that M followed him to his vehicle and confronted him, punched him to the ground after a verbal confrontation, slammed his head on the sidewalk, and tried to take his gun away. If that's the case, then I don't see how you can consider his action prior to the shooting "immoral." We don't know what the truth is at this point because the media has worked very hard to obscure it.

[Keith B]

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.


Jusster

But I ask you this; if the the break-ins in the neighborhood were being committed by black teenage boys, then is his suspicion of this individual racial profiling or just related to the fact he fits the description? The same goes for terrorists, they typically are young men of middle-eastern descent. So where does profiling stop and description matching start? It is a VERY gray line.

If the person fits the description of someone associated with the previous break-ins, then I believe it to NOT be racial profiling and only association with known evidence. Personally, if middle-aged overweight white guys with mustaches were trying to blow up planes, break into houses, etc, then I would not consider it profiling (racial or otherwise) and think it was just evidence matching. Admittedly his comments on the phone 'supposedly' included a racial epitaph (I couldn't hear it, my hearing is bad from shooting and years of rock and roll), Zimmerman's other comments didn't help in portraying him as just a concerned citizen, so that went against him in trying to say it was racially motivated. No matter, he still was on the phone to police and that was the right thing to do if there is ANY suspicious activity in the neighborhood. I would have done the same thing (calling 911 that is) if I saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood, but would have stayed in my vehicle.

[gdanaher]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ghts-punch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[speedsix]

...the police report posted today said that Z himself said he followed the guy for several more minutes...I read that he intended to keep doing that, when he wouldn't give the dispatcher a location for police to meet him...after saying OK...if you can drop a curtain between the time Z first saw the guy, and the first word between the two of them...the BEFORE part is what I'm addressing...we don't know what happened on the AFTER part...may never...

...if you'll read the posts I made...I wasn't referring to the LAW...which covers things the other side of our curtain...but to what he did wrong to set this whole thing off in the first place...I'm going to make one more example of what I was saying...then I'm going to shut up...
...I have training and experience as a cop...I have training and experience as a licensed security guard...if I, knowing the law well, saw T. just as Z did...and I followed him without seeing him actually DO anything wrong, and started questioning him...with no authority at all and KNOWING I was out of line for doing it...even after being waved off by a police dispatcher who took my info and was dispatching the REAL police to investigate...and started such a mess as this...what would the police's view of it be? what would the DA's view of it be? and most importantly, to me...how would it introduce me to the Grand Jury who will decide my fate??? whose fault would it be that this ever happened???
...because of my training and knowledge...it would be impossible to convince the GJ that I was just trying to do the right thing...by doing the wrong thing...I would be held to a higher standard because I KNEW better...so did he...
...now I'm going to hush...and watch...

[74novaman]

Wow, I agree with you. Scary.

Well I guess my Nazi propaganda machine is getting better.

But in some industries, a higher level of training implies a higher responsibility. Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

I get what you're trying to say here, but your example isn't correct. Good Samaritan laws do protect someone trying to help out, even doctors who have lots of training. For example, check out this case of a Texas doc who could not be held negligent for injuring a child during birth because he was acting as a samaritan, not the woman's paid medical professional:http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/h ... 011203.htm

I understand you're trying to stress that more training=more responsibility, but considering that most NW groups emphasize and teach reporting to police and not confrontation, I'm not sure that his NW training has any real bearing on his actions once the confrontation became violent. His NW training most likely taught reporting to the police, which is what he did.

Zimmerman might not have been 'on duty' at the time, but he has read the rules/suggestions, has been told that the police don't need him to follow. He could have chosen to stay in his car, stay back a half block, and waited for the police to arrive. There has been nothing to indicate that there was any immediate threat to persons or property other than Zimmerman not recognizing Martin, so what was his rush? His case is not helped much when the college where he has been taking criminal justice classes asks him to stay away until the smoke clears.

Yep, I agree that he made a stupid decision to get out and confront instead of merely reporting. That act in and of itself is not illegal, however. Getting out of the car does not justify Martin attacking Zimmerman. Nor does Martin looking "suspicious" justify Zimmerman attacking Martin.

What happened beyond calling the cops (regarding who changed the situation from non violent to violent) is unclear. We still don't have conclusive evidence of who did what, so its hard to determine who was standing their ground and in the right and who was attacking.

As for the college telling him to stay away, I think that is a symptom of the media circus, not an indication of his innocence or guilt. When you have the New Black Panther party encouraging people to find and apprehend Zimmerman "Dead or Alive", keeping that whole mess off your campus is just common sense.

None of what was stated above is intended as an attack on you personally. Please don't take it the wrong way.

[VMI77]

....I have training and experience as a cop...I have training and experience as a licensed security guard...if I, knowing the law well, saw T. just as Z did...and I followed him without seeing him actually DO anything wrong, and started questioning him...with no authority at all and KNOWING I was out of line for doing it...even after being waved off by a police dispatcher who took my info and was dispatching the REAL police to investigate...and started such a mess as this...what would the police's view of it be? what would the DA's view of it be? and most importantly, to me...how would it introduce me to the Grand Jury who will decide my fate??? whose fault would it be that this ever happened???
...because of my training and knowledge...it would be impossible to convince the GJ that I was just trying to do the right thing...by doing the wrong thing...I would be held to a higher standard because I KNEW better...so did he...
...now I'm going to hush...and watch...

As it applies to all the things you describe before the first violent act....I don't see how it rises to the level of "immoral" --using poor judgement is not the same as doing something immoral. I think part of the distinction depends on state of mind. If he was intending to provoke a reaction or cause harm, yes, it was immoral. Following someone and asking them what they're doing in your neighborhood may be intrusive, offensive, and even stupid, but if the intent is to discover whether or not that person is doing, or intends upon doing something illegal, or is a potential threat to the neighborhood (at a time when crimes are known to have been committed), I fail to see how it can be considered "immoral."

[Jusster]

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.


Jusster

But I ask you this; if the the break-ins in the neighborhood were being committed by black teenage boys, then is his suspicion of this individual racial profiling or just related to the fact he fits the description? The same goes for terrorists, they typically are young men of middle-eastern descent. So where does profiling stop and description matching start? It is a VERY gray line.

If the person fits the description of someone associated with the previous break-ins, then I believe it to NOT be racial profiling and only association with known evidence. Personally, if middle-aged overweight white guys with mustaches were trying to blow up planes, break into houses, etc, then I would not consider it profiling (racial or otherwise) and think it was just evidence matching. Admittedly his comments on the phone 'supposedly' included a racial epitaph (I couldn't hear it, my hearing is bad from shooting and years of rock and roll), Zimmerman's other comments didn't help in portraying him as just a concerned citizen, so that went against him in trying to say it was racially motivated. No matter, he still was on the phone to police and that was the right thing to do if there is ANY suspicious activity in the neighborhood. I would have done the same thing (calling 911 that is) if I saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood, but would have stayed in my vehicle.

Honestly Keith, the statement that I made was because I didn’t feel that Zimmerman being part of NW was the only major reason why this case has become such a media circus. If he would have shot and killed another white or hispanic male people probably would have been less interested in the story. Sad but true. I’ll try to address your question though.

For me, that would be based on whether or not it was an everyday occurrence or if it were just your typical crime that happens. In other words, if it were known that a crime spree were being committed by a black male or group of black males in my neighborhood then I would be on the lookout for sure. For instance, my neighbors truck was broken into a couple of months ago by a hispanic male on a bike (probably in his 20’s he said). He came down to my house and talked to me about it and asked me to keep an eye out for the guy. Now if I saw someone snooping around cars, peeking in windows, or hopping somebody’s fence then sure, I’d be the first one to call the police. But if I called for every hispanic male walking through my neighborhood especially months after the incident occurred, not only would I be spending a lot of my time on the phone with LEO, but I’m pretty sure at some point it would seem like more of a vendetta then an actual pursuit of justice for my neighbor.

Zimmerman lived in a multi-cultural neighborhood. Some say it is 25% black. To me that would mean it wouldn’t be out of the norm to see a black male walking, hanging out, or whatever. Maybe that’s because I live in Houston which is a pretty diverse place, so no, I wouldn’t just jump to the conclusion that he must be that guy based on skin color or simply similar attire. In fact because I have a 15yo son and regularly try to keep up with his FB page and friends he hangs out with. I’d be willing to bet half of them dress that way regardless of race, and only a few of them did I feel the need to tell him that he should find another friend to associate with.


Jusster

[Dragonfighter]

...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 for one thank God that stupid isn't illegal...at least not yet. If it were, I wonder how many of this forum would be my cell mates in stupid prison?

[bizarrenormality]

Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

Really? Please tell me more about Good Samaritan laws not applying if you took a Red Cross class.

[WildBill]

Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

Really? Please tell me more about Good Samaritan laws not applying if you took a Red Cross class.

I am not a doctor, but from what I have read, cracked ribs are common when CPR is performed correctly by an MD, RN or EMT. If I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected by a forum member with firsthand experience.

http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/as ... .html#What" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if I crack

[bizarrenormality]

Speaks to credibility.