17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[A-R]

...but mine never said anything like using your gun to stop a "but kickking" was "escalation"...

The butt-kicking wasn't the escalation of Zimmerman so far as we know, since Martin couldn't testify we don't even know if it was Martin's escalation. For all we know, Martin may have been defending himself with all he had available, his fists.

The escalation I am referring to is Zimmerman getting out of the car and continuing to be a participant in the events that would lead up to a physical confrontation. He had plenty of opportunity NOT to participate in the chain of events leading up to the physical confrontation. Had he received good CHL training, or internalized any good training that he did receive, he would have known this from the very start.

While I agree with the verdict of NOT GUILTY, as a CHL holder I am disgusted with Z's actions of escalation. He's no hero in my book, like some of you seem to opine.

1. Who is calling Zimmerman a "hero"? That's a far cry from defending the legal actions of one man against half a country of race baiters, self- defense haters, and the lemmings who follow them.

2. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Martin was defending himself from anything. Martin had ZERO injuries except the fatal GSW and the marks on his knuckles. Zimmerman was the victim - with injuries to prove it - until the gun shot.

And before you ignorantly say Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman's following/pursuing/chasing/stalking behavior (whichever exagerated descriptor best fits your narrative), please remember back to your CHL class use of force justification training and remember that physical violence is NOT justified in response to any of the descriptors above.

[fickman]

If it was racism rather than a broken "culture" then immigrants with dark skin would have the same problems as those born in America. That may be true for the risk of being shot by NYPD, but when you look at academic achievement and career success, Black immigrants in aggregate do much better than Blacks born here and immersed in a toxic "gangsta" culture.

Similar trends can be seen in other ethnic groups as well.

One of the most informative, interesting reads on the topic of culture and race that I've ever encountered. FWIW, culture is the root of the issue, and Sowell proves it with impeccable research. I HIGHLY recommend this book.
"Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell

[ Image ]

Just "Kindled" it.

Please start a thread on the book when you've read it. . . probably would be worth starting after the first essay.

[ScooterSissy]

...What we KNOW (for fact) that [what] Zimmermam did was not a good decision, but it was not criminal...

Could you say that a little louder? That has been my point from my earliest postings on this matter in the various threads. Yet we have those who say Z is such a great guys for being "invested" in his community.

We do not "know for a fact" that what Zimmerman did was not a good decision. We have varying opinions, but it's hardly a "fact".
What was the bad decision?
Getting out of the car to get the information the dispatcher requested seems to be the most popular "shouldn't have done its"; but that's not a universally held opinion. I know lots of folks that have repeatedly said he did nothing wrong in doing so.

And yes, I believe Zimmerman was a great guy for being invested in his community. I wish there were more neighborhood voluteers just like him. If there were, we'd likely have fewer thugs stealing and attacking people.

[Bullitt]

Zimmerman was totally within his right to keep an eye on Martin. He can walk and follow a person all day long around a neighborhood and it is not escalating anything.

Many jurisdictions would classify it as harassment.

Martin...started the whole confrontation and physical portion of the encounter

We don't know that.

So, drop the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

You will have to point out where I said that Z was the "aggressor." We don't know that Martin was the aggressor either. All we really know is that Z was getting his butt whipped at one particular point in time. Why didn't Z pull the gun earlier? Z has to wait until he is already on the ground getting his head pounded into the pavement? What CHL training have you received that says, "don't pull the gun until you are really getting your butt whipped."

Have you ever been in a fight where you were winning at first and then started losing. Or losing at first, and then started winning?

If I see someone in my neighborhood that doesn't look right, I may follow them too.

And they may double-back and follow you. Man has the ability to turn from prey to predator during the same engagement. See Mexican standoff analogy I posted upthread.

They can call the cops on ME as well and then we can let the police handle it.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If they come at me and try to fight I will stand my ground if necessary.

As you should, but would you also pursue them? Sounds like you would, after all in your opinion you can "follow him around all day." But like I said above, man has the ability to turn from prey to predator during the same engagement.

[ScooterSissy]

...but mine never said anything like using your gun to stop a "but kickking" was "escalation"...

The butt-kicking wasn't the escalation of Zimmerman so far as we know, since Martin couldn't testify we don't even know if it was Martin's escalation. For all we know, Martin may have been defending himself with all he had available, his fists.

The escalation I am referring to is Zimmerman getting out of the car and continuing to be a participant in the events that would lead up to a physical confrontation. He had plenty of opportunity NOT to participate in the chain of events leading up to the physical confrontation. Had he received good CHL training, or internalized any good training that he did receive, he would have known this from the very start.

While I agree with the verdict of NOT GUILTY, as a CHL holder I am disgusted with Z's actions of escalation. He's no hero in my book, like some of you seem to opine.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that getting out of a car to get a visual on someone on foot, so you can desribe him to a police dispatcher (as requested) is escalating anything.

[ScooterSissy]

Zimmerman was totally within his right to keep an eye on Martin. He can walk and follow a person all day long around a neighborhood and it is not escalating anything. He even lost Martin and was headed back to his car when Martin confronted him and started the whole confrontation and physical portion of the encounter. That was where the mistake was made and that was Martin's mistake. he should have just gone ahead and ran to the apratment where he was staying.

So, drop the fact that Zimmernam was the aggressor. If I see someone in my neighborhood that doesn't look right, I may follow them too. They can call the cops on ME as well and then we can let the police handle it. If they come at me and try to fight I will stand my ground if necessary.

Thank you!!! At least we're beginning to see some agreement that it wasn't "fact" that he escalated.
And from a CHL instructor no less. Yes, there are definitely varying opinions on this one, but it's not a "fact".

[ScooterSissy]

1. Who is calling Zimmerman a "hero"? That's a far cry from defending the legal actions of one man against half a country of race baiters, self- defense haters, and the lemmings who follow them.

I don't know if I have, but I will; he's a hero.
He volunteered to help out when the police were ineffective. His previous actions as a neighborhood watch voluteer contributed to the arrest of at least one of the criminals victimizing his neighborhood.
He was working with kids (yes, BLACK kids) as part of a tutoring/mentoring program. When that program stopped, he continued tutoring the children.
He was an outspoken critic of the Sanford police department when they failed to prosecute the son of the police chief for assualt (by that chief's son) on a homeless man. Oh, he was a BLACK homeless man.

And, after all of that, he has been made out to be some sort of villain for defending himself against a viscious physical attack. He's been called a racists, a murder, a homosexual pervert, and even "stupid" all because he chose to protect himself.

Yes sir, I will call him a hero. This incident turned out bad for him, but we need more Zimmermans and fewer Martins.

[Bullitt]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that getting out of a car to get a visual on someone on foot, so you can describe him to a police dispatcher (as requested) is escalating anything.

Well yes, we will disagree. I mean I am not here to get anybody to change their opinion on Z. Like I said from the start over these threads, I agree with the verdict. However, I opine as a CHL holder that Zimmerman erred, and grossly so. I further opine that his error gives more credence to those who would strip us of our licenses, or who would put more restrictions on us. Probably not here in Texas, but in other states where there is still significant opposition to the concept.

As for the dispatcher, I would have said, "no I can't comply with that request, I am a CHL holder and am armed, so I am not stepping out of this car. The closest street intersection is x and y."

[ScooterSissy]

Zimmerman was totally within his right to keep an eye on Martin. He can walk and follow a person all day long around a neighborhood and it is not escalating anything.

Many jurisdictions would classify it as harassment.

Name one, and cite the law please.

Martin...started the whole confrontation and physical portion of the encounter

We don't know that.

Nope, but all of the evidence (including Martin's "not girlfriend's" testimony).

So, drop the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

You will have to point out where I said that Z was the "aggressor." We don't know that Martin was the aggressor either. All we really know is that Z was getting his butt whipped at one particular point in time. Why didn't Z pull the gun earlier? Z has to wait until he is already on the ground getting his head pounded into the pavement? What CHL training have you received that says, "don't pull the gun until you are really getting your butt whipped."

Have you ever been in a fight where you were winning at first and then started losing. Or losing at first, and then started winning?

The testimony was that he got punched. There was no reason to pull a gun before he got punched. Immediately after he got punched, he was on the ground.

If I see someone in my neighborhood that doesn't look right, I may follow them too.

And they may double-back and follow you. Man has the ability to turn from prey to predator during the same engagement. See Mexican standoff analogy I posted upthread.

And you would be doing nothing wrong in doing so.
However, if you choose to punch the guy, then you've done something wrong.

[Keith B]

Zimmerman was totally within his right to keep an eye on Martin. He can walk and follow a person all day long around a neighborhood and it is not escalating anything.

Many jurisdictions would classify it as harassment.

Never seen one if you are in public and walking through a public area and you have no restraining order against you by the person you are following.

Martin...started the whole confrontation and physical portion of the encounter

We don't know that.
All evidence says it did and the jury believed it as well. Good enough for me.

So, drop the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

You will have to point out where I said that Z was the "aggressor." We don't know that Martin was the aggressor either. All we really know is that Z was getting his butt whipped at one particular point in time. Why didn't Z pull the gun earlier? Z has to wait until he is already on the ground getting his head pounded into the pavement? What CHL training have you received that says, "don't pull the gun until you are really getting your butt whipped."

Pulling your gun before there is use of force would have made Zimmerman the aggressor. Once use of force by Martin occurred, THEN Zimmerman could respond with the use of force.

Have you ever been in a fight where you were winning at first and then started losing. Or losing at first, and then started winning?
Doesn't matter. If Martin started it then Zimmerman has the right to defend himself. And the jury believed that is the case.

If I see someone in my neighborhood that doesn't look right, I may follow them too.

And they may double-back and follow you. Man has the ability to turn from prey to predator during the same engagement. See Mexican standoff analogy I posted upthread.

And then I would have the right to defend myself if they come at me physically, just like Zimmerman did.

They can call the cops on ME as well and then we can let the police handle it.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

As long as all I am doing is following them at a distance, then there will be plenty of time for them to enter an apartment/house or for the police to arrive.

If they come at me and try to fight I will stand my ground if necessary.

As you should, but would you also pursue them? Sounds like you would, after all in your opinion you can "follow him around all day." But like I said above, man has the ability to turn from prey to predator during the same engagement.
If they verbally confront me that is fine. I will ask if they live in the neighborhood or are visiting. If they convince me they have legitimate business there, then that is fine. If they start a physical altercation, then I will defend myself.

Bottom line, you are not going to convince me that Zimmerman was in the wrong. He had every right to do what he did and not to get attacked for it. End of my discussion on this.

[Bullitt]

Name one, and cite the law please.

You can google as well as I can. But generally it would go under stalking, and since the statutes are not really clear on harassment or stalking being that we are not under Contintental/Roman/Napoleonic code, it would be for a jury to decide.

Nope, but all of the evidence (including Martin's "not girlfriend's" testimony).

Irrelevant. Martin is not there to testify. Even if he was, there are only two witnesses and they would naturally testify opposing views. One is dead. No determination can be made on who threw the first punch based on any evidence.

The testimony was that he got punched. There was no reason to pull a gun before he got punched. Immediately after he got punched, he was on the ground.

That's Z's testimony, with no possible corroboration from the other person who was there.

You can persist in the dialogue if you wish, but there is no argument here since I agree with the verdict. However, Z is still a screw-up, and he did the CHL community no favor.

[Beiruty]

Bullit,

Can you explain, how the GZ injuries were inflict and by who? Can you explain why TM has no defensive-injuries other than the fatal shot?

[ScooterSissy]

Name one, and cite the law please.

You can google as well as I can. But generally it would go under stalking, and since the statutes are not really clear on harassment or stalking being that we are not under Contintental/Roman/Napoleonic code, it would be for a jury to decide.

Can't disprove a negative. I think you made this one up. A jury would never have decided. Zimmerman was a resident. Martin was a guest of a resident. Gated communities are essentially private property.

Nope, but all of the evidence (including Martin's "not girlfriend's" testimony).

Irrelevant. Martin is not there to testify. Even if he was, there are only two witnesses and they would naturally testify opposing views. One is dead. No determination can be made on who threw the first punch based on any evidence.

Sorry, but yes there can be some determination. As has been stated, Martin had no injuries except for his knuckles and a shot to the heart. Zimmerman had injuries that were completely consistent with his narrative that he was punched in the nose then had his head bashed against the pavement.

The testimony was that he got punched. There was no reason to pull a gun before he got punched. Immediately after he got punched, he was on the ground.

That's Z's testimony, with no possible corroboration from the other person who was there.

Actually, the other person there did corroborate it - through the injuries uncovered by the ME.

You can persist in the dialogue if you wish, but there is no argument here since I agree with the verdict. However, Z is still a screw-up, and he did the CHL community no favor.

The disagreement isn't over the verdict, it's over whether or not Zimmerman was a "screw-up" or "stupid". Bullit says so doesn't mean it's so.
As far as doing the CHL community no favor, I've tried to make it clear to you, and you seem to choose to ignore it - any shooting by a CHL holder is going to go against all CHL holders by those opposed to us arming ourselves. It won't matter if the person doing the shooting was 100% irrefutably in the right, the anti-gunners will scream over it. I saw that in the very first death from a CHL holder in Dallas (after the laws allowing CHL were passed) when a motorist was attacked by a man weilding a bat, and the attacker was shot. Yes, there were those then that said it "only" would have been a beating, and now another "victim" is dead.

I submit to you, that it is you who are doing the CHL holders a disservice when you deride one who used his weapon, and his license to carry, for what they were meant to be used - self-defense.

[brainman]

[RottenApple]

You can google as well as I can. But generally it would go under stalking, and since the statutes are not really clear on harassment or stalking being that we are not under Contintental/Roman/Napoleonic code, it would be for a jury to decide.

Actually, no it wouldn't. If your google-fu were strong, you'd have searched before opening your....well....flexing your fingers. Under Florida law, neither harassment or stalking fits. And if you check the laws in the other 49 states, you won't find a single one that calls following a person harassment or stalking. At least not without additional actions to go with it.

Florida Penal Code 784.048

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. [Zimmerman was asked to get descriptive information regarding the suspicious person, therefor his following Martin DID serve a legitimate purpose.]
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [Fails the stalking test as Z only followed Martin once.]
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153.