Stand Your Ground in Danger

[ScooterSissy]

He had no business getting out of his car to look for a suspect...unless he was a police officer. Which he was not!

It may not have been a smart thing to do, but it was certainly a legal thing to do. It was a gated community, and he was a resident. He had a right to be on any of the public areas. Trayvon had a right to be there as well. What Trayvon didn't have a right to was physically attack him. Once that line was crossed (assuming that's what happened), that's where things started getting illegal.

[ScooterSissy]

Oh... and sissy... I was not implying anything! I was checking to see if I missed something here... obviously... by your reaction... I missed nothing.

You lost me, by what reaction?
I answered your question, that no, no one said that. Then I asked about possible implication. Did I react inappropriately?

[ScooterSissy]

That is your opinion, but he did not break any law in getting out of his car and following Martin from a distance.

Except that the 911 operator specifically (edit: essentially) told him not to follow...

According to at least one of the reports I've read, when the 911 operator stated "we don't need you to do that" (follow him), he was already out of the car, (the operator had asked "are you following"), and he responded "Okay" and was returning to his car.

Don't know, just passing on what I've read.

But even if he began following in spite of the 911 operator's implied directions not to, that is still not justification for a physical assault.

[matriculated]

One thing I've never heard of is someone looking for trouble and not finding any. It's hard enough avoiding trouble, but actively looking for it usually produces swift results. Zimmerman went looking and found some pretty quick.

Just as a general matter, I think that CHL's are supposed to be held to a higher standard. We have the ability to swiftly end someone's life attached to some section of our hip (usually), and knowing that we have this power should make us more cautious, not less. That concept clearly never sunk in with Zimmerman.

Someone else pointed this out before but it bears repeating. This is the same argument used to say "Well she was wearing a mini-skirt so she deserved to be assaulted." So what do you think, should we start charging women who attack their attackers with assault?

Huh? I honestly haven't got the first clue as to what you mean. Would you mind expounding?

He got out of his car to observe...not wise, but not illegal either. He was beat up on his way back to his car. A woman walking through a neighborhood wearing skimpy clothes, again not wise but perfectly legal, puts temptation in front of a man, and gets assaulted on the way back to her car. You could argue quite effectively that both of them "went looking for trouble" but neither did anything wrong and because of what they did got assaulted. So if the woman wearing a skimpy dress shoots the person trying to rape her should we take into consideration the clothing she was wearing and if it "provoked" the man into raping her?

Ahhh, excellent. Thank you for bringing that up. The problem is, you've got the actors in your analogy mixed up. I'll explain. But either way, let's say I go with the analogy as you see it: comparing Zimmerman's actions with a woman's choice of clothing is hardly...umm, analogous. Unless you really do think that if women choose to dress a certain way they're "asking for it," that doesn't make any sense.

Now here's the analogy as I see it.

Fairly often after a good looking woman wearing something less than a burka gets raped, there's a chorus of "Well look at how she's dressed" and "She asked for it" knuckle dragging-type of commentary from certain quarters of our society. Instead of blaming the rapist, they will blame the victim, because hey! Look at that short skirt, who could resist? She basically did that to her self. Who would wear something like that, after all, except for someone asking for it. What kind of character defect would make her put something like that on her body?

I see the same kind of victim blaming happening with Martin. I mean, did you see his tats and grill? And he smokes pot? And golly gee wilikers did you see the foul language the young man uses on Twitter? Who would do something like that but a no-good thug? Clearly the same character flaws that would make him do those things are responsible for him asking to be shot by going around attacking well-meaning neighborhood watchmen.

[matriculated]

She saying that holding CHLees to a higher standard just because they carry a gun is similar to saying a woman was "asking for it" (being raped) because she wore a sexy outfit. It's a logical fallacy to suggest someone is "asking for it" (whatever IT may be) simply because of what they choose to legally wear, carry, etc.

I addressed the rest of this post in my previous one, but what you say there doesn't sit right with me. I obviously didn't say that Zimmerman "asked for it" because he's a CHL. He purposefully went looking for trouble and found it. What I said was, as a CHL, he should have known better than to look for trouble. Isn't avoidance one of the first and most important principles of self-defense, and isn't self-defense the reason we carry? Zimmerman ignored that principle and the rest is history.

[mamabearCali]

Ahhh, excellent. Thank you for bringing that up. The problem is, you've got the actors in your analogy mixed up. I'll explain. But either way, let's say I go with the analogy as you see it: comparing Zimmerman's actions with a woman's choice of clothing is hardly...umm, analogous. Unless you really do think that if women choose to dress a certain way they're "asking for it," that doesn't make any sense.

Now here's the analogy as I see it.

Fairly often after a good looking woman wearing something less than a burka gets raped, there's a chorus of "Well look at how she's dressed" and "She asked for it" knuckle dragging-type of commentary from certain quarters of our society. Instead of blaming the rapist, they will blame the victim, because hey! Look at that short skirt, who could resist? She basically did that to her self. Who would wear something like that, after all, except for someone asking for it. What kind of character defect would make her put something like that on her body?

I see the same kind of victim blaming happening with Martin. I mean, did you see his tats and grill? And he smokes pot? And golly gee wilikers did you see the foul language the young man uses on Twitter? Who would do something like that but a no-good thug? Clearly the same character flaws that would make him do those things are responsible for him asking to be shot by going around attacking well-meaning neighborhood watchmen.

Nice bait and switch. I am speaking of the actions that led to their assaults--the woman in question and Mr. Zimmerman. I actually don't care what Mr. Martin was wearing or what was on his teeth. He was not shot for his tats or his clothes. He was shot after he (according to all the facts we have at our disposal now) attacked Mr. Zimmerman and was using lethal force on him (bashing his head into the ground). Mr Zimmerman, according to all the facts we have at our disposal now had done nothing more than follow Mr. Martin and then (according to him begin to return to his car) which though unwise, is not illegal.

[mamabearCali]

She saying that holding CHLees to a higher standard just because they carry a gun is similar to saying a woman was "asking for it" (being raped) because she wore a sexy outfit. It's a logical fallacy to suggest someone is "asking for it" (whatever IT may be) simply because of what they choose to legally wear, carry, etc.

I addressed the rest of this post in my previous one, but what you say there doesn't sit right with me. I obviously didn't say that Zimmerman "asked for it" because he's a CHL. He purposefully went looking for trouble and found it. What I said was, as a CHL, he should have known better than to look for trouble. Isn't avoidance one of the first and most important principles of self-defense, and isn't self-defense the reason we carry? Zimmerman ignored that principle and the rest is history.

Avoidance is one of the first principals of self defense. So is dressing in such a way that does not call attention to yourself. But just because someone does something that is slightly unwise that does not negate their right to self defense in the face of lethal force. Nor does it make them culpable for another persons actions.

I don't know that he went looking for trouble. His neighborhood has been robbed many times. It seems to me that he was trying to help his friends neighbors and himself get a good look at someone suspicious in the neighborhood. Had it been me I would have followed in my car and watched. So is watching out for your neighbors looking for trouble now?

[matriculated]

Ahhh, excellent. Thank you for bringing that up. The problem is, you've got the actors in your analogy mixed up. I'll explain. But either way, let's say I go with the analogy as you see it: comparing Zimmerman's actions with a woman's choice of clothing is hardly...umm, analogous. Unless you really do think that if women choose to dress a certain way they're "asking for it," that doesn't make any sense.

Now here's the analogy as I see it.

Fairly often after a good looking woman wearing something less than a burka gets raped, there's a chorus of "Well look at how she's dressed" and "She asked for it" knuckle dragging-type of commentary from certain quarters of our society. Instead of blaming the rapist, they will blame the victim, because hey! Look at that short skirt, who could resist? She basically did that to her self. Who would wear something like that, after all, except for someone asking for it. What kind of character defect would make her put something like that on her body?

I see the same kind of victim blaming happening with Martin. I mean, did you see his tats and grill? And he smokes pot? And golly gee wilikers did you see the foul language the young man uses on Twitter? Who would do something like that but a no-good thug? Clearly the same character flaws that would make him do those things are responsible for him asking to be shot by going around attacking well-meaning neighborhood watchmen.

Nice bait and switch. I am speaking of the actions that led to their assaults--the woman in question and Mr. Zimmerman. I actually don't care what Mr. Martin was wearing or what was on his teeth. He was not shot for his tats or his clothes. He was shot after he (according to all the facts we have at our disposal now) attacked Mr. Zimmerman and was using lethal force on him (bashing his head into the ground). Mr Zimmerman, according to all the facts we have at our disposal now had done nothing more than follow Mr. Martin and then (according to him begin to return to his car) which though unwise, is not illegal.

If you'll please peruse this thread and the other one on the same topic, you'll find plenty of people making a big deal of Martin's appearance, language, pot-smoking, and all the other things that make him a no-good thug (some people have actually used the word thug). In fact, one forum member was essentially spamming both threads with numerous consecutive posts on exactly that topic ( VMI). So I'm not baiting and switching anything, I'm describing what I see people engaging in: victim blaming.

[mamabearCali]

If you'll please peruse this thread and the other one on the same topic, you'll find plenty of people making a big deal of Martin's appearance, language, pot-smoking, and all the other things that make him a no-good thug (some people have actually used the word thug). In fact, one forum member was essentially spamming both threads with numerous consecutive posts on exactly that topic ( VMI). So I'm not baiting and switching anything, I'm describing what I see people engaging in: victim blaming.

You asked me to expound on what I said. If you want to argue with VMI that is fine with me. But I am not arguing on his behalf. Your bait and switch was in the argument and the subject of the argument. My subject was Mr. Zimmerman following someone acting suspicious and thus getting jumped by them. You argued back that Mr. Martin was shot because he had gold teeth. That is not the case. He was followed perhaps because of his appearance and his actions, but he was shot because he attacked another person with lethal force. Two different arguments.

[Charles L. Cotton]

20 pages on this thread and the public still doesn't know precisely what happened. However, a lot of folks took positions very early on when the media reporting was at its worst. Now that additional facts are coming out that paint a different picture, these same folks feel compelled to support their original positions.

"A rape victim got what she deserved?" Really? I'm 62 years old and I've never heard that said once in my entire life. That includes 15 years as a COP and 25 years an an attorney. Even if some few actually made that absurd claim, they certainly wouldn't have represented even a respectable minority. I've heard NOW types claim that was a typical man's attitude, usually after a father cautioned his daughter not to dress in a manner that might increase the likelihood of her becoming a victim.

Tattoos, unnecessary gold teeth and profanity on his various websites don't, in and of themselves, justify killing a 17 year old. However, they represent who the person was at the time of his death unlike the media-circulated photo of him at 12 years old that depicts him as smaller, with no tattoos or gold teeth. The reports of him being suspended from school for having marijuana residue in a baggie, or his buddies making Internet posts bragging about him attacking and punching others, don't, in and of themselves, justify him being killed, but it is relevant when the media, a U.S. Senator, and countless black organizations are portraying him as a Boy Scout in an attempt to "rush to judgment" (how's that for turning the tables) about Zimmerman.

The general public doesn't know what happened and neither do any of us here on the Forum. Who does know? Zimmerman, witnesses to the events and the police department investigating the case, that's who. So will the special prosecutor.

Why don't we give Zimmerman the same courtesy we would want for ourselves and wait until those with the facts make a determination? Plus, have you noticed how sticky eggs get when they are on your face?

Chas.

[03Lightningrocks]

Edit:
If you want to start following people around your neighborhood that is up to you. I don't have time for that nonsense.

Had it been me I would have followed in my car and watched. So is watching out for your neighbors looking for trouble now?

Which one is it?

[ScooterSissy]

...
So I'm not baiting and switching anything, I'm describing what I see people engaging in: victim blaming.

Wasn't Zimmerman a victim as well? Didn't he get his nose broken and his head based against the sidewalk (and that was before Martin was shot).

And yet, you're blaming Zimmerman...

[03Lightningrocks]

I'm not ready to hang Zimmerman.... Heck....maybe he did us all a favor...I don't have any way of knowing.

The one and only firm position I have on this situation is that the average citizen is not well advised to play cop. Too much can go wrong and we may be causing a crime by trying to see if someone is about to commit a crime. If Zimmerman had been following me around... I would have assumed he was about to mug me... Or worse. This is a great example of why we as citizens should not try to play police officer.

It appears that Zimmerman has made a wrong choice here and it may cost him dearly. For what?.. He did not witness ANY crime being committed by the kid he was stalking.

[mamabearCali]

Edit:
If you want to start following people around your neighborhood that is up to you. I don't have time for that nonsense.

Had it been me I would have followed in my car and watched. So is watching out for your neighbors looking for trouble now?

Which one is it?

I am not following any old person around. Like I said I don't have time for that. However if I see a large man acting strangly around my neighbors house if I can keep an eye on them, I will. Not inconsistent at all.

[bzo311]

If you folks want to be law enforcement officers, getting a CHL was not the first step. Good luck with that. Don't ever forget, you don't have law enforcement authority. There is a HUGE difference in self defense and running around looking for trouble...which is what Zimmerman did. ZIMMERMAN WITNESSED NO CRIME TAKING PLACE!

I don't think anyone is arguing or disagreeing with the point you're trying to make. All I am trying to say here is that while Zimmerman's actions were not the brightest, they were not illegal. Meaning, sure Zimmerman didn't have to get out of his car, but Treyvon didn't have to attack him either.