17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[baldeagle]

I don't understand all the fuss about whether or not Z stayed in the car.

He didn't stay in the car. That's like arguing about if both people stayed at home and watched Dancing With The Stars, none of this would have happened.

...your second sentence and third answer the first...and you're right...if he HAD stayed in the car, he wouldn't have followed anyone, they wouldn't have become alarmed/upset, and none of this would have happened...that's my point from day one...he followed and chased after TM, TM got alarmed/upset, and the rest is to be hashed out in the courts...by becoming physically involved in the activity he reported(following and chasing), he put himself where he was when the rest of it happened...instead of safely going on his way to the store or home...
...he crossed the line between good citizen and wannabe...and HE knew it, being a member of NW...

Again, that's simply false. TM began running before GZ exited his car because he was alarmed. At that point GZ hadn't done anything except what you insist he should only do, which is to observe from inside his vehicle. I don't understand why you insist on misrepresenting what happened, but you do. After TM started running, GZ got out of his car to observe where he went. That's not getting physically involved - unless you insist that any activity other than sitting on your butt is getting physically involved.

But this is all a huge waste of time. You're clearly going to stick to your guns no matter what the evidence suggests, so there's little point in arguing with you.

[mamabearCali]

[I'd rather have TM...at least he was minding his own business and didn't stir up trouble by playing police...]

(my replies to your comments in [ ] above...
...once again, the words mean what they say...they say what they mean...and all this adding to and interpreting is just a way to support a pre-conceived notion...if you just read what was said, it's a lot easier...

You think TM minded his own business? Really? How is leaving your front porch and doubling back to jump someone not "stirring up trouble.". If you would rather have a pot smoking, drank imbibing, jewelry stealing person, willing to beat someone up he "thought" was following him living next to you rather than a law abiding citizen that is your business I suppose.

Words can mean a great many things. That is why digital conversations are so problematic. Here I stand with bald eagle....you are going to stick with what you have decided on no matter what evidence comes your way.

[mamabearCali]

I don't understand all the fuss about whether or not Z stayed in the car.

He didn't stay in the car. That's like arguing about if both people stayed at home and watched Dancing With The Stars, none of this would have happened.

That's exactly right, Bill! You won't see any of them dancers following strangers around in the dark, I'll betcha'.

I also suspect that there are many Z supporters in this thread who talk a lot bigger game than they would play if placed in a similar situation. In fact, I suspect there are a lot of Z supporters herein who would never be placed in Z's position because they would never volunteer to be on their Neighborhood Watch squad. I can see/hear the excuses now, "I'm drivin' the kids tomorrow", "Suzie has the croop", "I have an early flight", "Dancin with Stars" is on tonight, "The in-laws are coming over", "Tonight is our night", etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The unfolding facts indicate that the Zimmermans are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. If George, bless his well-intentioned heart, had stayed in his vehicle, they would not be in the trouble they are in now.

Now then, y'all go and do the right thing. When it's your turn to be on Neighborhood Watch, you do what you think is best...and let us know how it works out for you. Inquiring minds...

I won't be on neighborhood watch because they would require me to disarm and that I won't do. However, if I have the opportunity to be a good neighbor I shall do what I can.

[Oldgringo]

[I'd rather have TM...at least he was minding his own business and didn't stir up trouble by playing police...]

(my replies to your comments in [ ] above...
...once again, the words mean what they say...they say what they mean...and all this adding to and interpreting is just a way to support a pre-conceived notion...if you just read what was said, it's a lot easier...

You think TM minded his own business? Really? How is leaving your front porch and doubling back to jump someone not "stirring up trouble.". If you would rather have a pot smoking, drank imbibing, jewelry stealing person, willing to beat someone up he "thought" was following him living next to you rather than a law abiding citizen that is your business I suppose.

Words can mean a great many things. That is why digital conversations are so problematic. Here I stand with bald eagle....you are going to stick with what you have decided on no matter what evidence comes your way.

Given the info available, I'm with Speedo.

Madam, I suspect you, baldeagle and I will serve about the same amount of time in/on our respective Neighborhood Watch. I'll tell you how mine works out if y'all will tell me about yours. Deal?

[speedsix]

...I really hope that following strangers in our area who are acting strangely doesn't become the norm for the average citizen...then our police wouldn't have much to do...and besides, sometime it provokes serious problems...

...he DID act against the rules of the NW group...and I've posted the rules several times...they don't say(at least in their official handbook) not to "confront someone physically"...maybe you can show us where you got that...but they DO say:
" What you will
not do is get physically involved with
any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law
enforcement agency."

I believe confront was the word you used, that was why I used it.

[...I DID use "confront"...back in APRIL to say something different : speedsix wrote:
...because he was a Neighborhood Watch captain...and he had been trained NOT to follow,chase, or confront...merely to observe and report...making NO contact with a suspicious person...that is why it was wrong for him for sure...and only MIGHT have been wrong for someone not trained in that manner...it has nothing to do with his carrying under CHL...it's all about him doing what he knew not to do...thereby creating the whole situation wherein a confrontation and the events following could play out....

...but not HERE...that's your word here...]

Sorry guy, we're going to disagree on whether or not he was "physically involved with any activity".
He followed and reported. He didn't engage Martin, and nothing shown so far indicates he even really wanted to be seen. While following to report does involve physical activity, I doubt the "rules" (and they aren't rules, they're guidelines) intended to preclude all physical activity - since picking up the phone to call involves physical activity.

[...of course we're going to disagree...I'm reading the words...you're reading into them...reporting is proper involvement...clearly spelled out...following is being "physically involved with any activity"...nothing was said by me about any engagement...and who knows if he wanted to be seen or not...
...as for your making a difference between "rules" and "guidelines"...it's in BOLD letters on a page telling you what you will and won't do if you become involved in NW...any fifth grader would understand that it's important information that the NW expects you to follow if you're involved in their program...and the same page specifically says observe and report...it's silly to use picking up the phone as "physical activity" prohibited by the rule...and you and I both know that...

......kinda clear and to the point, isn't it...when you bother to read it...and getting out of your vehicle and following someone down the street and running after them is clearly getting physically involved with activity you report...and going about your business means you're NOT going about the police's business(see above)...

...no exxageration on my part...but when you can post things like"


"There is absolutely nothing I've seen anywhere that indicates that Zimmerman "chased" Martin. Do you have some information you can share?"

...then it's clear to me that you either haven't listened to Z's 911 tape or read the prosecutor's affidavit(I guess she doesn't like the word chase either, she used the word "persuing"...or you're in denial because they say something you don't want them to...both have been posted numerous times...but instead of getting the substance of what's being said, you prefer to pick and choose words and phrases to attack...ignoring the obvious meaning...kinda like putting your hands over your eyes and saying "I can't SEE you"...

I've read the reports, and listened to the 911 tapes. There was nothing in the reports to indicate Zimmerman chased anyone. Sorry, the prosecutor's affidavit is full of opinion, and even you reluctantly admit she didn't say "chase". For what it's worth, pursued and chase don't have the exact same meaning. As a matter of fact, pursued is so vague it could mean anything from Zimmerman attempting to overtack Martin (no indication of that) to something as simple as continuing to follow.
[...the word pursue is one DEFINITION of the word CHASE... I didn't "reluctantly admit" ANYTHING...pursue is another word that means chase...(a dictionary is a helpful tool) ...and what are these "reports" you make reference to? ...I said the 911 tape and the affidavit...both are official and better than hearsay...the courts will decide whether they believe everything in the affidavit...but it's official now and got him arrested...and more valid a source of facts than "reports"...]

......having one's own opinion is a good thing...ignoring the facts...not so much...

On that we can agree. You and I don't know the facts.

...my replies to your comments above in [ ]

...I will agree that we don't know all of the facts yet...and may never...
...but denying the ones we DO know, and twisting the clearly written words we DO have...isn't the way to get to them...

[speedsix]

[I'd rather have TM...at least he was minding his own business and didn't stir up trouble by playing police...]

(my replies to your comments in [ ] above...
...once again, the words mean what they say...they say what they mean...and all this adding to and interpreting is just a way to support a pre-conceived notion...if you just read what was said, it's a lot easier...

You think TM minded his own business? Really? How is leaving your front porch and doubling back to jump someone not "stirring up trouble.". If you would rather have a pot smoking, drank imbibing, jewelry stealing person, willing to beat someone up he "thought" was following him living next to you rather than a law abiding citizen that is your business I suppose.

Words can mean a great many things. That is why digital conversations are so problematic. Here I stand with bald eagle....you are going to stick with what you have decided on no matter what evidence comes your way.

...why did TM do anything regarding Z??? he was responding, however wrongly, to Z's following and chasing him...before that happened...he was just walking in the rain...and why do you put "thought" in doubt...it's a clear fact that he was followed...
...new evidence might change my opinion...all I'm getting is your OPINION on the old evidence...which stands as it is...

[ScooterSissy]

Given the info available, I'm with Speedo.

Madam, I suspect you, baldeagle and I will serve about the same amount of time in/on our respective Neighborhood Watch. I'll tell you how mine works out if y'all will tell me about yours. Deal?

One of the problems with such sweeping statements is that there are so many variations of "neighborhood watch". Some, as was indicated, don't allow participants to carry. Some, even here in the DFW area, have their own patrol vehicles (or at least, allow their participants to put signs on their cars, not sure which it is). Some, such as those in our neighborhood, are simply an agreement between the neighbors involved to report suspicious activity, with little organization, rules, or guidelines.

However, the notion that one must participate to support another's right to defend him (or her) self is beyond the pale.

[Oldgringo]

Given the info available, I'm with Speedo.

Madam, I suspect you, baldeagle and I will serve about the same amount of time in/on our respective Neighborhood Watch. I'll tell you how mine works out if y'all will tell me about yours. Deal?

One of the problems with such sweeping statements is that there are so many variations of "neighborhood watch". Some, as was indicated, don't allow participants to carry. Some, even here in the DFW area, have their own patrol vehicles (or at least, allow their participants to put signs on their cars, not sure which it is). Some, such as those in our neighborhood, are simply an agreement between the neighbors involved to report suspicious activity, with little organization, rules, or guidelines.

However, the notion that one must participate to support another's right to defend him (or her) self is beyond the pale.

Absolutely! Please keep us posted on your experience/s while on Neighborhood Watch, if you will.

[ScooterSissy]

Given the info available, I'm with Speedo.

Madam, I suspect you, baldeagle and I will serve about the same amount of time in/on our respective Neighborhood Watch. I'll tell you how mine works out if y'all will tell me about yours. Deal?

One of the problems with such sweeping statements is that there are so many variations of "neighborhood watch". Some, as was indicated, don't allow participants to carry. Some, even here in the DFW area, have their own patrol vehicles (or at least, allow their participants to put signs on their cars, not sure which it is). Some, such as those in our neighborhood, are simply an agreement between the neighbors involved to report suspicious activity, with little organization, rules, or guidelines.

However, the notion that one must participate to support another's right to defend him (or her) self is beyond the pale.

Absolutely! Please keep us posted on your experience/s while on Neighborhood Watch, if you will.

How often would you like an update? As I said, in our neighborhood, it's simply an agreement between the neighbors involved to report suspicious activity, with little organization, rules, or guidelines. I haven't seen anything suspicious yet, so I haven't had to call them.

My neighbor across the street did report to me that he saw someone park in front of our house, and go knock on the door several times. The "suspicous person" after a while he asked her if she needed some help with something. She said she was supposed to have me look at her computer, but apparently I wasn't home. She got in her car and left. He reported it to me. I told him she was legit. She came by later, and and I cleaned the viruses off her computer.

Seriously, is that the type of "experiences" you'd like reported? I'm a little lost at what you're looking for, why you would want it reported, and what the point you're trying to make.

My point is that we don't have to be involved in neighborhood watch to express our support for what we perceive as defensible actions by Zimmerman.

[speedsix]

I don't understand all the fuss about whether or not Z stayed in the car.

He didn't stay in the car. That's like arguing about if both people stayed at home and watched Dancing With The Stars, none of this would have happened.

...your second sentence and third answer the first...and you're right...if he HAD stayed in the car, he wouldn't have followed anyone, they wouldn't have become alarmed/upset, and none of this would have happened...that's my point from day one...he followed and chased after TM, TM got alarmed/upset, and the rest is to be hashed out in the courts...by becoming physically involved in the activity he reported(following and chasing), he put himself where he was when the rest of it happened...instead of safely going on his way to the store or home...
...he crossed the line between good citizen and wannabe...and HE knew it, being a member of NW...

Again, that's simply false. TM began running before GZ exited his car because he was alarmed. At that point GZ hadn't done anything except what you insist he should only do, which is to observe from inside his vehicle. I don't understand why you insist on misrepresenting what happened, but you do. After TM started running, GZ got out of his car to observe where he went. That's not getting physically involved - unless you insist that any activity other than sitting on your butt is getting physically involved.

But this is all a huge waste of time. You're clearly going to stick to your guns no matter what the evidence suggests, so there's little point in arguing with you.

...picked it back up, did you? why do you say that TM was running because he was alarmed...(how could you possibly know that?) before Z exited his car??? Z must have looked real scary...but at that point Z was in no danger of being jumped, either...and nobody was following TM...and TM hadn't told his GF anything about anyone following him...and she hadn't told him to run(if you like her version of the phone call that was going on)what I posted was about AFTER Z exited his car...and followed and chased...TM might have just been running to get out of the rain...you can't know otherwise...
...tell me what I misrepresented??? nothing... if he had stayed in the car, and TM was already running, as you say...how possibly could TM have doubled back and attacked him??? if TM had doubled back, he would have been safe in his car...not lying on a sidewalk in the rain, getting his head smashed...how easy can it get??

...read the words...listen to the tapes...they support what I say...if he'd have reported it...stayed in his car...not followed and chased...he'd be in college today...
...if you want to argue with me...please use facts...not interpretations or extrapolations of facts...

[speedsix]

Given the info available, I'm with Speedo.

Madam, I suspect you, baldeagle and I will serve about the same amount of time in/on our respective Neighborhood Watch. I'll tell you how mine works out if y'all will tell me about yours. Deal?

One of the problems with such sweeping statements is that there are so many variations of "neighborhood watch". Some, as was indicated, don't allow participants to carry. Some, even here in the DFW area, have their own patrol vehicles (or at least, allow their participants to put signs on their cars, not sure which it is). Some, such as those in our neighborhood, are simply an agreement between the neighbors involved to report suspicious activity, with little organization, rules, or guidelines.

However, the notion that one must participate to support another's right to defend him (or her) self is beyond the pale.

...on that last sentence alone...I completely agree...as soon as I see someone expressing that notion, I'll disagree with it...the police have enough unneccessary constraints placed on them that make the job harder...why a citizen would voluntarily get involved with NW and either disarm or follow unilateral rules that tell them what to do or not is a mystery to me...but, once subscibed to, they should be followed...give your word...keep your word...

[Oldgringo]

My point is that we don't have to be involved in neighborhood watch to express our support for what we perceive as defensible actions by Zimmerman.

My point is, "Monday Morning Quarterback". When your experience is the same as Z's experience, we'd like to know how it was handled and the outcome. ITMT, continue be a good neighbor....

[speedsix]

...for those who value the facts and use them to form their opinions/decisions...the judge has said that he sees no problem with releasing Z's statements to the police...we may see them within two weeks...and , while he may have lied...the fact will be that this is what he DID tell the police...and, if they prove he lied, it'll work against him...I can hardly wait to see new FACTS to consider...

[jocat54]

My point is that we don't have to be involved in neighborhood watch to express our support for what we perceive as defensible actions by Zimmerman.

My point is, "Monday Morning Quarterback". When your experience is the same as Z's experience, we'd like to know how it was handled and the outcome. ITMT, continue be a good neighbor....

Exactly right Oldgringo.

There is nobody on this forum that knows exactly what happened and may never know.
I'm still not sure if I believe maybe Z confronted M and was getting his tail whopped.

[ScooterSissy]

My point is that we don't have to be involved in neighborhood watch to express our support for what we perceive as defensible actions by Zimmerman.

My point is, "Monday Morning Quarterback". When your experience is the same as Z's experience, we'd like to know how it was handled and the outcome. ITMT, continue be a good neighbor....

This entire thread is "Monday Morning Quarterback". None of us here (that I can see) have had Zimmerman's "experience", and he's certainly not here.

This entire forum would be pretty bare if the only comments were from those that are actually involved in the situations mentioned.