17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[texanjoker]

Everybody has their own opinion on this. Justified yes, but mine says GZ put himself in a bad position. Now the anti's will use this to further their agenda which will effect all of us. We as a group need to be careful to avoid incidents like this as best we can to not add fuel to the fire. Heck I can even see the antis using this to further their claim that we only need small magazines since GZ was able to kill the deceased with one shot.

The latest I have heard is that our jury system is flawed and needs to be re-worked, ect. I am sure we would not be hearing that had GZ been found guilty.

[ScooterSissy]

Everybody has their own opinion on this. Justified yes, but mine says GZ put himself in a bad position. Now the anti's will use this to further their agenda which will effect all of us. We as a group need to be careful to avoid incidents like this as best we can to not add fuel to the fire. Heck I can even see the antis using this to further their claim that we only need small magazines since GZ was able to kill the deceased with one shot.

The latest I have heard is that our jury system is flawed and needs to be re-worked, ect. I am sure we would not be hearing that had GZ been found guilty.

I keep hearing about how GZ put himself in a bad situation, or should not have followed, or caused it, etc. I keep asking how so.

Was he wrong to have observed and called in when he saw someone suspicious?
Was he wrong to have moved outside the car to observe the suspicous person? Keep in mind that at that point, TM was between buildings, so GM couldn't follow in his vehicle, and the dispatcher was actively asking him questions (asking for descriptions).
Was he wrong to have stopped following when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"? (that was his claim)
Was he wrong to have pulled his gun when he was getting his head smashed against the pavement?

In my opinion, the worst thing that GZ did in the whole scenario (assuming it played out the way he said), is that as soon as TM got close to him, he should have moved out of his physical reach.

I think the irony is that even many people on the left freely acknowledge that he did not break the law by following, but that he shouldn't have done it, thus it's "his fault". These are the same people that will call you a pig if you even hint that a woman who is raped should not have dressed provocatively.

Yeah, there's a double standard in this incident. Actually, there are a lot of double standards; but I'm one of those that says that not only did TM bring this on himself, his parents were also part of the problem.

TM and his mother and father were far more responsible for TM's death than GZ was.

[VMI77]

These are the same people that will call you a pig if you even hint that a woman who is raped should not have dressed provocatively.

They'll scream in outrage too if you suggest it's not a smart move going with a stranger to his hotel room or home, dressed provocatively, drunk, and then passing out.

[Valor]

I keep hearing about how GZ put himself in a bad situation, or should not have followed, or caused it, etc. I keep asking how so.

1.Was he wrong to have observed and called in when he saw someone suspicious?
2.Was he wrong to have moved outside the car to observe the suspicous person? Keep in mind that at that point, TM was between buildings, so GM couldn't follow in his vehicle, and the dispatcher was actively asking him questions (asking for descriptions).
3.Was he wrong to have stopped following when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"? (that was his claim)
4. Was he wrong to have pulled his gun when he was getting his head smashed against the pavement?
5. TM and his mother and father were far more responsible for TM's death than GZ was.

1. This is exactly what is consistently advocated here and in class. He was very right.
2. Yes he was wrong, and the final outcome is validation. It is consistently advocated here and in class to be a good witness. The authorities were in route and no one was in eminent danger.
3. Based on the final outcome and what was mentioned in answer #2.
4. No, he was not wrong, but if he never got out the car may not have needed to use his weapon.
5. His parents are as much at fault as your parents are for all your opinions.

Zimmerman was playing Batman. Although he had a right, so did Martin, to be on the property, it was a communal property. As a CHL holder, it is highly advised to avoid confrontation. Before it's claimed he was looking for an address, he could have remained in his car and drove further to acquire the information requested; rather walking in the same direction Martin disappeared. If any of us get caught up like Zimmerman did and have to go to a jury trial and eventually get an acquitted, the financial cost for playing Batman will be painful.
Just as Texas Joker mentioned, this case has further fueled and equipped the antis with their crusade to vilify gun owners. Many pro 2As are on the defensive, which I understand. But, Zimmerman was playing Batman. The Batmen amongst us can be the catalyst for helping pro self-defense bills getting repealed.

[Diesel42]

What Valor says... x2.
Nick

[ScooterSissy]

I keep hearing about how GZ put himself in a bad situation, or should not have followed, or caused it, etc. I keep asking how so.

1.Was he wrong to have observed and called in when he saw someone suspicious?
2.Was he wrong to have moved outside the car to observe the suspicous person? Keep in mind that at that point, TM was between buildings, so GM couldn't follow in his vehicle, and the dispatcher was actively asking him questions (asking for descriptions).
3.Was he wrong to have stopped following when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"? (that was his claim)
4. Was he wrong to have pulled his gun when he was getting his head smashed against the pavement?
5. TM and his mother and father were far more responsible for TM's death than GZ was.

1. This is exactly what is consistently advocated here and in class. He was very right.
2. Yes he was wrong, and the final outcome is validation. It is consistently advocated here and in class to be a good witness. The authorities were in route and no one was in eminent danger.
3. Based on the final outcome and what was mentioned in answer #2.
4. No, he was not wrong, but if he never got out the car may not have needed to use his weapon.
5. His parents are as much at fault as your parents are for all your opinions.

Zimmerman was playing Batman. Although he had a right, so did Martin, to be on the property, it was a communal property. As a CHL holder, it is highly advised to avoid confrontation. Before it's claimed he was looking for an address, he could have remained in his car and drove further to acquire the information requested; rather walking in the same direction Martin disappeared. If any of us get caught up like Zimmerman did and have to go to a jury trial and eventually get an acquitted, the financial cost for playing Batman will be painful.
Just as Texas Joker mentioned, this case has further fueled and equipped the antis with their crusade to vilify gun owners. Many pro 2As are on the defensive, which I understand. But, Zimmerman was playing Batman. The Batmen amongst us can be the catalyst for helping pro self-defense bills getting repealed.

No sir. No one who is acting can make a judgement "based on the final outcome", since they don't know the final outcome.
#2 No one can be a good witness if he cannot see the person. Go back and listen to the tape. No one told him that "the autorities were on the way". As a matter of fact, the dispatcher had just asked the address when he said "we don't need you to do that"
#4 And if Trayvon had not been suspended at school, he wouldn't have been there. If GZ did nothing wrong, then it doesn't matter whether or not he got out of the car.
#5 So, you see nothing wrong in their "parenting skills" when he's suspended from school, mom sends him to dad because she can't handle him; and dad handles it by leaving him at the girlfriends house alone while he goes out on a date. BTW, most of my opinions were formed long after my parents were no longer responsible for me. If this "child" was a minor, his parents should have been taking care of him, instead of taking care of a booty call.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I keep hearing about how GZ put himself in a bad situation, or should not have followed, or caused it, etc. I keep asking how so.

1.Was he wrong to have observed and called in when he saw someone suspicious?
2.Was he wrong to have moved outside the car to observe the suspicous person? Keep in mind that at that point, TM was between buildings, so GM couldn't follow in his vehicle, and the dispatcher was actively asking him questions (asking for descriptions).
3.Was he wrong to have stopped following when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"? (that was his claim)
4. Was he wrong to have pulled his gun when he was getting his head smashed against the pavement?
5. TM and his mother and father were far more responsible for TM's death than GZ was.

1. This is exactly what is consistently advocated here and in class. He was very right.
2. Yes he was wrong, and the final outcome is validation. It is consistently advocated here and in class to be a good witness. The authorities were in route and no one was in eminent danger.
3. Based on the final outcome and what was mentioned in answer #2.
4. No, he was not wrong, but if he never got out the car may not have needed to use his weapon.
5. His parents are as much at fault as your parents are for all your opinions.

Zimmerman was playing Batman. Although he had a right, so did Martin, to be on the property, it was a communal property. As a CHL holder, it is highly advised to avoid confrontation. Before it's claimed he was looking for an address, he could have remained in his car and drove further to acquire the information requested; rather walking in the same direction Martin disappeared. If any of us get caught up like Zimmerman did and have to go to a jury trial and eventually get an acquitted, the financial cost for playing Batman will be painful.
Just as Texas Joker mentioned, this case has further fueled and equipped the antis with their crusade to vilify gun owners. Many pro 2As are on the defensive, which I understand. But, Zimmerman was playing Batman. The Batmen amongst us can be the catalyst for helping pro self-defense bills getting repealed.

You continually ignore the fact that the only illegal act was committed by Martin when he assaulted Zimmerman. The evidence supports this and the jury had to believe that Zimmerman did not provoke the confrontation in order to find he engaged in lawful self-defense thus finding him not guilty.

In your item number 2 you claim Zimmerman was "wrong." What do you mean by "wrong" in this context? His actions certainly were not unlawful, so you must be applying your personal standard of conduct. If it's not your personal standard, then what do you mean by "wrong?"

Doing something unwise doesn't make you a "batman" as you falsely claim. By your theory, I would have been playing "batman" when I, on at least a half dozen occasions, have followed drunk drivers while reporting them to the police. Only two of those times occurred when I was a police officer (off duty). Don't tell me that's different from the Zimmerman/Martin matter. It isn't. I was following them because the dispatcher kept asking me for locations. At any time the drunk could have taken the offensive against me forcing me to defend myself, just as Martin attacked Zimmerman when he was on his way back to his vehicle.

Why you persist in using pejorative descriptions like "batman" when describing acts that are entirely lawful is beyond comprehension.

Chas.

[VoiceofReason]

Take a look at CNN this morning. The only topic out of 14 that did not have a reference to Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman was “World”. They even managed to get the subject into “Tech” and “Entertainment”.

Please add a "Vomit" smiley

[philip964]

Take a look at CNN this morning. The only topic out of 14 that did not have a reference to Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman was “World”. They even managed to get the subject into “Tech” and “Entertainment”.

Please add a "Vomit" smiley

At James Coney Island taking advantage of their 90 cent coneys today. CNN is on their TV. It's Non stop TM. Apparently 100 protest marches are scheduled for this weekend. So be careful. The out rage is growing. Jesse Jackson wants Obama to speak to it. President Carter spoke, not sure what he said, but if I would guess it would be that the UN needs to open an investigation. Jesse has now decided that Z was over charged on purpose to get him off. He mentioned a woman in Florida who is black and got 20 years and did not kill anyone. This shows how the justice system is racist in Florida.

I identify with Z since we are both CHLs, homeowners, and concerned about crime. Thus I am biased. I tried to put on the other hat. This is what I came up with.

TM was unarmed. TM was legally allowed to be where he was. He was not doing or about to do any thing illegal. He may have been profiled by Z because of his clothes, walk, or possibly his race, not illegal but troubling if you fit that profile. TM may have initiated verbal contact to confront what he saw as a danger. So far no laws broken, something we could all agree with.

Then something happens, if your on the other side, which I'm trying to be on now.

Z hits TM and shows his gun in the holster, and says something like "I'm going to kill you" TM realizing he has only seconds to act, realizes he can reach Z before Z can get to his holstered gun. So TM springs and knocks down Z, landing on top, Z spends all his time trying to get his gun, screaming for help to alert his neighbors. TM try's to stop Z from reaching g his gun, and increasingly begins pummeling Z to knock him out, he fails and Z finally gets the gun. TM raises up to try and get away but Z fires one shot which passes through all important organs and dies heroically trying to save his life. Z puts him self together in the few minutes before police arrive and comes up with a story that this thug attacked him for no reason and fearing for his life shot him. The police seeing an urban dressed young black man and finding
no other evidence to the contrary, do not arrest him.

Imagine the situation if TM had gotten to the gun in this fight and had killed Z. Would not this be what he told the police.

To me Z explains if more logically. But I am biased.

[canvasbck]

Why do all of the folks who are criticizing GZ's actions hone in on the "we don't need you to do that" statement?

Prior to that statement, the dispatcher had twice instructed Z to let them know if the person did anything else or which direction he was going. I don't remeber the exact words that were used, but on two occasions he was given instructions that required him to keep TM in sight to comply with those instructions. It was after these instructions and before the "we don't need you to do that" instruction that Z got out of his truck.

[Keith B]

Take a look at CNN this morning. The only topic out of 14 that did not have a reference to Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman was “World”. They even managed to get the subject into “Tech” and “Entertainment”.

Please add a "Vomit" smiley

At James Coney Island taking advantage of their 90 cent coneys today. CNN is on their TV. It's Non stop TM. Apparently 100 protest marches are scheduled for this weekend. So be careful. The out rage is growing. Jesse Jackson wants Obama to speak to it. President Carter spoke, not sure what he said, but if I would guess it would be that the UN needs to open an investigation. Jesse has now decided that Z was over charged on purpose to get him off. He mentioned a woman in Florida who is black and got 20 years and did not kill anyone. This shows how the justice system is racist in Florida.

I identify with Z since we are both CHLs, homeowners, and concerned about crime. Thus I am biased. I tried to put on the other hat. This is what I came up with.

TM was unarmed. TM was legally allowed to be where he was. He was not doing or about to do any thing illegal. He may have been profiled by Z because of his clothes, walk, or possibly his race, not illegal but troubling if you fit that profile. TM may have initiated verbal contact to confront what he saw as a danger. So far no laws broken, something we could all agree with.

Then something happens, if your on the other side, which I'm trying to be on now.

Z hits TM and shows his gun in the holster, and says something like "I'm going to kill you" TM realizing he has only seconds to act, realizes he can reach Z before Z can get to his holstered gun. So TM springs and knocks down Z, landing on top, Z spends all his time trying to get his gun, screaming for help to alert his neighbors. TM try's to stop Z from reaching g his gun, and increasingly begins pummeling Z to knock him out, he fails and Z finally gets the gun. TM raises up to try and get away but Z fires one shot which passes through all important organs and dies heroically trying to save his life. Z puts him self together in the few minutes before police arrive and comes up with a story that this thug attacked him for no reason and fearing for his life shot him. The police seeing an urban dressed young black man and finding
no other evidence to the contrary, do not arrest him.

Imagine the situation if TM had gotten to the gun in this fight and had killed Z. Would not this be what he told the police.

To me Z explains if more logically. But I am biased.

Total speculation. People can make up thousands of scenarios about how it might or could have gone down.

Bottom line, the jury heard all of the evidence, determined that that for whatever reason Zimmerman was justified in defending himself in shooting Martin. End of story. Or at least it should be.

[The Annoyed Man]

Zimmerman was playing Batman. Although he had a right, so did Martin, to be on the property, it was a communal property.

Actually, Zimmerman's right to be there exceeded either Treyvon Martin's or Martin's father's right to be there. Zimmerman was a rent paying member of the community with his name on a lease. Neither Martin nor his father were tenants there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... s_involved

On the day Martin was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, a multi-ethnic gated community, where the shooting occurred.[20][21] Martin had visited his father's fiancée at Twin Lakes several times.[22][23]

Put me in the fiancé's shoes for a moment..........If I lease an apartment with my son in an apartment complex, and you and your son come to visit me, no matter how welcome I make you, your name is not on the lease, and neither you nor your son have legal tenant rights equal to mine; but even more importantly, NOR can I confer upon you tenant rights equal to or greater than another paying lessee in that apartment complex. I simply don't have that authority.

So right from the get-go.....NO.....Trayvon Martin did not have "the same right" to be there as George Zimmerman......even though Trayvon Martin had been invited to visit the fiancé's apartment. It is a gated community, implying controlled access. I have friends here who live in gated communities. If they invite me to visit them inside their community, I am allowed to go straight from the gate to their house. I'm not allowed unrestricted access to the community just because I'm inside the gate. There's a reason it's gated.

Now, I'm not saying that Trayvon committed some huge offense for wandering around inside of the gated community. He didn't. It's not right that he did, but it's not that big of a deal either. But that said, it is simply not true that the son of a man whose name is NOT on a lease within that community and who is "staying with" the woman whose name is on the lease, has the same right to move around unchallenged as the lease-holding neighborhood watch captain of that gated community. It just isn't.

[A-R]

Phillip, that's an interesting devils advocate version.

One problem that leapt out to me. GZ didn't have a few minutes to get his story straight before police arrived, the first officer was there within seconds of fatal shot - less than a minute for sure.

[VoiceofReason]

Take a look at CNN this morning. The only topic out of 14 that did not have a reference to Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman was “World”. They even managed to get the subject into “Tech” and “Entertainment”.

Please add a "Vomit" smiley

At James Coney Island taking advantage of their 90 cent coneys today. CNN is on their TV. It's Non stop TM. Apparently 100 protest marches are scheduled for this weekend. So be careful. The out rage is growing. Jesse Jackson wants Obama to speak to it. President Carter spoke, not sure what he said, but if I would guess it would be that the UN needs to open an investigation. Jesse has now decided that Z was over charged on purpose to get him off. He mentioned a woman in Florida who is black and got 20 years and did not kill anyone. This shows how the justice system is racist in Florida.

I identify with Z since we are both CHLs, homeowners, and concerned about crime. Thus I am biased. I tried to put on the other hat. This is what I came up with.

TM was unarmed. TM was legally allowed to be where he was. He was not doing or about to do any thing illegal. He may have been profiled by Z because of his clothes, walk, or possibly his race, not illegal but troubling if you fit that profile. TM may have initiated verbal contact to confront what he saw as a danger. So far no laws broken, something we could all agree with.

Then something happens, if your on the other side, which I'm trying to be on now.

Z hits TM and TM realizing he has only seconds to act, realizes he can reach Z before Z can get to his holstered gun. So TM springs and knocks down Z, landing on top, Z spends all his time trying to get his gun, screaming for help to alert his neighbors. TM try's to stop Z from reaching g his gun, and increasingly begins pummeling Z to knock him out, he fails and Z finally gets the gun. TM raises up to try and get away but Z fires one shot which passes through all important organs and dies heroically trying to save his life. Z puts him self together in the few minutes before police arrive and comes up with a story that this thug attacked him for no reason and fearing for his life shot him. The police seeing an urban dressed young black man and finding
no other evidence to the contrary, do not arrest him.

Imagine the situation if TM had gotten to the gun in this fight and had killed Z. Would not this be what he told the police.

To me Z explains if more logically. But I am biased.

Did GZ “show his gun in the holster, and says something like "I'm going to kill you"” before or after calling the police?

That is the problem I have with scenarios like this. I tend to believe that if he intended to do something along these lines, he would have never called 911.

[texanjoker]

Take a look at CNN this morning. The only topic out of 14 that did not have a reference to Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman was “World”. They even managed to get the subject into “Tech” and “Entertainment”.

Please add a "Vomit" smiley

At James Coney Island taking advantage of their 90 cent coneys today. CNN is on their TV. It's Non stop TM. Apparently 100 protest marches are scheduled for this weekend. So be careful. The out rage is growing. Jesse Jackson wants Obama to speak to it. President Carter spoke, not sure what he said, but if I would guess it would be that the UN needs to open an investigation. Jesse has now decided that Z was over charged on purpose to get him off. He mentioned a woman in Florida who is black and got 20 years and did not kill anyone. This shows how the justice system is racist in Florida.

I identify with Z since we are both CHLs, homeowners, and concerned about crime. Thus I am biased. I tried to put on the other hat. This is what I came up with.

TM was unarmed. TM was legally allowed to be where he was. He was not doing or about to do any thing illegal. He may have been profiled by Z because of his clothes, walk, or possibly his race, not illegal but troubling if you fit that profile. TM may have initiated verbal contact to confront what he saw as a danger. So far no laws broken, something we could all agree with.

Then something happens, if your on the other side, which I'm trying to be on now.

Z hits TM and shows his gun in the holster, and says something like "I'm going to kill you" TM realizing he has only seconds to act, realizes he can reach Z before Z can get to his holstered gun. So TM springs and knocks down Z, landing on top, Z spends all his time trying to get his gun, screaming for help to alert his neighbors. TM try's to stop Z from reaching g his gun, and increasingly begins pummeling Z to knock him out, he fails and Z finally gets the gun. TM raises up to try and get away but Z fires one shot which passes through all important organs and dies heroically trying to save his life. Z puts him self together in the few minutes before police arrive and comes up with a story that this thug attacked him for no reason and fearing for his life shot him. The police seeing an urban dressed young black man and finding
no other evidence to the contrary, do not arrest him.

Imagine the situation if TM had gotten to the gun in this fight and had killed Z. Would not this be what he told the police.

To me Z explains if more logically. But I am biased.

Total speculation. People can make up thousands of scenarios about how it might or could have gone down.

Bottom line, the jury heard all of the evidence, determined that that for whatever reason Zimmerman was justified in defending himself in shooting Martin. End of story. Or at least it should be.

The jury spoke..yup. in a debate I had 2 nights ago the person thinks that the jury system should be changed due to this....