17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[Bullitt]

1. 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.
2. All evidence says it did and the jury believed it as well. Good enough for me.
3. 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.
4. Doesn't matter. If Martin started it then Zimmerman has the right to defend himself. And the jury believed that is the case.
5. And then I would have the right to defend myself if they come at me physically, just like Zimmerman did.
6. 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.
7.If they convince me they have legitimate business there, then that is fine. If they start a physical altercation, then I will defend myself.

1. Harassment is a prelude to a restraining order. It does not have to wait to become a crime only after an issue is ordered.
2. No, you don't know what the jury thought about that. You only know that a not guilty verdict was arrived at. A verdict that I agree with. However, you know nothing about the jury deliberations on that subject.
3. That does not mean that Zimmerman did not throw the first punch. We don't know. However, if Zimmerman would have been a responsible CHL holder and not gotten out of his car...And, since you are a CHL instructor, "threatening deadly force and the production of a weapon do not constitute use of deadly force." Zimmerman had that option...perhaps. Z doesn't have to wait until his head is being pounded into concrete.
4. The issue for me isn't the guilty verdict, the issue for me is the bad judgement by Zimmerman.
5. And so would Martin. If Martin also has a gun in this incident, then we have a Mexican standoff.
6. And plenty of time for you to disengage, or even better to go back to minding your own business.
7. If they convince you? Who made you judge and jury of some scenario you create in your mind when you see some black dude walking down a street? Who are you to question why he is there or isn't there? Do you think you can do this just because you are carrying a gun? Isn't this the Zimmerman mentality? He sees a guy walking down the street, sets up some scenario in his head, and now it is for TM to "convince him he has some legitimate business there."

[Fangs]

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

One of my very liberal friends posted this on my Facebook news feed. I asked if that meant less Trayvon Martins.

[Bullitt]

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.

Actually if your reading & comprehension skills were strong you would comprehend better what I wrote and what this statute states, "opening your....well....flexing your fingers..." apparently has backfired on you.

Like I said, a jury could call it either way. 1a is sufficient to prove the point and we don't even need to read the rest of the statute. The dispatcher has nothing to do with it, who by the way also told Z he didn't need to be following TM. Following TM could be said to have caused emotional distress, and following certainly served no legitimate purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that TM was in the neighborhood to commit a crime.

But nice try!

[Beiruty]

Bullit,

Why TM did not hang-up with RJ and called 911 when he saw the creepy guy following his tail?

[Bullitt]

Bullit,

Why TM did not hang-up with RJ and called 911 when he saw the creepy guy following his tail?

Because TM was an idiot. And an idiot on several fronts.

Y'all may think I am on TM's side. I am not. Nor am I on Zimmerman's side. I have stated from the beginning that I agree with the verdict. I have also stated that Z used very poor judgment throughout the engagement. All CHL training I have had, from competent instructors (and there's a lot who aren't), validates this about Zimmerman. In fact Zimmerman's outcome is almost scripted verbatim from scenarios where the CHL holder engages in some form of escalation whether it be active escalation (throwing the first punch, which we don't know) or passive escalation (following the guy because it is "legal," which we do know). Law doesn't always provide for a solution in all situations where you land as being "right" in conjunction with a good outcome for yourself.

Take for example a motorcyclist who gets hit even though he had the right-of-way, while the law may be on his side, he's dead. If he had internalized his training (if he had any) maybe he would have looked both ways before crossing the intersection. I know, "but the law was on his side." For the rest of the population, "just another dead motorcyclist, bet he wasn't even wearing a helmet."

[texanjoker]

Bullit,

Why TM did not hang-up with RJ and called 911 when he saw the creepy guy following his tail?

since this is all pure speculation, here is another scenario: maybe GZ prevented Trayvon from calling 911 by making contact before he could. GZ demanded to know what he was doing by *using nice words*. GZ then illegally tried to detain Trayvon causing Trayvon to fear for his safety, so Trayvon then hit GZ .... This would have made Trayvon standing his ground and GZ the bad guy . GZ realized he was over his head and was too scared to fight back so he pulled his gun and shot Trayvon . Yup another possibility .... Only GZ and God knows all that occurred and what may or may not have been said, attempted, ect.

Bottom line is a jury aquitted GZ and the media and now President NObama have further over stepped their bounds to try and create serious racial issues . I think NObama should release the NSA recording of Trayvons phone call so we can really hear what was said. I wonder if NObama has heard it? I am VERY relieved that I do not work in some of the areas I used to in CA as tensions are very high. Innocent people are going to be hurt because of all this.

[RottenApple]

[Actually if your reading & comprehension skills were strong you would comprehend better what I wrote and what this statute states, "opening your....well....flexing your fingers..." apparently has backfired on you.

Like I said, a jury could call it either way. 1a is sufficient to prove the point and we don't even need to read the rest of the statute. The dispatcher has nothing to do with it, who by the way also told Z he didn't need to be following TM. Following TM could be said to have caused emotional distress, and following certainly served no legitimate purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that TM was in the neighborhood to commit a crime.

But nice try!

A jury wouldn't even hear it because without meeting the requirements of the law which defines the crime (ie - harassment and stalking), there is no crime! You keep foolishly falling back on "a jury could call it either way", but the fact is that no they can't. You'd think the fact that the prosecution didn't try to tack on harassment or stalking charges would give you a hint that Zimmerman's actions did NOT constitute the crimes of harassment or stalking.

So why don't you actually find a law, in any state, where the mere act of following someone (w/o additional elements) is a crime. You made the assertion. Prove it.

So far your mantra has been nothing but the ridiculously debunked "Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of the car". Frankly, that's nothing but your opinion. Many of us here hold differing opinions. The facts are 1) it was not illegal and 2) it was not an "escalation" of a conflict.

If Martin were truly fearful of Zimmerman, then he should have gone inside his father's fiancé's apartment and/or called the police. The foolish action here was not Zimmerman getting out of the car, it was Martin deciding to "deal with" the "creepy-*** cracker".

[03Lightningrocks]

Funny thing is, amyone who claims to be from the "mean streets" would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trayvon was a thug and had every intention of , at the least, beating this cracka down. And possibly stealing his wallet to finance his drug habit. Fact!!!!

[philip964]

Bullit,

Why TM did not hang-up with RJ and called 911 when he saw the creepy guy following his tail?

since this is all pure speculation, here is another scenario: maybe GZ prevented Trayvon from calling 911 by making contact before he could. GZ demanded to know what he was doing by *using nice words*. GZ then illegally tried to detain Trayvon causing Trayvon to fear for his safety, so Trayvon then hit GZ .... This would have made Trayvon standing his ground and GZ the bad guy . GZ realized he was over his head and was too scared to fight back so he pulled his gun and shot Trayvon . Yup another possibility .... Only GZ and God knows all that occurred and what may or may not have been said, attempted, ect.

Bottom line is a jury aquitted GZ and the media and now President NObama have further over stepped their bounds to try and create serious racial issues . I think NObama should release the NSA recording of Trayvons phone call so we can really hear what was said. I wonder if NObama has heard it? I am VERY relieved that I do not work in some of the areas I used to in CA as tensions are very high. Innocent people are going to be hurt because of all this.

Finally a new "how it could have happened that TM was the victim and Z was the aggressor". Except you left out the part where TM was on top of Z and beating his head on the concrete. ( you can say the eye witness lied and is a racist if you want)

Please work on your chain of events some more to get that into your story line. TM needs the motivation to attempt to kill Z and still be the GG under the law. TM must still be the victim even though he is on top of Z and killing Z.

Now the President has weighed in on TM's side, I need a series of events where TM was the victim from start to finish. Otherwise I don't understand our Presidents position. They are going to name schools after TM, I need to know he was a hero and a victim, not a street thug who attacked and attempted to kill Z.

[03Lightningrocks]

Oh... the only real mistake GZ made was allowing that thug murderer to get close enough to hit him. Me? I probably wouldn't have followed him around after calling thge cops but if I had, and he doubled back on me, he would be dead before he got close enough to punch me. I would have put out my hand and said stop as I reached for my weapon. Thug murderer keeps coming, I blast him... until I run out of bullets or he drops to the ground.

I was followed around a walgreens parking lot by a black man in Memphis. Quite frankly, I was the only white guy in that neighborhood besides my daughter and son, who were in the car. I went into the store so I could shake this guy or get a read on him. LOL... he was a security guard and since white folk are on the lower end of the totem pole in Memphis, he was watching me to see if I was up to no good. Glad I didn't do things "Trayvon Style". It is not against the law to follow a person. It isn't like in grade school where people gave "cooties" to each other by touching them. If Trayvon truly believed he was in danger, he would not have doubled back. He would have gone to safety.

[Bullitt]

So why don't you actually find a law, in any state, where the mere act of following someone (w/o additional elements) is a crime. You made the assertion. Prove it.

You ridiculously found the law for me and even posted it! I know, embarrassing for you, eh?

[howdy]

I learned and always taught that the sure sign of a great Pilot is someone who uses his superior brain to avoid situations where you might have to use your superior skill.

As a CHL Instructor, I have been using the Zimmerman case as a "teaching moment" to show where you can be doing everything legally and still find yourself in a very difficult position. I was taught in my initial CHL class and again during CHL Instructor school that we should avoid as much as possible situations where the use of my handgun might be required. I won't go to River Oaks this week-end even though it would be perfectly legal.

As a CHL holder, I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. The State of Florida's entire case was Z's " following, getting out of his car, confronting and killing TM. We know that it was all legal, but Z almost went to jail for the rest of his useful life and he will never walk the streets like you and me. Argue these points all you want. The proof is in the pudding. What Z did was not very bright and I for one will not imitate it.

[Keith B]

OK, this thread is about to be locked. Stop the personal attacks. Any more and there could be potential bans of individuals as well. Stop now.

[suthdj]

I learned and always taught that the sure sign of a great Pilot is someone who uses his superior brain to avoid situations where you might have to use your superior skill.

As a CHL Instructor, I have been using the Zimmerman case as a "teaching moment" to show where you can be doing everything legally and still find yourself in a very difficult position. I was taught in my initial CHL class and again during CHL Instructor school that we should avoid as much as possible situations where the use of my handgun might be required. I won't go to River Oaks this week-end even though it would be perfectly legal.

As a CHL holder, I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. The State of Florida's entire case was Z's " following, getting out of his car, confronting and killing TM. We know that it was all legal, but Z almost went to jail for the rest of his useful life and he will never walk the streets like you and me. Argue these points all you want. The proof is in the pudding. What Z did was not very bright and I for one will not imitate it.

Maybe I missed something but as I understand it GZ stopped following when they said they don't need him to do that and then TM came to GZ and confronted him. Somebody correct me if I have it wrong.