17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[Valor]

Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

[Valor]

[ Image ]

Ben Ghazi, good one!

[ScooterSissy]

4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

Zimmerman's battered face and head is all that is needed to show Martin as a thug. There's more, a lot more, but that's all that's needed.

In spite of you (and others) talking about Zimmerman playing "Batman", the truth is he begged the police dispatcher to have the police hurry. Someone playing "Batman" doesn't call the police and say "Please, get an officer over here" when the attacker starts approaching them.

[ScooterSissy]

Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

Would and have. Not only that, Zimmerman stated (and acted as if) he didn't even think about the weapon until late in the altercation.

[mamabearCali]

Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

Have I ever gotten out of my car to get a better look at which way a suspected criminal went while being unarmed. Why yes I have. Will I ever put myself in that danger again--probably not.

[Bullitt]

Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

Exactly my point.

I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed

Hahaha! Good one!

[Bullitt]

...Oh.. The reason I told you I was a military brat would not have to be explained if you spent any time beyond the six month boot camp. Military families movie all over the country. That was the point... Sorry it went over your head... But not real surprised.

Sorry you outed yourself as Pasadena's pogie bait, eh? Boot camp is eight weeks, not six months. You got a DD214 or not? Now quit trolling. Just stick to the subject.

A few posts back you said you were done here.

I sure did say that, but since you and SS decided to reply in continuance, here I am again. I'm prepared to end the dialog as long as you quit calling on me to answer. But you can't resist can you? Especially if you think I am not here so that it looks to the others like you have the last victorious word. Surprise, this is a discussion board. There is no victor.

[Bullitt]

1. 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.

2. 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?"

3. 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.

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

Chas.

1. I am not ignoring this fact. As “Billitt" stated, Zimmerman could have been committing harassment in the fact that based on an ear witness’s testimony Martin felt a creepy individual continued to follow him causing Martin to feel threaten. Martin would have to testify to Zimmerman’s actions to have harassment charges filed (But we will never get that statement). The lead detective during the interrogation specifically stated to Zimmerman that he believed Martin was terrified of Zimmerman based on his behavior. Regarding the confrontation, on Cooper’s exclusive interview with juror B37, she stated they only considered events from when the proven punch was thrown. Not who initiated the confrontation.

2. “Wrong” not unlawful. I clearly stated my personal view as well as many on this very thread have in other threads, and stated in the CHL course I took; “when carrying, avoid confrontations as best possible.” He had already taken the “right” course of action, reporting suspicious behavior. “Wrong” was when he departed the vehicle and went in the direction Martin, this alleged nefarious character, had disappeared. So I change my “wrong” comment to “imprudent”. In a court of law, that could translate to “negligent”. So much so, the homeowner’s association settled out of court.

3. Following someone that is committing an act that could immediately endanger others at a safe distance is a noble act. However, it could also be an imprudent one if the noble individual themselves create a negligible event (I won’t list all the possible scenarios). Some agencies require their officers while off duty to retain their lawful powers. Therefore, you were not playing Batman due to your lawful right in 2 of the 6 occasions. The other four are debatable.

4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

Bottomline, NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree I agree with. However, Zimmerman's actions were irresponsible as a CHL holder. He has been no help to the CHL community.

[Dadtodabone]

And doesn't all of this racial classification that the press and others are using make obama a "white black"?

Using the press' formula Mr. Obama would be a Black-Caucasian. Paternal racial characteristics first, Mr. Zimmerman's father is white, so we have a White-Hispanic. I've heard that Mr. Zimmerman's maternal grandfather was of Native American and Black ancestry, so we potentially have a,
White-Hispanic-Black-Native American.
I am also of mixed ancestry and could identify as a Pole-Czech-Rus-Slovakian(Slavic white guy). While my children wind up as P-C-R-S-Celt-Schwaben. My first granddaughter is P-C-R-S-C-Sc-Cymric-Dane.
Of course there are controversies in some of this mix. My maternal great-great grandmother was the bride of a member of the Kuban Host, is referred to in family history as the "Beauty of the East" and was probably part of the spoils distributed during the campaigns of Caucasus Line Host against the remnants of Ottoman power around the Black Sea. So there is a pretty good chance that I could add Turkic ancestry.
There is also some name confusion during the "melting pot" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polish and Lithuanian scripts were used and some of the hand written records(family bibles and Księgi metrykalne) are muddled or nonexistent. So the possibility of Baltai influence is also present.

[philip964]

1. 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.

2. 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?"

3. 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.

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

Chas.

1. I am not ignoring this fact. As “Billitt" stated, Zimmerman could have been committing harassment in the fact that based on an ear witness’s testimony Martin felt a creepy individual continued to follow him causing Martin to feel threaten. Martin would have to testify to Zimmerman’s actions to have harassment charges filed (But we will never get that statement). The lead detective during the interrogation specifically stated to Zimmerman that he believed Martin was terrified of Zimmerman based on his behavior. Regarding the confrontation, on Cooper’s exclusive interview with juror B37, she stated they only considered events from when the proven punch was thrown. Not who initiated the confrontation.

2. “Wrong” not unlawful. I clearly stated my personal view as well as many on this very thread have in other threads, and stated in the CHL course I took; “when carrying, avoid confrontations as best possible.” He had already taken the “right” course of action, reporting suspicious behavior. “Wrong” was when he departed the vehicle and went in the direction Martin, this alleged nefarious character, had disappeared. So I change my “wrong” comment to “imprudent”. In a court of law, that could translate to “negligent”. So much so, the homeowner’s association settled out of court.

3. Following someone that is committing an act that could immediately endanger others at a safe distance is a noble act. However, it could also be an imprudent one if the noble individual themselves create a negligible event (I won’t list all the possible scenarios). Some agencies require their officers while off duty to retain their lawful powers. Therefore, you were not playing Batman due to your lawful right in 2 of the 6 occasions. The other four are debatable.

4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

Bottomline, NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree I agree with. However, Zimmerman's actions were irresponsible as a CHL holder. He has been no help to the CHL community.

Bottomline, NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree, I agree with. However, To me Zimmerman's actions were what we might expect a CHL neighborhood watch person would do. Not prudent, but not really out of line for what his neighbors expect him to be doing.

What is surprising has been the reaction to the shooting. It appears that the majority of the public and the newsmedia believes that a CHL is only to fire his gun, if the other person is armed and he is in fear of his life.

After this incident, I cannot imagine a CHL firing their gun in any situation out side of their home and not being initially arrested, especially if they are Caucasian and the person shot at is any other race.

He has been a lightning rod for the CHL community. We have all learned from his mistakes. It will cause us to hesitate in the future, only time will tell if that will work in our favor.

Imagine the outrage today, if Z had fired twice? What would be the reaction if TM was an honor student and was really college bound?

[ScooterSissy]

...Oh.. The reason I told you I was a military brat would not have to be explained if you spent any time beyond the six month boot camp. Military families movie all over the country. That was the point... Sorry it went over your head... But not real surprised.

Sorry you outed yourself as Pasadena's pogie bait, eh? Boot camp is eight weeks, not six months. You got a DD214 or not? Now quit trolling. Just stick to the subject.

A few posts back you said you were done here.

I sure did say that, but since you and SS decided to reply in continuance, here I am again. I'm prepared to end the dialog as long as you quit calling on me to answer. But you can't resist can you? Especially if you think I am not here so that it looks to the others like you have the last victorious word. Surprise, this is a discussion board. There is no victor.

But you haven't answered. Instead, you make up things, but you haven't actually answered the questions.

[ScooterSissy]

Bottomline, NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree, I agree with. However, To me Zimmerman's actions were what we might expect a CHL neighborhood watch person would do. Not prudent, but not really out of line for what his neighbors expect him to be doing.

What is surprising has been the reaction to the shooting. It appears that the majority of the public and the newsmedia believes that a CHL is only to fire his gun, if the other person is armed and he is in fear of his life.

After this incident, I cannot imagine a CHL firing their gun in any situation out side of their home and not being initially arrested, especially if they are Caucasian and the person shot at is any other race.

He has been a lightning rod for the CHL community. We have all learned from his mistakes. It will cause us to hesitate in the future, only time will tell if that will work in our favor.

Imagine the outrage today, if Z had fired twice? What would be the reaction if TM was an honor student and was really college bound?

One of the problems on this forum that I see is that there are those that are naive enough to believe that all they have to do is somehow not do the things Zimmerman did "wrong", and they'll be OK if something similar were to happen to them.

Wrong wrong wrong. This is a case that the police, and the DA, looked at, and said "he was defending himself" and didn't charge. A politically ambitious DA then decided to pursue an innocent man, who was in fact defending himself, because of her agenda. No grand jury, no real evidence of a crime, but she pursued the case.

If anyone believes as they smugly sit back and say "he's disgraced other CHL holders, that would never happen to me", don't kid yourselves. All it will ever take is a politically ambitious prosecutor, and you can be George Zimmerman.

Instead of second-guessing what the evidence clearly shows, and making up scenarios that somehow make Zimmerman the bad guy, we (CHL holders) should be stating over and over again, We will defend ourselves. Don't attack us, and you won't even know we're carrying. Attack us, and you risk your life.

[Dadtodabone]

...Oh.. The reason I told you I was a military brat would not have to be explained if you spent any time beyond the six month boot camp. Military families movie all over the country. That was the point... Sorry it went over your head... But not real surprised.

Sorry you outed yourself as Pasadena's pogie bait, eh? Boot camp is eight weeks, not six months. You got a DD214 or not? Now quit trolling. Just stick to the subject.

A few posts back you said you were done here.

I sure did say that, but since you and SS decided to reply in continuance, here I am again. I'm prepared to end the dialog as long as you quit calling on me to answer. But you can't resist can you? Especially if you think I am not here so that it looks to the others like you have the last victorious word. Surprise, this is a discussion board. There is no victor.

Recruit/Basic Training(Boot Camp) varies between the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. I believe the Navy and the Coast Guard process is 8 weeks and then off to school for your MOS specific training. Marine Recruit Training is 12 weeks(4 week modules X 3). The Air Force has a 63 day program so 9 weeks.
(Please take it easy on me if I get parts of this skewed Sergeant Major Marquez)
The Army's Initial Entry Training program is a horse of a different color. Basic Combat Training is 10 weeks followed by Advanced Individual Training that can last 5 to 52 weeks. Army recruits remain under a "firmer" level of military discipline during AIT than those in the other branches who have left basic for schools. The BCT/AIT are both part of Initial Entry Training. So you could say that "Boot Camp" for certain MOSs can last for 6 months or more.
The Army also has OSUT. In some MOSs, both the BCT and AIT sections of IET are performed back-to-back at the same location, with the same instructors, and the same recruits. Thus, One Station Unit Training. The Infantry MOS, 11B, consists of the usual BCT followed by five weeks of AIT, all at Fort Benning.
Other examples of MOSs that utilize OSUT are:
Cavalry Scouts 19D Fort Benning, Tank Crewmen 19K Fort Benning, Combat Engineers 12B Fort Leonard Wood, Bridge Crewmen 12C Fort Leonard Wood, Military Police 31B Fort Leonard Wood.

[jimlongley]

And doesn't all of this racial classification that the press and others are using make obama a "white black"?

Using the press' formula Mr. Obama would be a Black-Caucasian. Paternal racial characteristics first, Mr. Zimmerman's father is white, so we have a White-Hispanic. I've heard that Mr. Zimmerman's maternal grandfather was of Native American and Black ancestry, so we potentially have a,
White-Hispanic-Black-Native American.
I am also of mixed ancestry and could identify as a Pole-Czech-Rus-Slovakian(Slavic white guy). While my children wind up as P-C-R-S-Celt-Schwaben. My first granddaughter is P-C-R-S-C-Sc-Cymric-Dane.
Of course there are controversies in some of this mix. My maternal great-great grandmother was the bride of a member of the Kuban Host, is referred to in family history as the "Beauty of the East" and was probably part of the spoils distributed during the campaigns of Caucasus Line Host against the remnants of Ottoman power around the Black Sea. So there is a pretty good chance that I could add Turkic ancestry.
There is also some name confusion during the "melting pot" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polish and Lithuanian scripts were used and some of the hand written records(family bibles and Księgi metrykalne) are muddled or nonexistent. So the possibility of Baltai influence is also present.

See, way too many letters and modifiers, and I have similarly diverse background that begins to read like a strand of DNA when you stretch it out far enough.

And how many generations does one's family have to have been here in order to be considered "native American"?

[Bullitt]

...Recruit/Basic Training(Boot Camp) varies between the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. I believe the Navy and the Coast Guard process is 8 weeks and then off to school for your MOS specific training. Marine Recruit Training is 12 weeks(4 week modules X 3). The Air Force has a 63 day program so 9 weeks.
(Please take it easy on me if I get parts of this skewed Sergeant Major Marquez)
The Army's Initial Entry Training program is a horse of a different color. Basic Combat Training is 10 weeks followed by Advanced Individual Training that can last 5 to 52 weeks. Army recruits remain under a "firmer" level of military discipline during AIT than those in the other branches who have left basic for schools. The BCT/AIT are both part of Initial Entry Training. So you could say that "Boot Camp" for certain MOSs can last for 6 months or more.
The Army also has OSUT. In some MOSs, both the BCT and AIT sections of IET are performed back-to-back at the same location, with the same instructors, and the same recruits. Thus, One Station Unit Training. The Infantry MOS, 11B, consists of the usual BCT followed by five weeks of AIT, all at Fort Benning.
Other examples of MOSs that utilize OSUT are:
Cavalry Scouts 19D Fort Benning, Tank Crewmen 19K Fort Benning, Combat Engineers 12B Fort Leonard Wood, Bridge Crewmen 12C Fort Leonard Wood, Military Police 31B Fort Leonard Wood.

Depends on the era too. In 1976 Army Basic (which is what we refer to as "Boot Camp') was 8 weeks (but has varied from 8-10). AIT for 11B was another 8 weeks (variances there too). As you know, AIT is not "Boot Camp." Airborne school 3 weeks, Ranger school another 8 weeks. OSUT came about later, and has come and gone several times. In no instance, in any service, do I find that there has ever been a Boot Camp of 6 months. So no, one cannot say that Boot Camp can last for 6 months or more. You would be hard pressed to find any soldier who 6 months into his service says he is still going through Boot Camp, as it only applies to Basic. I will grant, however, that those who have never served may think that a soldier going through a schooling cycle is still in Boot Camp. These people are uninformed, and I would invite these uninitiated civilians to tell a Ranger School graduate that he just finished "Boot Camp."