When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He probably got out his car and followed on foot because he wanted to be able to tell the police where Trayvon was when they got there. Trayvon had left the street and had gone down a grass path. Zimmerman would have lost him at that point if he didn't follow him on foot.

We don't know if Zimmerman had any intention of confronting Trayvon in any way. What may have happened is when he ran after Trayvon down the grass and then turned the corner, he found himself face to face with him. Zimmerman may have never planned on coming face to face with him.

I agree with you that it is possible that Zimmerman was the one who started the physical altercation. I can't sit here and tell you for sure that Zimmerman is telling the truth and that Trayvon attacked him first. Zimmerman could be lying. I haven't ruled that out. To answer your question about what justification Zimmerman had to attack Trayvon, if Zimmerman did in fact attack Trayvon first, I would say Zimmerman would have no justification. If that was how it happened, then Zimmerman is probably guilty of manslaughter.

I agree with you that Trayvon was probably scared or at least concerned when he saw some stranger following him. We will probably never know exactly what was said between the two of him. They say that Trayvon asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" They say Zmmerman asked, "What are you doing here?" I wonder if Trayvon ever told him that he was simply going to his father's house. I wonder if Zimmerman ever told Trayvon that he was simply doing a neighborhood watch.

Dispatcher told him specifically NOT TO FOLLOW. Anything that happend after that conversation would make him the agressor if I were on the jury.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dispatcher told him specifically NOT TO FOLLOW. Anything that happend after that conversation would make him the agressor if I were on the jury.

that's right. but then rupert keeps talking about neighborhood watch-the guy wasn't a member of nw.
i think all of us can imagine being in trayvons shoes. zimmerman had no business approaching him or questioning him. it wasn't his place, and the kid was doing nothing wrong. since when is walking down the street a sign of wrongdoing?? and you better believe if i thought some nut was following me i'd try to lose him too. poor trayvon, behaving normally gets him killed because some guy doesn't behave normally.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's right. but then rupert keeps talking about neighborhood watch-the guy wasn't a member of nw.
i think all of us can imagine being in trayvons shoes. zimmerman had no business approaching him or questioning him. it wasn't his place, and the kid was doing nothing wrong. since when is walking down the street a sign of wrongdoing??

It doesn't matter if this Zimmerman was an "official" member of a neighborhood watch or not. You don't gain any special dispensations whatsoever by being a member of a neighborhood watch.

If Zimmerman was indeed an "official" member of a neighborhood watch, and thus "trained" in NW, that makes it far worse: he's carrying a gun and pursuing innocent citizens with deadly force.

And again: watching the videotape, as Zimmerman walks around the garage and into booking (another room with good light), there are multiple views, and there is no head wound or facial wounds on Zimmerman, and zero blood, grass, dirt, dampness either the front or back or sides of his coat and tee shirt he was wearing at the time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dispatcher told him specifically NOT TO FOLLOW. Anything that happend after that conversation would make him the agressor if I were on the jury.

Fair enough. I can appreciate your point of view. But let me ask you one question. This is just a hypothetical question. If you were on the jury and there was clear evidence that Trayvon and Zimmerman had some words such as the things we have read: Trayvon: "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman: What are you doing here?" Then the conversation was over. Zimmerman walks away and is heading back to his car. Trayvon attacks him from behind and knocks him to the ground.

If you believed that is what happened, how would you vote if you were on the jury? I'm only giving a hypothetical. I'm not saying that this was how the incident went down. I'm just asking you hypothetically if you knew for sure that this was what happened, how would you vote if you were on the jury?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Fair enough. I can appreciate your point of view. But let me ask you one question. This is just a hypothetical question. If you were on the jury and there was clear evidence that Trayvon and Zimmerman had some words such as the things we have read: Trayvon: "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman: What are you doing here?" Then the conversation was over. Zimmerman walks away and is heading back to his car. Trayvon attacks him from behind and knocks him to the ground.

If you believed that is what happened, how would you vote if you were on the jury? I'm only giving a hypothetical. I'm not saying that this was how the incident went down. I'm just asking you hypothetically if you knew for sure that this was what happened, how would you vote if you were on the jury?

I would vote the same because again the fact that he continued after being told not to shows that he was the agressor. Knowing he had a gun and knowing the stand your ground law in my mind he was trying to provoke an altercation.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I would vote the same because again the fact that he continued after being told not to shows that he was the agressor. Knowing he had a gun and knowing the stand your ground law in my mind he was trying to provoke an altercation.

That's really the key point because the "stand your ground" law means exactly that - you don't have to flee an aggressor. But if you become the aggressor, the law no longer applies. In fact, if Mr. Martin was armed, he'd be protected by the stand your ground law if Zimmerman was first to take hostile action.

"Stand your ground" is an improvement over gun control that is too restrictive, but does NOT protect an aggressor. Zimmerman will lose his case if he thinks that the law will protect his actions. The 911 call documents that fact.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's really the key point because the "stand your ground" law means exactly that - you don't have to flee an aggressor.

Unfortunately for Trayvon, his aggressor carried a Glock 9mm with the safety off and a round in the chamber, and shot him dead.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Unfortunately for Trayvon, his aggressor carried a Glock 9mm with the safety off and a round in the chamber, and shot him dead.

That might very well be how the case is decided once all the evidence is in. And he should be sentenced accordingly if he is guilty.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That might very well be how the case is decided once all the evidence is in. And he should be sentenced accordingly if he is guilty.

That's what I tried to explain to her 10 pages ago - good luck

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Unfortunately for Trayvon, his aggressor carried a Glock 9mm with the safety off and a round in the chamber, and shot him dead.

Glocks do not have "safeties", no guns really have safeties other than the holder. Carrying a weapon without a chambered round is as useless as not carrying a weapon at all.

[Danzig]

and all a safety does on a gun is keep the trigger from being pulled. guns can and have gone off with a safety on...that's why they teach muzzle control, as that's the only real way to keep from shooting something you don't want to shoot.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Glocks do not have "safeties", no guns really have safeties other than the holder. Carrying a weapon without a chambered round is as useless as not carrying a weapon at all.

"Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people". Sure.

Yeah. Carrying his Glock with the safety off and a round chambered was exactly what unstable citizen vigilantes shouldn't be doing. Maybe Zimmerman ought to be lecturing police departments how to really carry their weapons?

I think the gun was brought out by Zimmerman, but it accidentally discharged. I think he had it pointed at the kid, but he didn't mean to fire it.

We'll see.