When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

You mean like back at post #17 when I agreed with you, rocket scientist?

Yeah ... you've been paying really good attention to the discussion. Not.

Here's a lesson for you: when you join back in a discussion, and the only reason for your post is just to be a rude gratuitious ass.hole trying to diss another poster?

You might end up looking really stupid.

Just sayin'

[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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by 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.

The safety on my 9mm and .45 does not prevent the trigger from being pulled but rather disengages the hammer action. Neither will or can fire with safety on though you can pull the trigger on both.

[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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

"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.

I am not kidding, Glocks do not have any safety at all, like some other pistols do have a mechanism that is meant to prevent accidental discharge but in no way is meant to make the weapon safe.
If they were indeed fighting, Zimmerman having the gun on him makes it life and death automatically. He doesn't know what happens if Trayvon gets the gun so he pulls it, potentially freaks out and shoots him. Has there been any report on the distance from which the shot was fired, I have not seen that anywhere?