it's relevant b/c GZ said he thought TM may have been on drugs, and that led to GZ thinking that TM looked suspicious
Thats just another assumption made by him. Can you tell if someone is on drugs lets say ~10-15 yards away...at night...in the rain?
It was investigated. There was no reason not to believe otherwise. It was't until the race biters brought forth the case.
For no reason not to believe otherwise the case sure hasn't been open and shut. No one will ever know really what happened that night, regardless of the outcome.
Agreed. I will just always have a hard time believing what GZ did was right. He was trying to do good for the neighborhood and his good intentions put him in a terrible situation. What I hope could come from this situation is removal of weapons from neighborhood watch or other unofficial safety positions. Yes he has the right to a gun and CHL, but I think these situations can be avoided if the authority to use of deadly force, for an unauthorized individual, is taken away...during his time "on duty". How do you feel about that?
^ As an example, there are a bunch of start up border watch groups and they can not approach people, carry guns or do really anything at all besides report to border patrol. I would like that to be implemented to all these neighborhood watch groups as well.
innocent until proven guilty is a b****, isn't it? I would really hate to believe what it would be like if it was the other way around.
I agree in spirit, but I'm not sure he used his weapon in his capacity as neighborhood watchman. The argument was that he used it as he was getting beat up. You could say that perhaps the gun emboldened him to approach TM, but that's hard to argue and even somebody packing heat doesn't know the other guy isn't also. Let me ask this -- the stereotype is that blacks don't respect law enforcement or similar types. Did that play a role in this? Is there something there?
1. The gun becoming dislodged or fully visible isn't supported by one piece of evidence or anything that GZ has said. That's you putting that forward and not evidence. If TM is sitting up by GZ's armpits as Zimmerman claimed, and the gun is on the back side of GZ's hip, then it would certainly require eyes in the back of Martin's head to see it. 2. I don't know what to tell you. I have a large sweatshirt and just walking or the way I have my arms can cause it to be 2 - 4 inches from my body. I'm not as skinny as TM was. So it would definitely be possible for that to happen to him.
(Man I am not really missing this forum one iota. Carry on with the enjoyment of this media circus creation.)
hmm, sure it played a role, but I don't think lack of respect leads someone to assault. While it is my opinion, I believe people are MUCH more likely to act lawlessly and assault a "similar type" than actual uniformed law enforcement. Even a crappy mall cop gets more of an eye from me because of their uniform. Luckily I have never been put in any similar situation but I would feel much more threatened followed by an apparent citizen than a person in uniform. I also agree he has the right to use his weapon in self defense, but when he is carrying it on watch it, to me, means he is ready and willing to use it as an example of his authority, rather than a badge. Space Ghost, chill out. Innocent to proven guilty is one of the best things our country has... I am not gunning for TM, so quit grouping me there. All I am doing is questioning self defense, exactly why I want a trial. The Martin family has the right to this process and if it is so obvious as you believe than it should not be an issue.
Very, very weak argument. Going to a convenience store to pick up candy and a drink is a routine type of activity people engage in on a daily basis. There's no logical reason to think you are placing yourself or anyone else at risk with this type of activity. When you follow a stranger repeatedly and aren't a security guard or police officer, you are basically harassing that stranger and placing them into a "Flight or Fight" mindset. This is an action that clearly carries with it a high level of risk and this type of action is infinitely more likely to instigate a physical altercation of some sort than a simple trip to the corner convenience store.
So if I think you look like you are on drugs, I can follow and harass you until you prove to me you are not a criminal. And if we get into a confrontation that results in fisticuffs, I can shoot you. And you wonder why we don't want people like you running around with guns on the street. This is the biggest case for gun control - because innocent people will get killed by these kinds of thugs who think they are the law.
Anonymous Rep Leaving Comment: Answer: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...n-neighborhood-watch-20130625,0,7056736.story That's tantamount to reckless behavior when executing a role incorrectly - a doctor would be convicted of manslaughter if by knowingly not following rules it resulted in a patients death. no different here. And yes, that is disobeying law enforcement when they train you not to do X and you do X. And I did use facts and no lies.
I wouldn't have an issue with implementing that if the person was on actual Watch Patrol. It wouldn't apply here because Martin wasn't on watch and I wouldn't agree with stripping him of his right to legally carry a gun 24/7.
When you look at it on the face of things, you have to think manslaughter. Man stalks and confronts boy. Man and boy fight. Man shoots boy. Boy dies. If not for the man's actions, the boy is still alive. The only way the man in this case will walk free is because of police corruption/incompetence and a very ill-conceived law.
