Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Look -- what was alleged was that getting out of his car was against the rules. Thank you for finally admitting that.

Admitting that? I was the one that pointed that out to you!

[kiki5711]

Somebody "confronts" me in my neighborhood, armed or otherwise, saying "What are you doing here?" I politely say "I'm going about my lawful occasions here on this public street, is there a problem that I can help you with?"

If I were in a private community with "No Trespassing" signs, I'd say "Hi, I'm Seth, pleased to meet you. (offers hand for handshake) I'm here visiting so-and-so who lives over there in that blue house, is there a problem I can help you with?"

Politeness goes a long way towards defusing suspicion and hostility when one is visiting someone's private, gated community.

That's very true and common sense people do that.

It's not what zimmerman did though.

[Seth]

"Getting out of the car." That isn't "apprehension." The assertion we were discussing was whether getting out of the fucking car was against the rules. Can you just admit that it isn't, instead of citing SOME OTHER RULE?

zimm didn't get out of his car and just stand there. so, no, getting out of the car is not against the rules but going after the "suspicious guy" is.

Holy mother of god, you can't be this dense.

Evidently, however, you can be. Zimmerman was not subject to any of the "rules" you cited, and was under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to abide by such "rules" if he felt it was necessary to do something else. You have not cited ANY evidence that Zimmerman was a member of any particular Neighborhood Watch organization or that he took some oath to never break any of their rules. And the worst "punishment" that any such organization can give is to remove a member's name from the membership roles, nothing more. Not even the local police or Sheriff can do any more than that so long as the member doesn't break the law.

He is a free agent and can do what he deems reasonable and necessary within the law, including approaching strangers in his private, gated community to ask them what they are doing there. Now, Martin was under no particular obligation to answer those questions, since he was an authorized guest, and he had every right to ignore Zimmerman, run away from him, or tell him to mind his own business and leave him alone.

Zimmerman, in response to such hostility in response to a reasonable question of "what are you doing here," is entitled to contact the police and report a suspicious person, which is exactly what he did, and justifiably so because Martin ran from him when asked to justify his presence, which raises a reasonable suspicion that he's up to no good.

What Martin was NOT authorized to do is attack Zimmerman.

And when Martin attacked Zimmerman with deadly force, Zimmerman did what he had to do to protect his life, within the law.

I believe I've told you this at least five or six times, but you continue to densely ignore the plain facts in favor of your ideological agenda, which is pretty tiresome and ignorant at this point.

[Seth]

Somebody "confronts" me in my neighborhood, armed or otherwise, saying "What are you doing here?" I politely say "I'm going about my lawful occasions here on this public street, is there a problem that I can help you with?"

If I were in a private community with "No Trespassing" signs, I'd say "Hi, I'm Seth, pleased to meet you. (offers hand for handshake) I'm here visiting so-and-so who lives over there in that blue house, is there a problem I can help you with?"

Politeness goes a long way towards defusing suspicion and hostility when one is visiting someone's private, gated community.

That's very true and common sense people do that.

It's not what zimmerman did though.

No, that's not what MARTIN did in response to the perfectly lawful and reasonable question "What are you doing here?" from a lawful resident of the private, gated community to a stranger wandering around in the rain. Martin ran away, then returned and attacked Zimmerman with deadly force. Those are not the actions of an innocent person, nor a polite one.

[Coito ergo sum]

Look -- what was alleged was that getting out of his car was against the rules. Thank you for finally admitting that.

Admitting that? I was the one that pointed that out to you!

Christ kiki --- what was alleged was that getting out of his car was against the rules. IT ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES FOR HIM TO GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR AND YOU FINALLY ADMITTED IT.

[Tero]

And he did not say: I'm from the Neighborhood Watch. What are you doing here?

[Coito ergo sum]

And he did not say: I'm from the Neighborhood Watch. What are you doing here?

According to kiki and Thump, that would have been against the neighborhood watch rules for him to do that. After all, he'd be "approaching" and "confronting" if he did that. No?

I mean - the girlfriend says that after Martin asked "why are you following (or chasing) me?", Zimmerman asked "what are you doing around here?" or words to that effect. Then a fight ensued.

So, apparently, according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman did exactly what you say, except he left out the bit about the neighborhood watch.

[Seth]

And he did not say: I'm from the Neighborhood Watch. What are you doing here?

He's not required to do so. It's a PRIVATE COMMUNITY surrounded by fences and walls with gates and "NO TRESPASSING" signs. It's NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY and therefore anyone who is a legal resident of the community has full authority to ask anyone whom they don't recognize "what are you doing here." It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and a visitor is under an obligation to abide by the rules of the community and identify themselves and demonstrate that they are authorized to be there or BE SUBJECT TO DETENTION AND ARREST FOR CRIMINAL TRESPASSING.

That arrest MAY BE MADE by ANY PERSON who is a legal resident, according to the law, and the intruder may be physically restrained, and reasonable and appropriate physical force may be used to effect that arrest. The intruder must then be turned over to the police when they arrive.

Members or owners of PRIVATE PROPERTY are under NO obligation to simply stand by and "observe" a trespasser, they have legal authority to take action to apprehend that person.

If the individual is not in fact a trespasser, it's THEIR obligation to explain to the person detaining or questioning them how it is that they are authorized to be there, or face arrest if they refuse.

Those are the legal facts in this case.

[Coito ergo sum]

And he did not say: I'm from the Neighborhood Watch. What are you doing here?

He's not required to do so. It's a PRIVATE COMMUNITY surrounded by fences and walls with gates and "NO TRESPASSING" signs. It's NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY and therefore anyone who is a legal resident of the community has full authority to ask anyone whom they don't recognize "what are you doing here."

Actually, even if you're on a sidewalk or on main street or at the mall, every individual has "full authority" to ask someone what they are doing there. The person they ask has full authority to ignore them or tell them to fuck off, or to answer the question. This sort of thing is not prohibited by law.

[kiki5711]

and the intruder may be physically restrained, and reasonable and appropriate physical force may be used to effect that arrest.

how did zimm conclude that martin was an intruder? can no body there have any visitors? the obvious thing to do, if there's suspicion is to ask (not in a confronting manner) what are you doing here.

that's not how it went down in this situation.

That arrest MAY BE MADE by ANY PERSON who is a legal resident, according to the law, and the intruder may be physically restrained, and reasonable and appropriate physical force may be used to effect that arrest. The intruder must then be turned over to the police when they arrive.

and not kill. zimmerman followed martin, didn't identify himself except "what are you doing here". That sounds confrontational to me.

[Tero]

When you approach a stranger with a gun in your pocket, Seth, you don't identify yourself? "hi, I'm the guy with the gun."

[Coito ergo sum]

and the intruder may be physically restrained, and reasonable and appropriate physical force may be used to effect that arrest.

how did zimm conclude that martin was an intruder? can no body there have any visitors? the obvious thing to do, if there's suspicion is to ask (not in a confronting manner) what are you doing here.

What's a "confronting manner?"

And, do you think that it makes a different from the standpoint of Zimmerman's guilt that he asked in a "confronting manner" as opposed to whatever isn't a "confronting manner?"

that's not how it went down in this situation.

That arrest MAY BE MADE by ANY PERSON who is a legal resident, according to the law, and the intruder may be physically restrained, and reasonable and appropriate physical force may be used to effect that arrest. The intruder must then be turned over to the police when they arrive.

and not kill. zimmerman followed martin, didn't identify himself except "what are you doing here". That sounds confrontational to me.

So what? It sounds no more confrontational than "Hey! I'm a Neighborhood Watchman! What are you doing here!?"

And, what if the same thing happened after Zimmerman said something like, "Please, Mr., beg your pardon, but, I am a represented of the neighborhood watch, and I couldn't help but notice you walking through our neighborhood. Would you kindly explain the purpose of your visit to our fair community?" Would you be saying "Reasonable doubt" now? If not, what is the point of you drawing this politeness distinction?

[kiki5711]

And, what if the same thing happened after Zimmerman said something like, "Please, Mr., beg your pardon, but, I am a represented of the neighborhood watch, and I couldn't help but notice you walking through our neighborhood. Would you kindly explain the purpose of your visit to our fair community?" Would you be saying "Reasonable doubt" now? If not, what is the point of you drawing this politeness distinction?

Well, yes. That would have been more appropriate way to ask. And then, if martin attacked him, before even giving an answer, there would be doubt.

But the events from the start did not go that way.

What's a "confronting manner?"

confronting manner is starring at martin from his car window, then getting out of his car, saying in a loud voice WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE! martin starts to run, zimm goes after him. "that's pretty much confronting manner".

[Coito ergo sum]

And, what if the same thing happened after Zimmerman said something like, "Please, Mr., beg your pardon, but, I am a represented of the neighborhood watch, and I couldn't help but notice you walking through our neighborhood. Would you kindly explain the purpose of your visit to our fair community?" Would you be saying "Reasonable doubt" now? If not, what is the point of you drawing this politeness distinction?

Well, yes. That would have been more appropriate way to ask.

"More appropriate" = not guilty of murder? Where is this coming from?

Sure, it may be "more appropriate," polite and all sorts of nice things. But, does his guilt or innocence hinge on this?

I'll agree with you that he may well have been impertinent and impolite. So what?

And then, if martin attacked him, before even giving an answer, there would be doubt.

One, you really don't know how Zimmerman addressed Martin, now do you? You just assume it, and take the word of the girlfriend who was interviewed by the attorney's for Martin's family without law enforcement or any representative of Zimmerman present. Two, even if someone is rude to you, that doesn't give you the right to attack them. If someone says, "hey, bitch. Get the fuck out of my neighborhood" and you jump them and put them in fear for their life, they can lawfully kill you in self-defense. So, I fail to see how Zimmerman's rudeness becomes determinative of his guilt.

But the events from the start did not go that way.

What's a "confronting manner?"

confronting manner is starring at martin from his car window, then getting out of his car, saying in a loud voice WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE! martin starts to run, zimm goes after him. "that's pretty much confronting manner".

Didn't you listen to the 911 tape yet? Zimmerman did not say anything to Martin when he got out of his car. So, bzzzzzz!, wrong again, kiki.

Martin started to run while Zimmerman was still inside of his car. I've pointed that out to you about 10 times already, but you continue to insist on your own version of audiotaped facts.

[kiki5711]

So, I fail to see how Zimmerman's rudeness becomes determinative of his guilt.

well he asked for it. do you go up to someone you don't know and say "HEY WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?" and expect no reaction?

I'm not saying zimm said that. I'm just using it as an example.