Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Either Zimmerman followed him against dispatch instruction (not a crime) and asked him why he was there (a fair question) or Martin attacked him after flanking him by coming around the complex. Martin was fast enough to do that given he is 6’3 and 140 football player. Zimmerman is slow as hell at 5’2 and 250lb.
Funny how the media only mentions wieght and not height? Just more spin/deception and most people just mindlessly swallow it whole. Martin literally towered over Zimmerman

However, Lets assume the recording by the Martin girfriend is not fake (who records cell phone calls per-emptivley, Really?)

Anyway, assuming the call is legit. Then Zimmerman merely approached the suspicious Martin and Martin first asks Zimmerman, “why are you following me?” Zimmerman responds with another and very fair and reasonable question “What are you doing here?” Then there is a scuffle
Neighbors reported two guys wrestling/struggling/scuffling.

It is most probable that when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there, Martin’s fight/flight kicked in and he chose to fight…cutting off the call

Ok, let's take this scenario posted by someone else as an example.

If there was an exchange of words such as described above, and they were said in normal, (not threatening/or paranoid from ether side) tone of voice, do you think a fight would start, ending in one of them being dead?

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

It is expected under the law that if someone says something to you that your only appropriate reaction is to respond with words as well. Alternatively, you can call the police. The one who resorts to violence is in the wrong, and the rude asshole who said "what hte fuck are you doing here" is in the right and has the right to self defense.

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

And, this is a fundamental difference, I guess. If a black guy, for example, comes up to me and says "hey, white cracker! Honkey, what you doin' in my neighborhood? Get your cracker-ass back home, whitey mother fucker!"

To me, my reaction can be "fuck you, jackass, I'll go where I want," or "sorry sir, I think I have a right to be here," or whatever, but if I take a poke at him, then he has the right to defend himself.

That is a fundamental principle of anglo-saxon and anglo-American law for time immemorial. I can't imagine why anyone would think it "appropriate" to respond to words with violence.

[kiki5711]

If a black guy, for example, comes up to me and says "hey, white cracker! Honkey, what you doin' in my neighborhood? Get your cracker-ass back home, whitey mother fucker!"

To me, my reaction can be "fuck you, jackass, I'll go where I want," or "sorry sir, I think I have a right to be here," or whatever, but if I take a poke at him, then he has the right to defend himself.

If you are naive enough to go through a black neighborhood where a black guy comes up and says that to you, don't expect to come home. And the cops will never find out who did it.

You may have a gun and try to protect yourself, but be sure to know, if that black guy is confronting you for no reason, he's prepared to knock you off way before you reach your gun. Or his friends will pound the cement with your head till it looks like jello.

[Coito ergo sum]

If a black guy, for example, comes up to me and says "hey, white cracker! Honkey, what you doin' in my neighborhood? Get your cracker-ass back home, whitey mother fucker!"

To me, my reaction can be "fuck you, jackass, I'll go where I want," or "sorry sir, I think I have a right to be here," or whatever, but if I take a poke at him, then he has the right to defend himself.

If you are naive enough to go through a black neighborhood where a black guy comes up and says that to you, don't expect to come home. And the cops will never find out who did it.

Do you really fucking miss EVERY point? Or, is it deliberate?

The point was to illustrate what the proper response is. Fucking bloody fucking hell...it really is like beating one's head against a wall to talk to you. Your brain is on Mars.

You may have a gun and try to protect yourself, but be sure to know, if that black guy is confronting you for no reason, he's prepared to knock you off way before you reach your gun. Or his friends will pound the cement with your head till it looks like jello.

Again, what? What the fuck are you talking about?

We were talking about the appropriate response if someone comes up to you and asks you what the fuck you're doing in their neighborhood. You think that such a question entitles the person to respond by attacking the inquirer. I don't. I also know for a fact that the law does not allow such an inquiry, no matter how rudely posed, to be responded to with a physical attack.

My illustration of a black guy coming up to me and saying I should get the fuck out of his neighborhood was to illustrate that point - that I did not have the right to physically attack him because he rudely, even racially, taunted me or asked me what I was doing there. Do you not fucking get that?

[kiki5711]

We were talking about the appropriate response if someone comes up to you and asks you what the fuck you're doing in their neighborhood. You think that such a question entitles the person to respond by attacking the inquirer

It depends on the "neighborhood" now, doesn't it?

And that's why I brought up the example if you were in the same position in a tough black neighborhood.

[Coito ergo sum]

We were talking about the appropriate response if someone comes up to you and asks you what the fuck you're doing in their neighborhood. You think that such a question entitles the person to respond by attacking the inquirer

It depends on the "neighborhood" now, doesn't it?

No.

And that's why I brought up the example if you were in the same position in a tough black neighborhood.

If I were in a tough black neighborhood, I still do not have the right to respond to a person's inquiry as to what the fuck I'm doing in the neighborhood by attacking him. It doesn't matter if I'm in beverly hills or in Compton. If someone says "what the fuck are you doing here?" I don't have the right to attack that person.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nope. You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said he violated the rules BY GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. Nothing you posted says he's not supposed to get out of his vehicle.

This is why I see that this discussion as pointless, as I said earlier. What I specifically said was, "Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin". Neighborhood Watch advice is to specifically not take any action in confronting a suspect, and to report only; and the specific information he was given that night by the dispatcher was "we don't need you to do that" -- and "that" clearly meant "follow".

Now, because this incident occurred on a sidewalk passing between two apartment buildings and a couple of hundred feet from the street, it's clear that Zimmerman did some following, on foot.

And, nothing in the facts establish clearly that he "confronted" Martin. There is fairly vague testimony of the girlfriend, but that is it. I've never claimed Z could not possibly have confronted or initiated a confrontation with Martin -- I've merely asserted that there is doubt.

His girlfriend knows more about what she heard than you do. Whether she's telling the truth or not will be weighed by the jury.

And about the gun -- Dorivol says that is their policy, but there is nothing in the written material to that effect, and nothing to show that Zimmerman was ever told that. And, of course, it's not unlawful for him to have been carrying a gun, regardless. Exhibit A: He wasn't charged with any crime for having a gun while on neighborhood watch.

No one said his carrying the gun was a crime. You're swatting a strawman. What I presented was what the program coordinator advised ["The philosophy is, 'No weapons. Don't confront. Call the police,' "].

That is certainly some evidence, for what it's worth, and we'll hear the full testimony at trial, which, of course, has "evolved." But, that's not determinative, is it? That testimony will have to be put in context of where the incident ultimately happened, how far that would have been for Martin to run, etc. In other words, it's his girlfriends testimony, and doesn't establish that Zimmerman ran him down beyond a reasonable doubt. The above snippet was taken after the Martin family legal team had already gotten ahold of her. Recall that initially she would only talk to the attorneys who recorded her statement -- the attorneys representing Martin's family.

Of course it's not definitive. This is why I'm saying I'm content to await the jury's verdict.

I don't wholly discount her testimony, and it does constitute "evidence," which will be admissible in court. But, if that's the best they have, can you really say that there is no reasonable doubt?

Well, I don't know that that is the best they have. Do you? I'd be willing to bet that we, the public, have not seen the vast majority of the evidence in this case thus far.

Well, to be clear on where we are in agreement -- I can certainly agree to that. I think anyone who sits in his car at night monitoring the neighborhood is using terrible judgment. One doesn't know if the person one thinks is suspicious is actually armed.

That's not where I think he exhibited terrible judgement. Participating in a Neighborhood Watch program can be great. I've never done it myself, but I do in my neighborhood keep an eye out, know my neighbors, and if I see something funny going on, I'll either ask questions or call police.

I think the terrible judgement he exhibited was in not sitting tight and awaiting the authorites after he'd been told that they were on their way. It's hard to see exactly what he thought he would accomplish by following Martin to the extent he did, getting close enough that Martin felt compelled to ask why he was being followed. Simple observation would seem to have been a much wiser course of action.

This is admittedly hindsight, but I've done exactly this several times when I've called the police on assholes in my neighborhood.

Really, isn't whether he "pursued a confrontation" in doubt, given the reasonable possibility that he exited his vehicle to (a) get a house number for the cops, and (b) to try to keep Martin in his line of vision so that he could identify him for the cops and be able to say he never lost sight of Martin (thereby making it harder for Martin to claim that he wasn't the same person Zimmerman saw initially)?

That's possible, but it doesn't seem likely to me. The location of the incident was a broad walkway passing for hundreds of feet between two rows of apartment buildings, with clear sightlines.

He hasn't been charged with criminal negligence. It's not before the jury, unless they add that to the indictment.

Can they not find for a lesser charge of "negligent homicide" or "manslaughter" rather than second-degree murder? That was my gist -- not that he'd been formally charged with negligence.

I'm not following you. Could you please highlight for me the "misstatement?" You mean my statement that him "getting out of the vehicle was not against neighborhood watch rules?" That isn't a misstatement. OTHER THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE DONE -- for example, if he did initiate a "confrontation" with Martin - that would seem to be in violation of the rules you cited. But, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle? No way.

This too is a misstatement, in that my point wasn't that specifically getting out of his vehicle was verboten but rather, taking actions on his observations was. They were a couple of hundred feet from Zimmerman's vehicle when the shooting occurred. How did Zimmerman get there, if not by following him, after he'd been told that the police were on the way and that his following wasn't necessary? How did he get there without taking action on his observations?

Additionally, you're deliberately focusing on the "get out of his vehicle" aspect so that you don't have to address my point that he clearly ignored the gist of his NW training, what he'd been told at the program coordinator's seminar, and what the dispatcher told him that night.

You're sending grist to my mill.

Now it's "mistakes" plural? You only alleged one, as far as I can see, and I think it's a question of talking past each other. It seems there is a communication problem sometimes, where like, I take issue with a specific statement, and then people think that means I take issue with something else.

I'm not going to belabor 58 pages of posts. I was explaining why I think this thread is a clusterfuck, and gave one example.

Notice that the dispatcher did not say "get back in your car, please," and he was not charged with any offense of "exiting a vehicle while armed on neighborhood watch" offense.

Considering that I never asserted that that was even a crime, much less one that he'd been charged with, this "point" of yours is a red herring.

I looked up -- I was the first one to post, in fact - the Sanford handbook. Everyone else was spouting off about what "all neighborhood watches are trained to do" and not a one of them looked up what the rules were in Sanford. So, forgive me if I call bullshit on your "you missed something as basic as" comment." I love that -- I am the one who actually looked up the handbook, and linked to it, and I noticed you didn't point out the fact that the "hang Zimmerman" crowd didn't bother to do that, and merely continue to speak about their "feelings" on the issue.

You might want to read what you link next time, then.

Moreover, you're right, I did not look up the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE handbook. However, you're wrong when you say that the DOJ "gives the Neighborhood Watch [the handbook]..." Where do you get that? The DOJ does not distribute that to local neighborhood watches. The DOJ has it available, but it isn't something that they distribute to the Sanford locality. Sanford has their own handbook.

That document is distributed by the NSA -- the organization who runs the Neighborhood Watch. It is funded by the DoJ.

And, more importantly, neither one of them say that a neighborhood watchman may not exit his vehicle. Of course it doesn't. You know why? Because neighborhood watchmen are allowed to travel on foot. Did you "miss" that part? If Zimmerman walked out of his house and walked around the neighborhood, he would have been acting fully in accord with the handbooks you posted. So, he doesn't become a violator of the handbook rules by driving his car to one part of the neighborhood and getting out, and he doesn't violate any rule in the handbook by seeing a suspicious person and then exiting his vehicle. Can you please at least acknowledge that?

Clearly, this is grasping at semantic straws. You dance around the advice to "report only" which was presented to you upthread in black and white, perhaps hoping I'll forget it. Here is what that pamphlet says. I have underlined the relevant passage. Admittedly, it says nothing about cars. It does, however, say what someone doing NW should not do:

No, you're just wrong about it. Again, if you think it is a violation of the handbooks for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle, please cite the provision.

I'm pretty sure that getting out of his car to follow Martin is "taking action". I'm also pretty sure that you'll hotly deny this.

This is why I think this thread is pointless.

Of course, the fact that he was not in violation for exiting his vehicle doesn't mean that he wouldn't be in violation for starting a fight or something, or "confronting" Martin. But, you have to admit, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle was not a violation, and that is what I said.

See above. That was clearly a positive action, your semantic challenges notwithstanding.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope. You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said he violated the rules BY GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. Nothing you posted says he's not supposed to get out of his vehicle.

This is why I see that this discussion as pointless, as I said earlier. What I specifically said was, "Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin". Neighborhood Watch advice is to specifically not take any action in confronting a suspect, and to report only; and the specific information he was given that night by the dispatcher was "we don't need you to do that" -- and "that" clearly meant "follow".

Sigh..... take it from the top. One, follow is not the same as confront. Two, no prohibition exists for getting out of the car. Three, you said "disregarding neighborhood watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin." Four, the audiotape shows clearly that Zimmerman did NOT disregard the dispatcher's advice because the dispatcher did not tell him not to follow Martin and then Martin went ahead anyway - rather, Z started following M, and the dispatcher asked him if he was following M and Zimmerman said yes, and THEN the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" and Z said "o.k." and you hear him stop (then he proceeds to talk calmly with the dispatcher for minute and a half after he had told the dispatcher he lost sight of Martin). Five, The dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to leave his car, and Zimmerman had already left his car when the dispatcher said to stop. Six, Neighborhood Watch advice that you cited was not to try to apprehend the suspect or get physically involved. Keeping an eye on the subject - following to keep watch on him, etc., is not prohibited by anything you cited. Seven "we don't need you to do that" and "that" clearly meant "follow" and there is NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ZIMMERMAN CONTINUED TO FOLLOW MARTIN AFTER THE DISPATCHER SAID THAT.

There is just so much out of sync in what you said, that for you to take this attitude that OTHERS are making misstatements is ludicrous. Read those 7 points I made. They illustrate 7 ways your position simply cannot be supported by the known objective facts, particularly the audiotape.

Now, because this incident occurred on a sidewalk passing between two apartment buildings and a couple of hundred feet from the street, it's clear that Zimmerman did some following, on foot.

That isn't clear at all. Have you looked at the overhead map? It is clear that Zimmerman did some following, but it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT ANY FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE AFTER THE DISPATCHER SAID "we don't need you to do that."

And, nothing in the facts establish clearly that he "confronted" Martin. There is fairly vague testimony of the girlfriend, but that is it. I've never claimed Z could not possibly have confronted or initiated a confrontation with Martin -- I've merely asserted that there is doubt.

His girlfriend knows more about what she heard than you do. Whether she's telling the truth or not will be weighed by the jury.

All I'm saying is that there are multiple reasonable possibilities. I'm not claiming to know. Those calling Zimmerman guilty or a murderer, or psycho, or paranoid or a gun nut, or saying that he "clearly" confronted or initiated a confrontation with Martin -- those are the people claiming to know.

And about the gun -- Dorivol says that is their policy, but there is nothing in the written material to that effect, and nothing to show that Zimmerman was ever told that. And, of course, it's not unlawful for him to have been carrying a gun, regardless. Exhibit A: He wasn't charged with any crime for having a gun while on neighborhood watch.

No one said his carrying the gun was a crime. You're swatting a strawman. What I presented was what the program coordinator advised ["The philosophy is, 'No weapons. Don't confront. Call the police,' "].

Again, it's not in the written policy, which was my point. Dorivol says it now, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman was ever told that. We just don't know. Again, my position is that based on the evidence we don't know. You think that you can extrapolate that Zimmerman was trained or informed of this gun policy just because Dorivol makes some statement to the media. Another example of someone claiming to know that which they can't know, and then criticizing my position on it (which is that I don't know one way or the other whether Zimmerman was trained in that regard, and the evidence does not (yet) show it).

That is certainly some evidence, for what it's worth, and we'll hear the full testimony at trial, which, of course, has "evolved." But, that's not determinative, is it? That testimony will have to be put in context of where the incident ultimately happened, how far that would have been for Martin to run, etc. In other words, it's his girlfriends testimony, and doesn't establish that Zimmerman ran him down beyond a reasonable doubt. The above snippet was taken after the Martin family legal team had already gotten ahold of her. Recall that initially she would only talk to the attorneys who recorded her statement -- the attorneys representing Martin's family.

Of course it's not definitive. This is why I'm saying I'm content to await the jury's verdict.

So am I. It seems weird that you pick ME to come after on this point. I'm the one saying "Zimmerman may have initiated the confrontation, he may not have." Others, like Kiki, Mai, and others have been rock-solid-sure Zimmerman initiated the whole thing and should be strung up by his balls. THEY ARE THE ONES NOT WAITING FOR THE JURY VERDICT. I -- repeat -- I am the one saying that I don't know because based on the facts there are multiple possibilities that are clearly reasonably within the known facts. That's called reasonable doubt.

So, where the hell am I not "content to wait until the jury verdict?" If you want to talk to somebody who is not waiting for a jury verdict, go harp on kiki or Mai or any of the myriad other "Zimmerman is psycho, paranoid, gun-nut murderer" folks around here.

I don't wholly discount her testimony, and it does constitute "evidence," which will be admissible in court. But, if that's the best they have, can you really say that there is no reasonable doubt?

Well, I don't know that that is the best they have. Do you? I'd be willing to bet that we, the public, have not seen the vast majority of the evidence in this case thus far.

Do you know of anything more? If not, can you say that based on what you know now, there are reasonable possibilities that may exonerate Zimmerman?

Well, to be clear on where we are in agreement -- I can certainly agree to that. I think anyone who sits in his car at night monitoring the neighborhood is using terrible judgment. One doesn't know if the person one thinks is suspicious is actually armed.

That's not where I think he exhibited terrible judgement. Participating in a Neighborhood Watch program can be great. I've never done it myself, but I do in my neighborhood keep an eye out, know my neighbors, and if I see something funny going on, I'll either ask questions or call police.

It's possible that is all Zimmerman did, isn't it. I mean, he did see Martin and call 911. That much we know. We have the call. We can't be sure from the evidence who attacked whom, and it is reasonably possible from the evidence that Zimmerman really only did "ask questions" and that it was Martin who got pissed and attacked him. Isn't it? Or, are you not waiting for the jury verdict on that point?

I think the terrible judgement he exhibited was in not sitting tight and awaiting the authorites after he'd been told that they were on their way. It's hard to see exactly what he thought he would accomplish by following Martin to the extent he did, getting close enough that Martin felt compelled to ask why he was being followed. Simple observation would seem to have been a much wiser course of action.

The cops were asking him to give them an address to the location where they could find Martin. Martin began to run, and Zimmerman went after him.

This is admittedly hindsight, but I've done this several times when I've called the police on assholes in my neighborhood.

Really, isn't whether he "pursued a confrontation" in doubt, given the reasonable possibility that he exited his vehicle to (a) get a house number for the cops, and (b) to try to keep Martin in his line of vision so that he could identify him for the cops and be able to say he never lost sight of Martin (thereby making it harder for Martin to claim that he wasn't the same person Zimmerman saw initially)?

That's possible, but it doesn't seem likely to me. The location of the incident was a broad walkway passing for hundreds of feet between two rows of apartment buildings, with clear sightlines.

Doesn't have to be "likely" to be reasonable doubt, now does it?

There are plenty of spaces between the townhouses where people can walk. And, I fail to see why the location of the incident being a walkway between two rows of townhouses making it unlikely that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

He hasn't been charged with criminal negligence. It's not before the jury, unless they add that to the indictment.

Can they not find for a lesser charge of "negligent homicide" or "manslaughter"? That was my gist -- not that he'd been formally charged with negligence.

They can't find a lesser included offense unless the prosecutor charges it or it is presented to the jury as a possible verdict. They get jury instructions which both the prosecution and the defense, and the judge, must approve, and these are issues that aren't pulled out of the air. The defendant has a right to fair notice, and he can't go through the whole trial not knowing he might be convicted of criminal negligence and then having it presented to the jury as an alternative. The defense has a due process right to be informed of ALL the charges against him.

Also, negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense of murder, because negligence is not an element of murder. A lesser included offense is an offense that has all the elements of a higher offense, except that the higher offense has one or more additional elements. If the offense has a different element that a higher offense does not have, then it's not a lesser included offense.

I'm not following you. Could you please highlight for me the "misstatement?" You mean my statement that him "getting out of the vehicle was not against neighborhood watch rules?" That isn't a misstatement. OTHER THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE DONE -- for example, if he did initiate a "confrontation" with Martin - that would seem to be in violation of the rules you cited. But, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle? No way.

This too is a misstatement, in that you're ignoring the fact that he was so close to Martin that Martin felt he was in danger, according to his girlfriend, who was on the phone to him at the time the scuffle began. They were a couple of hundred feet from Zimmerman's vehicle when the shooting occurred. How did Zimmerman get there, if not by following him, after he'd been told that the police were on the way and that his following wasn't necessary?

That would, of course, be different things than just getting out of the car and following. If he really was so close to Martin that Martin reasonably felt in danger, then that would be a violation of the handbook on neighborhood watches. Of course, there is a lack of clarity as to whether it was Martin who approached Zimmerman or vice versa. Are you leaving that to jury, or is this another one of those incidents where you're not content to leave it to the jury?

Again, we don't have any clear proof that Zimmerman was following Martin. He stopped when the dispatcher told him too, and there was a minute and 45 seconds where he was just walking around talking to the dispatcher and was not able to see Martin. Surely, if Martin had come on the scene while he was on the phone with the dispatcher, Zimmerman would have said something. That was the purpose of the call in the first place.

Additionally, you're deliberately focusing on the "get out of his vehicle" aspect so that you don't have to address my point that he clearly ignored the gist of his NW training, what he'd been told at the program coordinator's seminar, and what the dispatcher told him that night.

You keep making the same misstatements over and over again: (1) we know he abided by the dispatcher's instruction for at least the 1 minute and 45 seconds he stayed on the phone with him after he said "We don't need you to do that. (2) there is no evidence of what Zimmerman was told at the program coordinator's seminar, we only have an off-the-cuff statement to the news, (3) I'm focusing on the getting out of the vehicle thing, because kiki and you were very clear on that in and of itself being against the rules, particularly if it was followed by any "following." Of course, neither of those things by themselves are against the rules.

You're sending grist to my mill.

Now it's "mistakes" plural? You only alleged one, as far as I can see, and I think it's a question of talking past each other. It seems there is a communication problem sometimes, where like, I take issue with a specific statement, and then people think that means I take issue with something else.

I'm not going to belabor 58 pages of posts. I was explaining why I think this thread is a clusterfuck, and gave one example.

You'e a big part of that clusterfuck, given your blatant disregard of the known facts (see the 7 points early in this post above). Also, you on the one hand say you're content to wait for the jury, but then you simply accept the facts that are negative to Zimmerman, and disregard everything else, and you draw unwarranted conclusions based on shaky evidence.

Notice that the dispatcher did not say "get back in your car, please," and he was not charged with any offense of "exiting a vehicle while armed on neighborhood watch" offense.

Considering that I never asserted that that was even a crime, much less one that he'd been charged with, renders this "point" of yours a red herring.

What's a red herring is the whole "he disregarded the dispatcher's instructions" line, because there isn't any evidence that he did so, although you keep saying it. And, the violation of the "neighborhood watch training not to carry a gun or exit the vehicle or follow," is also a red herring since even if it were true it would not mean that Zimmerman didn't act in legitimate lawful self-defense. It's not relevant to that point, unless of course it were a crime, in which case it might vitiate the self-defense claim.

I looked up -- I was the first one to post, in fact - the Sanford handbook. Everyone else was spouting off about what "all neighborhood watches are trained to do" and not a one of them looked up what the rules were in Sanford. So, forgive me if I call bullshit on your "you missed something as basic as" comment." I love that -- I am the one who actually looked up the handbook, and linked to it, and I noticed you didn't point out the fact that the "hang Zimmerman" crowd didn't bother to do that, and merely continue to speak about their "feelings" on the issue.

You might want to read what you link next time, then.

I did. I'm right.

Moreover, you're right, I did not look up the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE handbook. However, you're wrong when you say that the DOJ "gives the Neighborhood Watch [the handbook]..." Where do you get that? The DOJ does not distribute that to local neighborhood watches. The DOJ has it available, but it isn't something that they distribute to the Sanford locality. Sanford has their own handbook.

That document is distributed by the NSA -- the organization who runs the Neighborhood Watch. It is funded by the DoJ.

The Neighborhood Watch isn't "funded" at all. And, the Sanford police had their own handbook. Again, the DOJ doesn't distribute it to all neighborhood watches and neither does the NSA. Mainly because Sanford is a "Police Department" not a "Sheriff's Office" and the NSA is the "National Sherrif's association." The neighborhood watch in the townhome community was through Sanford PD not the County Sherriff's department.

And, more importantly, neither one of them say that a neighborhood watchman may not exit his vehicle. Of course it doesn't. You know why? Because neighborhood watchmen are allowed to travel on foot. Did you "miss" that part? If Zimmerman walked out of his house and walked around the neighborhood, he would have been acting fully in accord with the handbooks you posted. So, he doesn't become a violator of the handbook rules by driving his car to one part of the neighborhood and getting out, and he doesn't violate any rule in the handbook by seeing a suspicious person and then exiting his vehicle. Can you please at least acknowledge that?

Clearly, grasping a semantic straws. You dance around the advice to "report only" which was presented to you upthread in black and white, perhaps hoping I'll forget it. Here is what that pamphlet says. I have underlined the relevant passage. Admittedly, it says nothing about cars. It does, however, say what someone doing NW should not do:

Exiting a vehicle to follow someone running away to keep an eye on them for the police is not "taking action," it's the "observing" part, arguably.

It's not semantics. That general statement doesn't prohibit Zimmerman from doing anything except trying to apprehend Martin. Observing may require following so you keep the person in sight. NW people dont' have to freeze in their tracks when they see someone suspicious.

No, you're just wrong about it. Again, if you think it is a violation of the handbooks for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle, please cite the provision.

I'm pretty sure that getting out of his car to follow Martin is "taking action". I'm also pretty sure that you'll hotly deny this.

It isn't taking action. Zimmerman didn't have to be in his car in the first place. So, if he decides to get out of his car, that's fine. Heck, by your logic, as soon as you see someone "suspcious" you have to freeze in your vehicle. That makes no sense whatsoever. People can get out of their cars. It's not just the suspicious folks that get free reign to move about the neighborhood.

This is why I think this thread is pointless.

Threads are pointless because people don't agree with you? Honestly, threads in which everyone agrees are the pointless ones.

Of course, the fact that he was not in violation for exiting his vehicle doesn't mean that he wouldn't be in violation for starting a fight or something, or "confronting" Martin. But, you have to admit, the mere fact of getting out of the vehicle was not a violation, and that is what I said.

See above. That was clearly a positive action, your semantic challenges notwithstanding.

All action is "positive action" even just adjusting himself in his seat. The fact remains, the policy you cite does not say he can't get out of his car. In fact, neighborhood watch are routinely on foot, and if someone sees something weird going on, they don't automatically have to freeze and then call the cops and do nothing else. They can move in to get a closer look, and if a suspicious fellow starts moving away, they can follow behind to maintain observation and a line of sight to ensure they can point the guy out to the cops.

The idea that "action" means anything other than sitting still is just ridiculous.

[tattuchu]

If a black guy, for example, comes up to me and says "hey, white cracker! Honkey, what you doin' in my neighborhood? Get your cracker-ass back home, whitey mother fucker!"

To me, my reaction can be "fuck you, jackass, I'll go where I want," or "sorry sir, I think I have a right to be here," or whatever, but if I take a poke at him, then he has the right to defend himself.

If you are naive enough to go through a black neighborhood where a black guy comes up and says that to you, don't expect to come home. And the cops will never find out who did it.

You may have a gun and try to protect yourself, but be sure to know, if that black guy is confronting you for no reason, he's prepared to knock you off way before you reach your gun. Or his friends will pound the cement with your head till it looks like jello.

And there you have it. Blacks are in inherently violent. Give a nigger shit, expect to get fucked up. Is it any wonder Martin attacked Zimmerman? The poor kid couldn't help himself. Aggression and violence were in his blood.

[kiki5711]

If a black guy, for example, comes up to me and says "hey, white cracker! Honkey, what you doin' in my neighborhood? Get your cracker-ass back home, whitey mother fucker!"

To me, my reaction can be "fuck you, jackass, I'll go where I want," or "sorry sir, I think I have a right to be here," or whatever, but if I take a poke at him, then he has the right to defend himself.

If you are naive enough to go through a black neighborhood where a black guy comes up and says that to you, don't expect to come home. And the cops will never find out who did it.

You may have a gun and try to protect yourself, but be sure to know, if that black guy is confronting you for no reason, he's prepared to knock you off way before you reach your gun. Or his friends will pound the cement with your head till it looks like jello.

And there you have it. Blacks are in inherently violent. Give a nigger shit, expect to get fucked up. Is it any wonder Martin attacked Zimmerman? The poor kid couldn't help himself. Aggression and violence were in his blood.

Yup, and apparently zimmerman didn't know that, but had a hunch he had the upper hand with a gun. All niggers are violent and should never walk or visit someone in predominantly white neighborhood. In fact there should be two entrances in that gated community. One for whites, and one for niggers.

[kiki5711]

Coito, after reading your reply to thampalumpacus, I am now certain that your wires are disconnected. You are constantly spinning the wheel to nowhere to try to make everyone understand your point of view which is more twisted than the spaghetti junction in Atlanta.

I'm done.

[Woodbutcher]

About fucking time, too. I think Robert McCloskey quote would be appropriate for these threads.http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_know_ ... 14623.html

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'e a big part of that clusterfuck[...]

Considering that I only entered this on the 55th or so page of the second thread, no, my part is rather miniscule, thanks.

As for the rest of your stuff, I'm not going to be bothered, because as I've already said, this is pointless. And it's not pointless because "people disagree" with me. I understand that that is going to happen. No big deal. In fact, I enjoy informative disagreement. Challenging my own precepts is a good way to learn.

What makes it pointless is that nothing I say will change your mind, and you're not presenting any new information here, either.

Why bother? I'm not going to get all-caps angry over you or your views. It's not worth it, to me.

If it is, to you, have at it.

Me, I'll wait for the jury to hear the evidence, all of it, and trust them to hand down the proper verdict.

[Tero]

The thread seemed to have some insight into how gun nuts think guns always bring something positive to the situation. With all the concealed gun laws, we should have some interesting decades ahead. Gun nuts walking around, picking appropriate times to pull out the gun and get away with murder.

The main gun thread does not interest me. Where is it these days?

[FBM]

...The main gun thread does not interest me. Where is it these days?

Half the participants are dead, the rest are reloading.