(05-24-2013, 12:05 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 11:52 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: A teenager is DEAD to try and even compare that victim wise to a bloke with a broken nose and scratches to the head is insanity.

To even suggest that Trayvon was responsible for his own death for confronting and tackling a complete stranger who was following him in the dark is just utter lunacy.

To pull a gun and shoot someone manhandling him because the person didn't know who he was or why he was following him is a completely over the top and over zealous course of action to have taken.

You're aware that Zimmerman claims Martin saw his gun, and attempted to take it from Zimmerman I assume? He also claims Martin indicated verbally he intended to use the gun on Zimmerman.

But yeah, Zimmerman should have just take his beating like a good little butterball, and let Martin take his gun.

Oh wait. Zimmerman is a liar and couldn't possibly be telling the truth.

I thought I read/heard somewhere that George claims he forgot he even had a gun until he felt T going for it??? Not sure.

(05-24-2013, 12:16 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Oh wait. Zimmerman is telling the truth and couldn't possibly be telling lies to save his ass.

Could he?

He very well could be. But it's just as likely he is telling the truth.

No one knows, there's no evidence to contradict the story either way.

Was Z, as acting neighborhood watch personnel, in the right for following a stranger that is wandering around on a rainy night in his gated community? That is debatable.

Was T in the right for attacking a person for simply following him around in a unfamiliar community? That is also debatable.

Was Z in the right for shooting someone who was taller, younger and in better shape then he was, when he was attacked and being assaulted by that stranger? That is also debatable.

We can all sit here and armchair quarterback this thing to death, but none of us really know what we would have done had we ben in either of their shoes.

Myself, should I have ben in Z's shoes and that person attack me like T did, I am not sure that I would not have shot him myself, but I was not there and I do not know the real story, but we all know there are 3 sides to every story. My side, your side and the truth and I am afraid that we will never hear the real truth about this story.

(05-24-2013, 12:18 PM)username Wrote: I thought I read/heard somewhere that George claims he forgot he even had a gun until he felt T going for it??? Not sure.

“Forgot” he had a gun?

Forgot? While in uniform?, while on patrol?, while following someone who might be armed themselves?

Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh that's compelling evidence.

If I was convinced that T "attacked" Z, I might feel differently but for all I know Z put his hand on T's shoulder or in some other way initiated the physical contact. Given the tension, one touch could have set this off.

(05-24-2013, 12:24 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 12:18 PM)username Wrote: I thought I read/heard somewhere that George claims he forgot he even had a gun until he felt T going for it??? Not sure.

“Forgot” he had a gun?

Forgot? While in uniform?, while on patrol?, while following someone who might be armed themselves?

Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh that's compelling evidence.

I am not sure weather I believe the I forgot I had a gun when Z was in that situation. However I do know it is possible to forget you are wearing your gun. I have carried one for so long that I forget it is there quite often. That is until I bump it or sit down and I feel it or situations like that, But I do know that if I am in a situation like Z was I would damn sure remember I had a gun on me.

(05-24-2013, 12:18 PM)username Wrote: I thought I read/heard somewhere that George claims he forgot he even had a gun until he felt T going for it??? Not sure.

Your memory is correct.

During an interview and truth verification test on Feb. 27 that was recorded on video, Zimmerman said that he feared for his life when he fatally shot Martin and said he had forgotten he was carrying a gun until Martin reached for his holster.

“To be honest with you, the whole time I forgot that I had the gun. When he said I was going to die and I felt him brushing, it automatically clicked he was going for my gun," Zimmerman said.

(05-24-2013, 12:22 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: Was Z, as acting neighborhood watch personnel, in the right for following a stranger that is wandering around on a rainy night in his gated community? That is debatable.

Actually, I can answer this & it will be factual. According to Neighborhood Watch protocol, under no circumstances are the neighborhood watch people suppose to follow anyone, ever, it's a rule & they are all expected to abide by it if they are involved in the program. They aren't supposed to be armed either, that's another rule.

CN, Z wasn't wearing a uniform or anything. Part of the problem. T had no way to know that Z was neighborhood watch.

I think wearing that gun is what gave George the balls to follow that kid in the first place.

(05-24-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: If I was convinced that T "attacked" Z, I might feel differently but for all I know Z put his hand on T's shoulder or in some other way initiated the physical contact. Given the tension, one touch could have set this off.

I think that makes more sense than Martin running into the dark and coming back to bum rush Z as he was walking to his truck.

Either way the kid wouldn't be dead if Z would have just listened to the dispatchers and stayed in his truck.

(05-24-2013, 12:32 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 12:22 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: Was Z, as acting neighborhood watch personnel, in the right for following a stranger that is wandering around on a rainy night in his gated community? That is debatable.

Actually, I can answer this & it will be factual. According to Neighborhood Watch protocol, under no circumstances are the neighborhood watch people suppose to follow anyone, ever, it's a rule & they are all expected to abide by it if they are involved in the program. They aren't supposed to be armed either, that's another rule.

Though the details of the settlement haven't been released, IMO it's likely that this is a significant factor contributing to the settlement award to the Martins by the Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association.

(05-24-2013, 12:32 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 12:22 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: Was Z, as acting neighborhood watch personnel, in the right for following a stranger that is wandering around on a rainy night in his gated community? That is debatable.

Actually, I can answer this & it will be factual. According to Neighborhood Watch protocol, under no circumstances are the neighborhood watch people suppose to follow anyone, ever, it's a rule & they are all expected to abide by it if they are involved in the program. They aren't supposed to be armed either, that's another rule.

When I was head of security at the private lake community I live in [yea I know if that at the fox watching the hen house] if someone was acting suspicious but not actually breaking the rules I would follow them for a short time just to let them know that there were eyes on them [just like a cop does]. I also carry a gun at ALL times [and have for decades] so yes I was armed at that time.

I don't see where my rights to carry a firearm should be canceled when I step into a roll like this, where there could be a life threatening confrontation.

(05-24-2013, 12:41 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: I don't see where my rights to carry a firearm should be canceled when I step into a roll like this, where there could be a life threatening confrontation.

There isn't suppose to be any confrontation. In the role of neighborhood watch person you are expected to retreat & make a phone call.

(05-24-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: If I was convinced that T "attacked" Z, I might feel differently but for all I know Z put his hand on T's shoulder or in some other way initiated the physical contact. Given the tension, one touch could have set this off.

Now that sounds like something that may have happened.

(05-23-2013, 11:16 PM)username Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 10:41 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 05:57 PM)username Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 04:54 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: True, someone kicking your ass and you can say you in fear for your life all you got to do is say so. Even if you started the fight.

If you're a man pussy.

Also true

Thank you. I doubt you would have pulled your gun in similar circumstances. I think you would have fought it out leaving your gun as a last resort. I don't think that was true for George.

I would never have been IN similar circumstances, I was born with or developed a clue somewhere along the way. I know how to follow someone, I know how to track someone in the bushes, I know how to defend against the kind of attack Z was (allegedly) subjected to and I know the law as it applies to concealed carry in Florida, Oh and I know to follow police instructions.
That said IF T had jumped on m he would still be among the living and talking shit about what he would have done if I had fought fair.

(05-24-2013, 12:43 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 12:41 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: I don't see where my rights to carry a firearm should be canceled when I step into a roll like this, where there could be a life threatening confrontation.

There isn't suppose to be any confrontation. In the role of neighborhood watch person you are expected to retreat & make a phone call.

That may be the difference. I was head of SECURITY, we had no neighborhood watch. The sheriff in my area is 15 - 30 minutes away so we had to deal with things like this.

(05-24-2013, 12:33 PM)username Wrote: CN, Z wasn't wearing a uniform or anything. Part of the problem. T had no way to know that Z was neighborhood watch.

Oh shit really? I thought Z was wearing some kind of uniform! Oh dear that makes the case against Z even more compelling. T could have thought he was a gang banger, sex offender or even a serial killer for christs sake.

Neighbourhood watch schemes in the UK are just that “watch” schemes, you just observe passively your neighbourhood for trouble or crime or suspicious activity. If you see any you call the police and that's all you do.

Patrolling around your neighbourhood in the dark with a gun smacks to me of vigilantism.

Like fucking Charles Bronson in the Death Wish films.

(05-24-2013, 12:51 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: ...I thought Z was wearing some kind of uniform! Oh dear that makes the case against Z even more compelling. T could have thought he was a gang banger, sex offender or even a serial killer for christs sake....

Zimmerman also contends that he chose not to verbally identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to Trayvon when the two exchanged words (according to Zimmerman's statement) because he didn't want to start a confrontation.

ETA: I've never understood Zimmerman's claimed logic that identifying himself as NW and/or telling Trayvon that police were en route would cause, rather than diffuse, a confrontation. It's counter-intuitive to me; seems more like Zimmerman simply didn't want Trayvon to get away, rather than that he was attempting to avoid confrontation. This is something I'm looking forward to hearing Zimmerman address in court. I hope he testifies.

(05-24-2013, 01:01 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Zimmerman also contends that he chose not to verbally identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to Trayvon when the two exchanged words (according to Zimmerman's statement) because he didn't want to start a confrontation.

That's too bad because it seems to me had he identified himself it may have diffused some of the tension T may have been feeling from being followed.