RobertNashville

I sure hope you don't arrest people on that kind of "evidence". ROTFLMAO   Do you think a person can't be out of breath from walking fast or even walking?  I'd bet at least have the people on any police force in the country would be out of breath from walking fast. How you got "chasing" out of that 911 exchange is curious to say the least.    Playing security guard??? Interesting choice of words...seems to me you are going out of your way to denigrate Zimmerman; why would that be?  Could it be you look down on anyone who isn't on the job???  Since he wasn't a "highly trained" police officer he should be derided for "playing security guard"???   Maybe, instead of "playing security guard" he was a good neighbor who volunteered his time to do what the police there could not or would not do? It seems to me that's why we have and need neighborhood watch programs in the first place.    And wasn't there more to the tape...the part that says he was returning to his truck (which means that "chasing" Martin or not he certaintly wasn't doing so once he was on his way back to his vehicle)?

So...it's bad for Zimmerman to "put himself in danger" by trying to protect his neighborhood? I guess we should just hide in our homes and hope the thugs break into someone else's house.   You are right, Trayvon wan't a real criminal...he was just an up and coming one...that's why he attacked Zimmerman instead of just putting a cap in his ass. 

  Many times in multiple threads you've eluded to evidence of Zimmerman "chasing" this (so-called) kid. What exactly is that evidence because I've tried to keep up with this case and I haven't seen it.

So is anyone who wants to protect his neighborhood from crooks and maybe joins a Neighborhood Watch with other neighbors a *****wanting to be a cop (or is it only the "white-Hispanics" that are)???   I always thought such people were good neighbors trying to look out for each other   :shrug:

I thought that intentionally "touching" anyone without their permission constituted at least "simple assault" which is already illegal in most places isn't it? Is a new law really required for this, even in NY???   

  I respectfully disagree.   "Confronting" is one thing; starting a physical confrontation that did not have to happen is not confronting; it's assault.   I've "confronted" a person who I though was intent on doing "something" bad to me and I warned him off...pretty forcefully warned him off as a matter of fact...thankfully, he took the hint and went away. I don't know what he really had on his mind but at least it turned out well.  However, I sure as hell wasn't going to assault this guy and start some kind of fist fight just because he was approaching me. Doing that would have been both illegal (I believe) and monumentally stupid.   Based on what I've heard and read, Trayvon could "get away" and did not need to confront Zimmerman. He certainly did not have to get into a physical confrontation with Martin but, it seems to me that's exactly what he freely chose to do and he paid for that choice with his life...unfortunate but not surprising and not homicide on Zimmerman's part..

Our current permit system is not a bad thing...I'd love to have "Constitutional Carry" in Tennessee (in addition to the HCP) and I actually believe that some day we will. However, having the HCP process has been a significant help (provided political capital) that has gotten some of our other TN firearm related laws improved/restrictions removed.   I'm not sure how many carry without a permit anyway, whatever their reasons, but I think they are purring themselves in what could become a very difficult situation by doing so.   Those who carry firearms need to be law-abiding people, not criminals.  If we are law-abiding then we ought to obey ALL laws; at least until we get them changed using the processes we have in place to get things changed.

There are a couple I've sold that I don't miss; not that I wouldn't like to still have them...just not miss them enough to actually miss having them/regret selling them.   Most that I've sold, however,  I do regret selling!

I think you nailed it...I think sweet little Trayvon is dead primarily because he had a thug-want-a-be attitude and wanted to prove he really was a thug.   Now I freely admit that's pure conjecture on my part but it's conjecture based on information that, unfortunately, likely won't be admitted at trial.

Given some of the more "heated' discussions on here, I'm not sure I want some TGO members to identify me on a range. ;)

OR his mistake was starting a physical confrontation that did not have to happen.   Had Martin walked away (which would have been the SMART thing to do even if he had no obligation/duty to do so and which evidence suggests he had ample opportunity to do), he wouldn't have needed to "defend himself".   Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was "chasing" Martin OR that Zimmerman at any time "confronted" Martin?  If you want to assume that's what happened, that's fine...but at least admit that it's just assumption on your part. ;)

Old fart ;)

What I pity are those folks who are so damn sure about "facts" they have absolutely no way of knowing and who rejoice that a man (Martin) is dead OR who wishes that another man's (Zimmerman) life is ruined regardless of the outcome of the trial (even to the point of saying they hoped Zimmerman would be forever broke and in fear for his life from "hits" placed on his head).   I find the above ^^^ pretty disgusting; most especially for someone who passes himself of as some highly experienced LEO.

I’ve had four college classes (many, many years ago) that had I continued, would have eventually earned me a bachelor degree in criminal justice. So needless to say, my “book knowledge” of law enforcement/criminal justice is outdated and limited and my real-world street experience is non-existent. So; I acknowledge that I may be missing something here that those of you with real law-enforcement or legal experience may not be missing. That said, if we can, let’s forget for the moment that this is the Zimmerman/Martin case, and also forget the “Neighborhood Watch” issue and what race anyone was and let’s just deal with person “A” and person “B” for now. I don’t see/don't understand how person “A” is doing anything illegal by following person “B”…if it is illegal could someone enlighten me on why/how it is??? Maybe there is something critical that I’m “missing”, however, I just don’t see how person “A” following person “B” (because “A” thinks person “B” is “suspicious”) in any way gives person “B” the legal right to physically attack person “A”. Am I wrong about that and if so, could someone explain how I’m wrong/what I’m missing??? I also don’t see how person “A” following person “B” constitutes any sort of a threat to person “B”; at least not if “following” is all person “A” is doing…am I wrong about that and if so, enlighten me, please because it seems to me that person “A” would have to do something overtly hostile (threatening language, demeanor, perhaps showing a weapon, disparity of force, etc) before person “B” has any legitimate reason for attacking person “A” and frankly, I’m not even sure person “B”, even then, has the legal "right" to start a physical confrontation with person “A”??? Now, bringing this back to the Zimmerman/Martin case, I freely admit that Zimmerman may have acted stupidly. However, “stupid” or not, all I can see that Zimmerman did (at least as much as we know he did) is that he was following and/or somehow trying to keep an eye on Martin because the thought Martin was “suspicious”. I don’t for a moment think his intent was to “just go shoot Martin” as was suggested above. At the very least, there is no way in hell anyone here could know that! So, if what Zimmerman did was not illegal and if what Zimmerman did, did not constitute an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” then wasn’t Martin’s attack illegal (assault)? Further, if Zimmerman was did not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to Martin then wasn’t Martin’s physical attack not only an illegal assault but, if it put Zimmerman in legitimate fear for his life, didn’t Martin’s attack give Zimmerman the legal right to defend his life and use deadly force to do so? I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if I’m not doing anything illegal nor anything that would present an imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury to a person but that person violently attacks me I AM going to defend myself and if the attack is violent enough to put me in legitimate fear for my life I’m going to use deadly force to defend myself.   Isn’t that what anyone here would do?   Isn’t that precisely WHY we carry a firearm???

I'm certainly willing to think about it...not sure I can swing that much vacation though. ;)

Not totally...a good friend of mine has a cat that spent the first year of her life as a ferral...she is now a "house cat" but only in the sense that the cat does live in the house...actually"seeing" her is rare and as far as petting, etc...forget it! :)

Congratulations!   I picked up a Golden Boy last year...haven't even shot it yet...I just admire it. :)   One of these days I may just have to pick up a Henry with a bit more "oomph"

I've seem 'em...they are real.   They are hard to find though because they usually hang out with Bigfoot

So what if he followed him!  Is following someone you think may be there to burglarize one of you neighbors illegal?   Are all just supposed to cower in our bedrooms when someone suspicious enters our neighborhood?   If I see someone in my neighborhood that I think doesn't belong there and is acting suspiciously or looks like he's up to no good (such as perhaps there to either scope the neighborhood or looking for a score right then like we just had in my neighborhood week before last) I'm damn sure going to follow him and try to keep my eye on him and I'm even going to try to get his picture, hopefully with his license plate (yuup...we did that with this guy in my neighborhood) and I'm not going to let him out of my sight, if I can help it, until he either leaves the area or the LEOs get there so they can question him (like what happened to this guy week before last).   Ultimately we  don't know for certain what the guy was up to but we do know that he stopped at two different houses, rang the doorbell and tried to pass himself off as an employee of the property manager hired by the homeowner's association (a giveaway was that we don't have a management company or formal homeowner's association). And yes, it was one of our neighborhood watch members that first spotted the guy and got the word out to the rest of us.   The primary difference I see between Zimmerman/Martin and the situation our neighborhood had a couple of weeks ago is that our potential bad guy decided to get the hell out of dodge rather than attack one of use and beat our head into the sidewalk.

I'm really glad you posted here...I'll definitely be following your blog (and appreciate the info you've already provided).   Many of us have been "debating" this case sine the beginning and I think all of us who have, whatever our opinions happen to be, are eager for the trial to finally get underway and hopefully get some actual facts on the table!

Maybe it "hasn't come up" yet because the trial hasn't started???

Well absolutely not; the only thing worse than a "white-Hispanic" is a "white-Hispanic" gay man.  :)

Evidence doesn't matter...DAVES has his theories which, apparently, he gets paid well for. ROTFLMAO

Opinions?  Really?  Why seems like just a couple of posts above you were giving us you insight based on your forensic experience...are you saying now it was just "opinion"???  :shrug:     Oh yeah...I'm much to "in" to it...I mean; I'm almost the only one who has posted in this 25 page thread, right "dude"?   ROTFLMAO :rofl:

Nah...DAVES just wants everyone to agree that he's spoken the final word on the matter and we should all just recognize that. ;)