Troubling news for the Trayvon Martin camp

[DaveS]

I don't post much, as I'm not a gun owner and in fact have a rather huge and irrational fear of guns, but this one I just can't pass up.

 

1. The Neighborhood Watch argument - Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument that GZ was doing something wrong because he had his gun is just silly. The NW does not ISSUE weapons nor authority nor police powers, it does not say anywhere that I can find in any of their literature that a legal gun owner with the right to carry his/her weapon at any other time CAN NOT or even SHOULD NOT carry their weapon while on their watch duties. If you did find such a thing in their paperwork, I'd like a link to it please, because otherwise your argument is facetious on it's face, with no meaning other than to distract from the facts that do not agree with your conclusion.

 

Also, I can find no statements anywhere that the community watch group was actually a member of the organization Neighborhood Watch. If they were NOT affiliated with this actual organization, then these little pamphlets are completely useless on all counts. Does anyone have anything saying they were attached to the neighborhood watch that they can link me to?

 

2. The Authority argument - GZ was at that time a fee paying member of a gated community that had started or had in place a neighborhood watch group that was concerned with youths in hoodies breaking into houses. GZ was elected by that community group to be the captain and was given a duty shift. His authority was given to him by his neighbors in the community in which he and they paid to live. They ASKED him to do exactly what he was trying - watch the neighborhood and try to stop the break ins. The 911 call clearly states WHY GZ was watching this kid, and why he pursued him in an effort to keep him in sight - because he didn't recognize him and he was standing around looking at houses. That is suspicious behavior, and given the break ins and the community watch group request, GZs actions are not only within his "authority" they were perfectly reasonable for any man woman or child that lived in the neighborhood that was trying to stop the crimes that were happening there.

 

3. The Chased Down argument - Again, this argument is pure silliness. This "chase" as you want to call it happened during a 4 minute call with the police, at least 1 minute and 30 seconds of which was GZ standing in one place AFTER having lost sight of TM for approximately 30 seconds already. TM had a full 2 minutes in which GZ had no idea where he was or where he was headed. During that time he could have done either of the two things that would have completely negated all that happened afterwards. Gone home or called the cops. He did neither. Given the facts we currently have, what he DID do was go the opposite direction from the house he was supposedly running for his life to get to in order to cross paths with GZ, again, AFTER GZ had lost him and had no way of knowing where he was for 2 full minutes.

 

I'd also like to point out a fact that I am utterly disgusted about, as an american, as a human, and as a white woman -

 

Both of these men are "minorities", no matter how hard you try, being a light skinned hispanic does not turn GZ into a "white" anything, and yet we are STILL harping about race as if it were some sort of deciding factor and that somehow white people brought this on.

 

Racists started this argument. Yes, "minorities" can be racists, too.

 

Those same racists disappeared when they found out it wasn't a white man.

 

And yet we are still carrying their water... why is that? Are we so drowned in our white guilt that if someone SUGGESTS racism we must feel bad and carry the torch even after they are proven wrong and have fled with their tail between their legs?

 

I guess I'm just an evil white honky, because I don't feel bad, I don't believe this had anything to do with race, and I refuse to carry that torch even one step, much less any further into this discussion.

Welcome to our discussion. Jump in and hold on!

 

Where did anyone here say that Zman was doing something wrong by carrying a gun? For some reason that escapes my memory at the moment. I think someone said some watch groups don't encourage it and/or allow it. I'll go back and re read these post.

 

Dave

[MattCary]

Investigate the unknown person roaming his neighborhood. Just as if I saw a random walking down my street I would watch to see where he was going. Double if I had a string of break-ins. That is just as a concerned citizen. As a neighborhood watch volunteer I would feel it was my duty to report and maintain visual contact. If I was watching someone and they took off running as they saw that I was observing them I  would be of the opinion that they ran because they were guilty of something.

 

If I noticed a person breaking into my neighbors house I would probably arm myself and walk outside to where I had a clear view of the home, any vehicle, any accomplices, and any further actions while I awaited the police. Seeing as I also have a flip camera I would probably pick that up to turn on and use as well. 

 

Would I be in the wrong? If I was approached and attacked by said home intruders in a public street or sidewalk would I be expected to have my head bashed in because I decided that being a witness was more important than sitting back and letting people do whatever they want left unchecked?

 

I completely agree with you, Daniel.

 

I have been thinking, while reading this whole thread, exactly the same thing.

 

How many people here say they answer the door at night with a gun on them or readily available? Using the same logic applied to GZ/TM: what did that person knocking on your door do that was illegal? Doesn't that make you a Cop wannabe/mall-ninja/over-zealous security guard?

 

I would bet that most on this forum, given a similar situation: 6-7 break-ins in your neighborhood in a short period of time, perpetrated by an Elvis impersonator, would follow the next Elvis you saw while on the phone with 911 waiting for officers to arrive.

 

I am in no way condoning what GZ did that night, but as MikeG pointed out earlier, this event did not happen in a vacuum. It must be taken in context with the previous crimes that had been committed in the complex.

 

And TM was a stranger (or visitor, if you like, not a resident.) I'm not convinced that showing up at your Father's Girlfriend's house makes you a "resident" right away.

 

And frankly, if even the tiniest amount of cordiality had been involved; I still insist that the:

 

"Hey, what are you doing moseying around the neighborhood?"

 

"Oh, just moved in with my Dad and I went to 7-11 for some skittles and tea."

 

"Oh, cool, have a nice night and welcome to the neighborhood" conversation would have been the most sensible outcome of that night.

[DaveTN]

http://sheriffs.org/content/nsa-statement-nw-tragedy-fl

 

Alexandria, VA – For nearly four decades, the Neighborhood Watch Program (housed within the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)) has worked to unite law enforcement agencies, private organizations, and individual citizens in a nation-wide effort to reduce crime and improve local communities.

 

The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands. The success of the program has established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobilization program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America on street signs, window decals, community block parties and service projects.

 

"The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.). “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”

 

“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.” 

 

 

 

[RobertNashville]

I confused as to what the “Watch Captain” or “On Duty” has to do with anything? Does being a neighborhood watch member have some special privileges in Florida? Is being a “Watch Captain” something special?

If Zimmerman was an off duty cop the first question would be “Did he identify himself as a Police Officer?” The second question would be “Did he have authority to act?”

So… How did Zimmerman convey to Martin that he was someone special and Martin didn’t need to be afraid? And does a “Watch Captain” have authority? Is there such a thing as a “Watch captain” being on or off duty?

You are now or former LEO correct?  If so then I suspect you have some familiarity with the "Neighborhood Watch" program.

 

I'm certainly no expert but I know of no state or community where the Neighborhood Watch has any "special powers"...like the one we formed in my neighborhood, it was simply a bunch of neighbors who got fed up with break-ins and promised to keep an eye out for each other/each others' property.  We had two actual meetings with LEOs (Rutherford Co SO and Murfreesboro PD); since then we keep in touch through FB and phone/text, etc. and communicate with each other and the non-emergency (usually) number of MPD if we see anything we think is suspicious.

 

Bottom line is that I don't see any way that being a "watch captain" has anything to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence the only question that I believe is relevant at all was who REALLY started the physical altercation and whoever that was, was he justified under FL law to do so.

Edited May 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[MattCary]

Here is a picture of Trayvon the defense says was taken just minutes before his death.

 

 

 

 

The hoodie the defense says Trayvon was wearing at the time of his death.

 

 

So, I am saying that Trayvon ran home, changed clothes, ran back outside still holding his goodies to whoop Zman's azz and got shot. It's very possible TM didn't want to mess up his good clothes with blood. If this is the best the defense can do, I'd want a new lawyer....

 

Dave S

 

 

Dave, 

 

Being a photographer, my gut reaction is that it was simply underexposed/low rez video camera vs. ring light CSI overexposed evidence shot.

 

But, after blowing it up and looking at it and watching the full (three different angles) videos, there is more going on here.

 

 

He's wearing the gray hoodie; but it is *under* a black nylon hooded rain jacket. The jacket has a big logo on the left chest, and the gray hoodie is visible sticking out the bottom of the jacket. (This is much clearer in the videos.)  

 

http://youtu.be/3WScO9r5INU

 

Which leads to the question: Where is the black jacket? Or are we so fixated on the hoodie we missed the release of a photo of the jacket?

[RobertNashville]

9mm is for pussies :)

Yuup...not even worth carrying; especially if it's in a plastic gun.

[Guest TankerHC]

Welcome to our discussion. Jump in and hold on!

 

Where did anyone here say that Zman was doing something wrong by carrying a gun? For some reason that escapes my memory at the moment. I think someone said some watch groups don't encourage it and/or allow it. I'll go back and re read these post.

 

Dave

 

Moot argument from the top post. The argument in 2. negates the argument in 1. You cannot say the rules of a Neighborhood Watch Captain dont apply to a Concealed Carry Permit holder in (1) then go on in (2) to state that he was a asked by the Community to be a Captain. Well the Captain of "What he was" a Neighborhood Watch group has rules, that he did not abide by.

 

So either he was a Concealed Carry Holder exercising his right to self defense or he was a Neighborhood Watch Group Captain who should have avoided confrontation and stayed in his car.

 

Again, right or wrong watch as the prosecutors tear him a new ahole. Because if he was "selected" as a NW Captain (Which some residents have disputed) then he should not have left the car or had a gun. Per the rules. He should have got on his cell phone (Which he did) and called the Police (Which he did) and done what he was supposed to (DO NOT FOLLOW instruction by the 911 Dispatcher). There are 4 witnesses that live in that subdivision that are going to testify as much.

 

On the other hand, if he WAS a Citizen with a legal CCW (Which he was), then he cant claim protection as being a Captain since he was not following the "CLEARLY SPELLED OUT RULES".

 

Either way he is in a world of hurt. And what I think makes no difference. But I do hope this is televised, this is going to be a real test of the right to self defense. (I believe)

 

So which was it?

[DaveS]

Dave, 

 

Being a photographer, my gut reaction is that it was simply underexposed/low rez video camera vs. ring light CSI overexposed evidence shot.

 

But, after blowing it up and looking at it and watching the full (three different angles) videos, there is more going on here.

 

 

He's wearing the gray hoodie; but it is *under* a black nylon hooded rain jacket. The jacket has a big logo on the left chest, and the gray hoodie is visible sticking out the bottom of the jacket. (This is much clearer in the videos.)  

 

http://youtu.be/3WScO9r5INU

 

Which leads to the question: Where is the black jacket? Or are we so fixated on the hoodie we missed the release of a photo of the jacket?

That's a good question. If what you say is true, where did he ditch the jacket? He didn't have it (according to witnesses) when he was holding Zman to the ground. Witnesses said he was wearing a light colored hoodie. Good observation on your part.

 

I'll watch the video.

 

Dave S

[MattCary]

That's a good question. If what you say is true, where did he ditch the jacket? He didn't have it (according to witnesses) when he was holding Zman to the ground. Witnesses said he was wearing a light colored hoodie. Good observation on your part.

 

I'll watch the video.

 

Dave S

 

It's def a black jacket over the gray hoodie, no doubt in my mind there. Watch and see if you agree.

 

 

Just watched a video that traces the paths taken that night. It includes Dee-Dee (TM's GF) statement where she says that TM was "at his Father's House." 

 

So, according to DeeDee, TM was home, but didn't go in the house. TM states GM is getting closer, but where TMs house is and where the altercation occurred are at opposite ends of the row. So something isn't jiving there.

[RobertNashville]

Moot argument from the top post. The argument in 2. negates the argument in 1. You cannot say the rules of a Neighborhood Watch Captain dont apply to a Concealed Carry Permit holder in (1) then go on in (2) to state that he was a asked by the Community to be a Captain. Well the Captain of "What he was" a Neighborhood Watch group has rules, that he did not abide by.

 

So either he was a Concealed Carry Holder exercising his right to self defense or he was a Neighborhood Watch Group Captain who should have avoided confrontation and stayed in his car.

 

Again, right or wrong watch as the prosecutors tear him a new ahole. Because if he was "selected" as a NW Captain (Which some residents have disputed) then he should not have left the car or had a gun. Per the rules. He should have got on his cell phone (Which he did) and called the Police (Which he did) and done what he was supposed to (DO NOT FOLLOW instruction by the 911 Dispatcher). There are 4 witnesses that live in that subdivision that are going to testify as much.

 

On the other hand, if he WAS a Citizen with a legal CCW (Which he was), then he cant claim protection as being a Captain since he was not following the "CLEARLY SPELLED OUT RULES".

 

Either way he is in a world of hurt. And what I think makes no difference. But I do hope this is televised, this is going to be a real test of the right to self defense. (I believe)

 

So which was it?

You do not suddenly "stop" being a permit holder or a citizen just because you've volunteered to be part of a neighborhood watch...being part of one confers no special powers or remove any rights from a citizen.

 

If prosecutors are going to try and make something out of the "manual" (assuming as was pointed out earlier that this particular group was actually even a part of the NW program which we do not even know) then I would say they have a weaker case than I thought...it will be about the same as Marsha going on and on about the "bloody gloves" and then OJ being unable to get them to fit. ;)

[Guest nra37922]

When Z is found not guilty watch the welfare cities burn and if he is found guilty then self defense goes out the window.  The only reason this is going to court is to appease the group that voted 110% in some districts to put the current occupier of the WH back in office.

[DaveS]

Moot argument from the top post. The argument in 2. negates the argument in 1. You cannot say the rules of a Neighborhood Watch Captain dont apply to a Concealed Carry Permit holder in (1) then go on in (2) to state that he was a asked by the Community to be a Captain. Well the Captain of "What he was" a Neighborhood Watch group has rules, that he did not abide by.

 

So either he was a Concealed Carry Holder exercising his right to self defense or he was a Neighborhood Watch Group Captain who should have avoided confrontation and stayed in his car.

 

Again, right or wrong watch as the prosecutors tear him a new ahole. Because if he was "selected" as a NW Captain (Which some residents have disputed) then he should not have left the car or had a gun. Per the rules. He should have got on his cell phone (Which he did) and called the Police (Which he did) and done what he was supposed to (DO NOT FOLLOW instruction by the 911 Dispatcher). There are 4 witnesses that live in that subdivision that are going to testify as much.

 

On the other hand, if he WAS a Citizen with a legal CCW (Which he was), then he cant claim protection as being a Captain since he was not following the "CLEARLY SPELLED OUT RULES".

 

Either way he is in a world of hurt. And what I think makes no difference. But I do hope this is televised, this is going to be a real test of the right to self defense. (I believe)

 

So which was it?

I'm not disputing at all his right to carry, not carry, self defense, stand your ground or anything. I stand on the fact as I have for the past year (go back and check posts on this subject) on other threads, that TM was doing nothing wrong by walking through a neighborhood. Zman surely profiled him and suspected him of something. Zman LEFT his vehicle, even when told not to and took an a** whoop'n over it. Who started it, I have no clue. One is dead because of it.

 

Zman should have stayed in his truck in my opinion.

 

It's a mess, and I hope the outcome doesn't affect our decisions to defend ourselves. Zman needs thousands of dollars. He already paid out $40,000.00 for security, being sued by s security guard for 27,000.00 for unpaid fees, and is currently paying $7,000.00 a week for a private body guard. And he still hasn't gotten his bill from his defense team yet. All because he made a bad decision.

 

I guess when you shoot someone in self defense, it's not over until it's over. I couldn't afford that kind of money. But, I will still defend myself and my family at all cost. Oh yeah, and my little dogs, they are my kids!

 

And I hope this will not result in some kind of "case law" that will affect every lawful citizens right to defend themselves. We'll have to wait till the dust settles to see how this plays out.

 

Dave

[Guest Charis]

Moot argument from the top post. The argument in 2. negates the argument in 1. You cannot say the rules of a Neighborhood Watch Captain dont apply to a Concealed Carry Permit holder in (1) then go on in (2) to state that he was a asked by the Community to be a Captain. Well the Captain of "What he was" a Neighborhood Watch group has rules, that he did not abide by.

 

So either he was a Concealed Carry Holder exercising his right to self defense or he was a Neighborhood Watch Group Captain who should have avoided confrontation and stayed in his car.

 

Again, right or wrong watch as the prosecutors tear him a new ahole. Because if he was "selected" as a NW Captain (Which some residents have disputed) then he should not have left the car or had a gun. Per the rules. He should have got on his cell phone (Which he did) and called the Police (Which he did) and done what he was supposed to (DO NOT FOLLOW instruction by the 911 Dispatcher). There are 4 witnesses that live in that subdivision that are going to testify as much.

 

On the other hand, if he WAS a Citizen with a legal CCW (Which he was), then he cant claim protection as being a Captain since he was not following the "CLEARLY SPELLED OUT RULES".

 

Either way he is in a world of hurt. And what I think makes no difference. But I do hope this is televised, this is going to be a real test of the right to self defense. (I believe)

 

So which was it?

 

I do not accept that he has to be either/or, I contend that he was BOTH. 

 

And I could find no mention in the NW literature that states that a legal gun owner with the right to carry his gun can not or should not do so while being a part of the NW community. Please link me to their literature, their ACTUAL literature, not the stuff they are saying AFTER this event in order to keep their name out of it, that states that he was not following the "clearly spelled out rules". I do accept that I am not perfect and might have over looked it, but I also require that you show it to me if you want me to believe it after I have looked for myself and can not find any such statement EXCEPT in the "cover our butts" statement that followed this event.

 

I also could not find any mention anywhere that the community group that was formed was actually PART of NW, which would make their rules completely useless in this instance if they were not. Not all of these communities join a larger organization, instead preferring to take care of their own with their own agreed upon rules. If that is the case, then I doubt that GZ, as a legal gun owner and CCP carrier would have agreed to be part of it and not be allowed to carry his gun any longer because he joined. Would any of gun owners on this board accept that and still join happily? 

 

In further research, I've also just discovered that I was mistaken earlier, and would like to correct what I said, and since it applies to these comments as well, I will do so here - 

 

GZ was *not* doing a "duty shift" for the community watch when all this happened, as I misunderstood from a few stories I had read.

 

GZ was going to the store, and that was why he was out that night.

 

I'm sorry for the confusion this may have caused.

[DaveS]

It's def a black jacket over the gray hoodie, no doubt in my mind there. Watch and see if you agree.

 

 

Just watched a video that traces the paths taken that night. It includes Dee-Dee (TM's GF) statement where she says that TM was "at his Father's House." 

 

So, according to DeeDee, TM was home, but didn't go in the house. TM states GM is getting closer, but where TMs house is and where the altercation occurred are at opposite ends of the row. So something isn't jiving there.

I watched the videos, and will agree that he has on something gray under the jacket. Is it a hoodie? I don't know. But based on evidence that you presented, I will agree. Good eye on your part. I missed that. But where is the black jacket he had on?

 

Reports say the scuffle happened about 100 feet from the house. The map shows something slightly different. I believe it's farther than 100 feet.

 

Dave S

[MattCary]

You do not suddenly "stop" being a permit holder or a citizen just because you've volunteered to be part of a neighborhood watch...being part of one confers no special powers or remove any rights from a citizen.

 

 

Agree, Robert.

 

From what I have read, GZ was leaving the neighborhood on his way to Target when he spotted TM. 

 

So he "changed horses midstream" if you will, from running an errand to watching a suspicious person in the complex.

 

How many of us would "De-tool" for that?

[MattCary]

I watched the videos, and will agree that he has on something gray under the jacket. Is it a hoodie? I don't know. But based on evidence that you presented, I will agree. Good eye on your part. I missed that. But where is the black jacket he had on?

 

Reports say the scuffle happened about 100 feet from the house. The map shows something slightly different. I believe it's farther than 100 feet.

 

Dave S

 

If the report says 100 ft from TMs Dad's GF's house, then that map is inaccurate, and my earlier supposition is wrong.

[Guest nra37922]

I walk my neighborhood sometimes late at night to walk the dog and I have either my .40 or 9mm with me.  IF I were to see someone walking through the neighborhood I would call 911 and follow his/her ass from a safe distance.  You don't have to be a member of a Neighborhood Watch to do the right thing for your neighbors....

Edited May 27, 2013 by nra37922

[DaveS]

When Z is found not guilty watch the welfare cities burn and if he is found guilty then self defense goes out the window.  The only reason this is going to court is to appease the group that voted 110% in some districts to put the current occupier of the WH back in office.

And nobody wins....

Not even us.

 

Dave

[DaveS]

I walk my neighborhood sometimes late at night to walk the dog and I have either my .40 or 9mm with me.  IF I were to see someone walking through the neighborhood I would call 911 and follow his/her ass from a safe distance.  You don't have to be a member of a Neighborhood Watch to do the right thing for your neighbors....

You are absolutely right. Key word here..."safe distance". I'm glad you didn't say confront!

 

Dave S

[MattCary]

When Z is found not guilty watch the welfare cities burn and if he is found guilty then self defense goes out the window.  The only reason this is going to court is to appease the group that voted 110% in some districts to put the current occupier of the WH back in office.

 

Perfect verdict:

 

"Your Honor, we the jury find no one guilty in this trial. However, we also find that both parties were incredibly stupid. Is there a penalty for that?"

[DaveS]

What really gets me is one of the reports I read; this incident happened 100 feet from his Dad's fiancé's house. Why did they/he not hear a scuffle (people farther away say they heard screams and the gun shot) or the gun shot. Why did he not know that his teenage son didn't make it home from the store until the next morning, when he reported TM missing? Any father worth his salt would be concerned that a 17 year old didn't come home. Maybe all the police/fire/ems action 100 feet from your house might tell you something. Ya think?

 

I guess I'm just a caring Dad and knew where my kids were, and then got concerned enough if they didn't show up for hours after what should be about a 30 minute walk to the store, that I'd walked the route looking. I guess that's a rarity now days.

 

Dave S

[Guest nra37922]

You are absolutely right. Key word here..."safe distance". I'm glad you didn't say confront!

 

Dave S

When I used to conduct HCP classes one of the things I always told the participants was "Just because you can now legally carry DON'T go looking for trouble.  That dark alley is just as dangerous now as when you couldn't carry"

[DaveS]

Perfect verdict:

 

"Your Honor, we the jury find no one guilty in this trial. However, we also find that both parties were incredibly stupid. Is there a penalty for that?"

Zman is already paying his part in that deal! Look at his debt in this "self defense" shooting.

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

I don't post much, as I'm not a gun owner and in fact have a rather huge and irrational fear of guns, but this one I just can't pass up.

 

1. The Neighborhood Watch argument - Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument that GZ was doing something wrong because he had his gun is just silly. The NW does not ISSUE weapons nor authority nor police powers, it does not say anywhere that I can find in any of their literature that a legal gun owner with the right to carry his/her weapon at any other time CAN NOT or even SHOULD NOT carry their weapon while on their watch duties. If you did find such a thing in their paperwork, I'd like a link to it please, because otherwise your argument is facetious on it's face, with no meaning other than to distract from the facts that do not agree with your conclusion.

 

Also, I can find no statements anywhere that the community watch group was actually a member of the organization Neighborhood Watch. If they were NOT affiliated with this actual organization, then these little pamphlets are completely useless on all counts. Does anyone have anything saying they were attached to the neighborhood watch that they can link me to?

 

2. The Authority argument - GZ was at that time a fee paying member of a gated community that had started or had in place a neighborhood watch group that was concerned with youths in hoodies breaking into houses. GZ was elected by that community group to be the captain and was given a duty shift. His authority was given to him by his neighbors in the community in which he and they paid to live. They ASKED him to do exactly what he was trying - watch the neighborhood and try to stop the break ins. The 911 call clearly states WHY GZ was watching this kid, and why he pursued him in an effort to keep him in sight - because he didn't recognize him and he was standing around looking at houses. That is suspicious behavior, and given the break ins and the community watch group request, GZs actions are not only within his "authority" they were perfectly reasonable for any man woman or child that lived in the neighborhood that was trying to stop the crimes that were happening there.

 

3. The Chased Down argument - Again, this argument is pure silliness. This "chase" as you want to call it happened during a 4 minute call with the police, at least 1 minute and 30 seconds of which was GZ standing in one place AFTER having lost sight of TM for approximately 30 seconds already. TM had a full 2 minutes in which GZ had no idea where he was or where he was headed. During that time he could have done either of the two things that would have completely negated all that happened afterwards. Gone home or called the cops. He did neither. Given the facts we currently have, what he DID do was go the opposite direction from the house he was supposedly running for his life to get to in order to cross paths with GZ, again, AFTER GZ had lost him and had no way of knowing where he was for 2 full minutes.

 

I'd also like to point out a fact that I am utterly disgusted about, as an american, as a human, and as a white woman -

 

Both of these men are "minorities", no matter how hard you try, being a light skinned hispanic does not turn GZ into a "white" anything, and yet we are STILL harping about race as if it were some sort of deciding factor and that somehow white people brought this on.

 

Racists started this argument. Yes, "minorities" can be racists, too.

 

Those same racists disappeared when they found out it wasn't a white man.

 

And yet we are still carrying their water... why is that? Are we so drowned in our white guilt that if someone SUGGESTS racism we must feel bad and carry the torch even after they are proven wrong and have fled with their tail between their legs?

 

I guess I'm just an evil white honky, because I don't feel bad, I don't believe this had anything to do with race, and I refuse to carry that torch even one step, much less any further into this discussion.

Since you're not into guns, how did you find this thread?

Apparently you're new to TGO....WELCOME! Come on in and stay a while.

 

Dave S

[MattCary]

Since you're not into guns, how did you find this thread?

Apparently you're new to TGO....WELCOME! Come on in and stay a while.

 

Dave S

 

She's my GF (and designer of my avatar.)   :rock:

Edited May 27, 2013 by MattCary