The NW national organization has said repeatedly that he was not a member of any official NW. Indeed, from the reports anyway, it sounds like he was the neighbor who was always putting his nose in others business, across the board. I have heard about many times calling cops, but nothing about any other encounters... other than with the police dispatchers.
With his experience, he
What kind of experience. THe NW organization says no record that he got any kind of training from them.
>
Not "ALL". The instructions given to volunteers in New York are probably wildly different than those given to a collegue in other states. For example, in my state, the law is:
TEXAS PENAL CODE § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME... (emphasis added)
A cop, instructing neighborhood watch wardens, would be way off base telling citizens they should not carry a weapon or used deadly force when they clearly have the statutory right to do both
For the actual Neighborhood Watch groups (those chartered by the national organization) there is a thing in the bylaws and their policies and procedures that they be unarmed. Some of this is so that they can have uniform policies across the states with differing law, but I am also sure a big part of that is to stay away from any kind of exposure to lawsuits.
>
With something like 40+ incidents, he is experienced. He may also be a nut case, I don't know. I'm sure it will be brought out though.
What incidents? So far it seems like other than this he has mainly just been calling and being a PITA to the cops. Either way, what kind of experience would he have with the use of lethal force. Nobody is suggesting he has shot anyone else.
I don't see pre-judging in any of the above. The pre-judging is coming from the media and the usual civil rights activists who have judged the whole thing without all the facts and are demanding that Zimmerman be arrested.
Umm, it seems very unlikely that if Zimmerman had a cattle prod with him that it would not have been reported by now. And even if he called him names, if the eyewitness account is credible and Zimmerman's head shows the broken nose, stitches, etc, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Just like you can't shoot someone for no reason, you also can't be on top of someone pummeling them when they are down on the ground.
He didn't necessarily need anything. And to do what he did, essentially play cop and engage Martin when he didn['t have to is pretty dumb. But it doesn't have any bearing on who the aggressor was and if the shooting was justified.
Common sense, my ass. If threatened, STOP THE THREAT, by any means at hand. Fighting "fair" (no such thing) will get you dead.
We're already getting the picture from a witness, yet that won't convince many.
That's my take too. What incidents. They said he had called the police 47 times, but that is just calls. I haven't heard anything about him actually engaging, directly confronting anyone other than Martin. He MAY have, but if there is any reports of that, I'd like to see them.
Also, some of that might have bearing on a civil suit. But I don't see it as having any bearing on whether Zimmerman was in fact attacked, getting pummeled, yelling for help, fearing for his life, and justified in shooting.
Uh, they are incidents. They involved other people either in his view or face to face.
Nor am I. But after 40 "incidents" he should have a good idea of what, if any, force is needed to protect himself or others. If you take on the task of vigilante, you should train yourself in handling situations, not just carry a gun.
But we need the full picture. Seems as though the kid was on top pummeling Zimmerman, but why? Maybe the kid was merely protecting himself with what weapons he had. We don't know that yet.
Certainly not enough known to convince any sensible person.
O do, in this comment fro above: (I don't know why,maybe aggression?)
That's a rather blatantly wrong statement. Each situation is different from another based on the personality of both, circumstances and any number of other variables. However, even your own posting above suggests that he non-violently handled the other 39 incidents. Thus, by your own words, it could be said that he had a good idea of what force was needed. This time may have been different from the otehrs.
Well, it is one of the very common ways to get suspended, isn't it? And while the media is throwing out all kinds of crap that is highly prejudicial and biased against Zimmerman, why hasn't someone by now found out what he was suspended for? Can't be hard, just go ask some of the high school kids.
Since the posting before this one (at least on my computer) said in no uncertain terms that he should have handled this different, I may have to change my mind about you. I would have thought you to be a sensible person (grin).
No we, in fact, don't. Even if I were on the jury today, there's enough "reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman would walk. It's unlikely that we'll get any revelations otherwise at this point.
Right. We likely never will, which is why Zimmerman has *not* been charged with so much as jaywalking, though as politicized as this is, he'll probably rot in prison for being too white.
According to Kypriss, "He was suspended because he was late too many times." His father said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details.[24] Trayvon Martin had no criminal record.[26]
I doubt 1% of the people who participate in neighborhood watch programs belong to that organization.
All it seems to be here is you say you have neighborhood watch, the cops give you another number to call, you get some pamphlets and you get some signs. (Zimmerman's call was not to 911, it was directly to the dispatcher). I have never heard anyone from the police tell me I can't keep an eye on the subject until the cops arrive. They tend to encourage it. They do say you should not confront the subject but it sounds like Martin confronted Zimmerman. The first words between them was "why are you following me".
He was suspended for being chronically late to school (that is published).
As a side note that is an ironic punishment, show up late often enough and you don't have to go at all ;-)
No wonder we are #23 in the world in education.
Easier to replace dead volunteers?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
It is a phone call, but still recorded as an incident. It means Zimmerman was involved either by visual or physical contact. After 46 times you should have formulated a plan on how to handle various situations.
The only thing it may do is reinforce how he typically handles situations. Does he maintain a distance and observe? Or does he confront and instigate?
Here's an example. How do you handle a tailgating driver? Do you ignore him, let him pass, or do you slam on the brakes and let him hit you? If he does hit you, do you think you'd be part of the problem? I bring this up because I know someone that slammed on the brakes. Even with $3500 in damage to his 1 year old car, he thought it was "worth it" Take that same attitude and apply it to a minority trespassing. Some tempers have a hair trigger. My suspicions are that this is a situation that maybe both did. Perhaps we'll find out more after a proper investigation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.