For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

[april32010]

]
Seeing a gun does definitely give someone a right to defend themselves and try to grab the gun away and assault someone

. Zimmerman was afraid TM would take the gun and shoot him.
This was an outrageous preventable crime. can i do this to anyone i that asks me a question? isn’t this the perspective of a vigilante

 

[MaryT777]

Are you kidding? So, you believe, that if you see a gun, you are within your rights to try to grab that gun?

Wow. I guess that tells us a lot.

I believe if someone is unlawfully trying to detain you with a gun yes you can and legally can defend yourself before they shoot you.

Maybe you’d just put your hands up and surrender to Mr Zimmerman (not OFFICER Zimmerman)
Not me, I have a right to defend myself against some gun wielding vigilante.

Not like Skittles and an iced tea will help a lot defending yourself.

 

[MaryT777]

can i do this to anyone i that asks me a question?

No.

 

[maryjk]

TM reached for/touched the gun according to Zimmerman’s own words so your statement is incorrect. TM had every right to bang GZ’s head on the ground to save his life

Yes, Martin reached for or reached for and touched the gun. But that doesn’t explain why you think you are within your rights to grab any gun you see and attack the person carrying it.

You might want to read more about what came out in the trial or watch reruns for there was an eyewitness that saw Zimmerman on top

The eyewitness statements were inconsistent.

You might want to read what I posted.

" Like the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. " Martin’s shirt was away from his body, and the angle of the shot indicates that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot his weapon.

GZ is lucky. Next time he tries to detain someone like a police officer he could end up dead most likely for people know he packs a piece and assaults girlfriends and police officers.

Zimmerman lucky? Yes, he is lucky he isn’t dead. He is lucky that he was armed. Otherwise Martin could have killed him.

I would love to see the evidence that Zimmerman assaulted his girlfriend. And not a he said, she said, Actual evidence.

 

[maryjk]

I believe if someone is unlawfully trying to detain you with a gun yes you can and legally can defend yourself before they shoot you.

That isn’t what you said.

You said.

Seeing a gun does definitely give someone a right to defend themselves and try to grab the gun away and assault someone. Zimmerman was afraid TM would take the gun and shoot him.
This was an outrageous preventable crime.

 

[rlg94086]

I believe if someone is unlawfully trying to detain you with a gun yes you can and legally can defend yourself before they shoot you.

Maybe you’d just put your hands up and surrender to Mr Zimmerman (not OFFICER Zimmerman)
Not me, I have a right to defend myself against some gun wielding vigilante.

Not like Skittles and an iced tea will help a lot defending yourself.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to “unlawfully detain” Martin, or that he pulled the gun on Martin prior to Martin slamming his head into the concrete. As maryjk pointed out, the forensic evidence is consistent with Martin being over Zimmerman when he was shot.

If he put his hands up, he would have fallen on Zimmerman, since he was in the process of beating him.

 

[MaryT777]

That isn’t what you said.

You said.

What is the proper thing to do when you are being followed and then ask someone what their problem is and see a gun?
‘I see you have a gun sir’ 'Do you plan to use that on me?

I think if you have followed/stalked someone around the neighborhood AND gotten out of your car although advised to NOT follow someone you have caused someone grave concern enough to be concerned about their life

So NO just seeing a gun OF COURSE is not reason enough to grab it.
Having someone follow you and then get out of their car to chase you is reason enough to be concerned if they have a gun and try to grab it away if you fear for your life.

How in the World would TM been able to see the gun If GZ didn’t get out of his car and stalk him some more. Of course he was worried for his safety. That is creepy.’

 

[Robert_Sock]

What is the proper thing to do when you are being followed and then ask someone what their problem is and see a gun?
‘I see you have a gun sir’ 'Do you plan to use that on me?

Or somebody who sees someone else going for their gun.

 

[rlg94086]

What is the proper thing to do when you are being followed and then ask someone what their problem is and see a gun?
‘I see you have a gun sir’ ‘Do you plan to use that on me?’

The timeline of him seeing the gun was while he was beating Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Zimmerman showed, mentioned, or pulled out the gun prior to being beaten.

 

[MaryT777]

Or somebody who sees someone else going for their gun.

Exactly.
Oh NO Robert, he was reaching for his "CELL PHONE’ he said…
Sure.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I would be happy if everyone would just say that we really do not know whose to blame, but that would mean everyone recognizing that there are two perspectives to this senseless tragedy.

 

[MaryT777]

:

I would be happy if everyone would just say that we really do not know whose to blame, but that would mean everyone recognizing that there are two perspectives to this senseless tragedy.

Robert,
Your post is so charitable.

 

[rlg94086]

I would be happy if everyone would just say that we really do not know whose to blame, but that would mean everyone recognizing that there are two perspectives to this senseless tragedy.

Of course we don’t know. It’s just that some of us believe you are innocent until proven guilty, and we don’t feel the need to fabricate other “perspectives” that have no basis in the evidence of a case, in order to cast guilt on a man whom a jury has found not guilty.

Also, we don’t feel the need to call someone a vigilante who happens to carry a concealed weapon, when he calls the police to report someone in his neighborhood whose actions appear suspicious to him.

What happened was a terrible tragedy. I pray for both men and their families.

 

[MaryT777]

Of course we don’t know. It’s just that some of us believe you are innocent until proven guilty, and we don’t feel the need to fabricate other “perspectives” that have no basis in the evidence of a case, in order to cast guilt on a man whom a jury has found not guilty.

Also, we don’t feel the need to call someone a vigilante who happens to carry a concealed weapon, when he calls the police to report someone in his neighborhood whose actions appear suspicious to him.

What happened was a terrible tragedy. I pray for both men and their families.

I agree of course we don’t know. Some of us just believe there is a missing perspective given TM is dead. All we can do both ways is speculate about those last few minutes of a young man’s life. Some of us can’t really “go there” that GZ is some credible sweet law abiding citizen since he assaults police officers and stalks and assaults girlfriends as well.
Not a man who should have had a gun.

He is a vigilante in the opinion of many; a rejected police officer wanna be.
Only God knows…
I agree let us pray.
Mary.

I

 

[GaryTaylor]

How many perspectives are there on the PD involvement related to facts? Who made race an issue in this case? Not the court, the only aspect is federal civil rights, promoted by civil rights leaders. And for no good reason as I see.

DOJ has no strong case. The case specifically avoided race, no intent was found, thus racial intent could not be proven, That’s a fact.

FBI-no evidence of racist.

Man is innocent that’s a fact, he is being victimized. hunted and targeted.

Where is the good vigilance.

Where’s the conscience, where’s the love?

We are past pointing fingers, we are at the man hunt part with no good vigilance.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree of course we don’t know. Some of us just believe there is a missing perspective given TM is dead. All we can do both ways is speculate about those last few minutes of a young man’s life. Some of us can’t really “go there” that GZ is some credible sweet law abiding citizen since he assaults police officers and stalks and assaults girlfriends as well.
Not a man who should have had a gun.

He is a vigilante in the opinion of many; a rejected police officer wanna be.
Only God knows…
I agree let us pray.
Mary.

I

Again, I will go with the evidence, rather than fabricating a perspective. I see no value in denigrating Zimmerman after he had his day in court. Those who have an “opinion” that he is a vigilante are making uncharitable assumptions.

 

[MaryT777]

How many perspectives are there on the PD involvement related to facts? Who made race an issue in this case? Not the court, the only aspect is federal civil rights, promoted by civil rights leaders. And for no good reason as I see.

DOJ has no strong case. The case specifically avoided race, no intent was found, thus racial intent could not be proven, That’s a fact.

FBI-no evidence of racist.

Man is innocent that’s a fact, he being victimized. hunted and targeted.

Where is the good vigilance.

Where’s the conscience, where’s the love?

We are past pointing fingers, we are at the man hunt part with no good vigilance.

He’s victimized, targeted, and hunted like he did to TM, in my opinion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He’s victimized, targeted, and hunted like he did to TM, in my opinion.

So you uphold the same which you oppose. Double Standard.

 

[rlg94086]

So you uphold the same which you oppose. Double Standard.

Pro-vigilante, when it comes to “vigilantes.”

 

[fix]

Pro-vigilante, when it comes to “vigilantes.”

TM was the vigilante. He was on top of a man beating him. All opposing view is nothing more than ideology. A tough youth with a criminal background beating a man’s head in is indefensible.