Vigilantism is an assumption at this point. If he tried to detain him or physically stop him at any point then it would be considered vigilantism. If he never touched him and only wanted to start a conversation hoping to find out whether or not he was up to no good then he’s just a normal concerned citizen.
Oops.
What the h-e double hockey sticks does that mean?
From the phone conversation and the various conflicting stories, it is very hard for me to belive (and many other people agree with me, white, black, conservative, liberal, anarchist, etc.) that Zimmerman wanted to just have a normal conversation with Martin----------but that’s just ME and OTHERS, ultimately, And I know some will slam me for “having made up my mind.”
It just seems that the current law will lead to more Floridians getting killed, not fewer.
I agree, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it vigilantism at this point. I don’t think he had the intention of taking the law into his own hands and killing Martin. If he’d saw Martin commit a crime and then shot him, you might have a case of vigilantism.From the phone conversation and the various conflicting stories, it is very hard for me to belive (and many other people agree with me, white, black, conservative, liberal, anarchist, etc.) that Zimmerman wanted to just have a normal conversation with Martin----------but that’s just ME and OTHERS, ultimately, And I know some will slam me for “having made up my mind.”
Just like Martin was not a flawless saint, Zimmerman was more than just a concerned citizen who just wanted to “help everybody” and “do his job.” And remember, there were cops THAT night who wanted to arrest Zimmerman----so this is NOT a case of “everybody agreed with him”----but the DA overrode them. Why, that will be up to investigators to decide.
But yes, let’s wait for the investigation to take its course.
Normal concerned citizens call the police or other authority and leave the questioning up to them. No ordinary citizen better ever stop my son to question him about his intentions if he’s not doing anything to them. I extend that thinking to anybody’s son.
Nuts is just the word.It just seems that the current law will lead to more Floridians getting killed, not fewer.
I think that if the duty to retreat when retreat is possible is removed, then every time there is a fight, both parties could honestly say they felt their lives were threatened, nobody has the duty to back off, and so the state seems to be essentially telling their citizens that it is OK to fight it out to the death. When the smoke clears and somebody (predictably) is dead, unless the state can prove that the one standing started the fight, no one is at fault. That just sounds nuts to me!
That would depend on your sons actions. If I walked outside and saw anyones child looking in the back of my truck or it’s windows, me and him will have a little talk. If I don’t like his answer, me and you will be having a little talk. And if it happened again, the cops would be talking to him.
Hopefully, you don’t live in my neighborhood. My kid was brought up to not talk to strangers if he can avoid it. He won’t be answering anyone’s questions anytime soon.
True, but I would posit that even Treyvon’s father would back off when directly told to by a 911 operator and let the police handle it. And also remember, Neigbhboorhood Watch (most that I know of, at least) are supposed to OBSERVE and REPORT, not to ENGAGE (except under certain circumstances).
How old is he?
That means even people without medical training know that trauma to the head can cause internal bleeding which can kill within hours. We have had several cases in the news, the most recent one resulting from a schoolgirl’s fight.
You’re right. Lawful authorities excepted, of course.
Unless that “stranger” shows the proper identification, like a policeman’s badge.
Aside from that, er…nope.
Old enough to know that if it’s not a school, security or law enforcement official, they have no authority over him.
And if he was on my property doing something wrong and he doesn’t want to explain himself to me it would go straight to the cops and I would press charges. If he had stolen something of mine and would man up to me about it and apologize, I’d work something out there on the spot with him without causing him to go through life with a record.
Oh, it’s a free country - talk all you want, but you’d might as well be calling the cops 'cause he wouldn’t be answering.
Exactly.
First of all, he would not be on your property doing something wrong, but if he lost his noggin and went coo-coo, the police would be the best ones to handle it. That does not automatically mean a record, far less one for life.