Posted on 03/20/2012 9:36:58 PM PDT by marktwain
I think you accurately point to the culprit here.
I was active in our local community watch program. My advice to everyone was, watch and report and under no circumstances confront unless someone is breaking into your residence and you are home.
Cuban Heritage?
Put him under oath.
And you know the Florida "Self Defense Law.?
Look all I am saying is there is probably more to the story than we are being told. Too may times we believe everything the MSM tells us only to find out something entirely different occurred.
The MSM, then never admits they made a mistake. Just keep an open mind about this. Remember Richard Jewell, yes he was weired but he had nothing to do with the Atlanta Bombing incident, however the MSM convicted him.
Some time ago I read an interesting post about “Don’t tsalk to the police”. I agree. Call 911 if you want, state your wanting a cop and hang up.
Well you could say he did act when he was attacked.
The event was February 26, in the evening ~ 64 degrees, extensive rain ~ hoodies in fashion I suppose. I see guys wearing them around here when it rains.
Only a FR "newbie" wouldn't!
Now, about self-defense, somebody is armed. They're following you around. They get close. You are entitled to defend yourself.
Remember, this is a case where the victim ~ Mr. Martin ~ was NOT reported to have been doing anything other than going to and from a local store on foot and he had the evidence of that trip on him at the time of his death ~ to wit, Skittles and tea.
ON THE OTHER HAND the killer actually reported on his own activities to the 911 clerk.
Under the circumstances Mr. Martin was clearly entitled to defend himself!
Now, imagine the impact on Tourism In Florida if it were determined that armed people can always follow unarmed people around and shoot them.
Nope, sure wouldn't ever go to that state again for anything!
As of yet we do not know who attacked first.
Consider how many times a night a neighborhood watch prevents a crime from being committed.
Also consider how many times guns are used to stop a crime.
Do we really want to continue down the road of setting public policy based on a very small sample of carefully selected incidences?
That night there were probably as many times over cases where a neighborhood watch prevented a crime or a gun was justifiably used to defend themselves, but those don’t meet the media narrative so they are ignored in favor of this incident.
If you get out of that car and approach me ~ that's all I need. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS getting inside my comfort zone. If I'm up against a wall there's no choice but to attempt in anyway I can to get away from you even if it means bowling you over.
It is a fair presumption that if I am encountering a young Hispanic male at night who I do not know, and he's trying to stop me from doing what I want to do, that he means me NO GOOD, and that he's probably armed and may kill me.
Fur Shur neighborhood watch folks should not behave like your typical armed robber out for a stickup.
We have a neighborhood watch ~ had it for 3 decades. This is a multi-ethnic area with people from 35 different countries. We've never had a killing on the street.
I do believe I heard on the news you can hear the boy begging for his life on the 911 call.
Something like that ~
And gone to prison. Martin was 17, you can't get CCW until 21, so he would have been illegally carrying.
My take is that Zimmerman was hunting with an itchy finger.
Comfort zone are you kidding me?
Needless to say, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (the SHT, my local NYT-owned paper) has been short-stroking this all morning, with the spin equally on "yet another case of black victimization" along with "Stand Your Ground" laws baaaaaaad.
I haven't followed this enough to know exactly what to make of this whole incident, but none of that matters in how the "news" paper "reports" it anyway.
Not necessarily. It depends who initiated the contact - if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor (in the words of the Florida statutes, if he "initially provoke[d] the use of force against himself"), he cannot then use deadly force and claim self-defense, even if Martin had the upper hand in the fight.
Also, if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, that effectively nullifies the "Stand Your Ground" law (e.g., if he was the initial aggressor, then even if he was in imminent danger of death, he could not use deadly force unless he had first "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger")
YES REPORTED BY THE MSM. . . .
Why are you so quick to condemn with just a few facts?
Why not wait until we get a full report from BOTH sides?
The guy (shooter) may be guilty, and I won't have any apology to make because I am waiting for ALL the evidence before I crucify anybody. . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.