TexasCHLforum.com

A-R wrote:speedsix, I don't read into any comments an attempt to "justify" Zimmerman's decision to leave his vehicle and pursue.

A. but, as the "facts" change,(often), folks are ignoring the fact that HE started the whole thing...and is morally responsible...regardless of what folks here think we "should" be talking about...the Grand Jury will start at the beginning...and they will find out the things I posted about Z...LEGAL or not won't matter...it's part of the story...and they'll hear it and it will have a large bearing on what happened later...that's what I was addressing...and that's what some think "shouldn't" be talked about here...

on the subject of Neighborhood Watch, what is and is not binding under the law IS important for this case because many are trying to use Zimmerman's stupid decision against him as pretext to a murder indictment.

A. what I posted about (NW) isn't at all binding under the law...the LAW comes into play after he began this fiasco...it will show the Grand Jury a lot about him and his mindset...but doesn't relate to the law on what happened after

I am a member of my Neighborhood Watch program. I'm not the "captain". And frankly we don't ever "patrol" the neighborhood - just contact neighors, exchange phone/email info, email or Facebook alert each other to relevant crime info, organize National Night Out and perhaps a few other smaller barbecues or whatever just to let neighbors meet each other.

A. reading their handbook tells us what they are supposed to do in Sanford...and what they are not supposed to do...which varies in some respects across the nation...he's way outside the guidelines of HIS city's Watch...which he agreed to when he became affiliated with them...

I have never been handed any set of rules, though I know the national organization instructs some form of observe & report only, and I'm trained to do this anyway based on my participation in the broader "CHL culture". But let's say there was some sort of non-binding rules I was to follow as a NW member. Am I to follow those rules at all times when I'm in the neighborhood? Most if not all NW groups, and certainly the more active Citzens on Patrol groups, advise not carrying firearms. So does my membership in my NW mean I should not ever carry my gun when I leave my house because I will be traveling through my neighborhood? If I'm making a run up to the grocery (as Zimmerman claims to police), does my membership in NW group supercede my CHL authority to carry a weapon or my 2A rights?

A. Not legally, no...and as long as you didn't do anything to the detriment of the NW's rules...it would never come up...nor would it have with him...if he had just made the call and gone on about his business...when he got out of his vehicle and started following the guy, armed...that's where he went against all they'd taught him...and shows he wanted to do things HIS way instead...even after being "waved off" by the dispatcher and telling the dispatcher OK...he kept doing it his way...

IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).

It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

gdanaher wrote:Apparently the Florida law was enacted in 2005. Is there anyone here sufficiently familiar with Florida CC laws to hazard a guess as to the likelihood that Zimmerman's license training should have covered this topic either initially or as a renewal? Their consistency is likely no better than ours, but I'm wondering if it could be argued that he had not been properly educated. He was working as a neighborhood watchman. Did that job, paid or unpaid, require additional formal training or licensing in Florida?

matriculated wrote:The Miami Herald reports that Zimmerman told the police on the scene that he actually never pursued the teen. That is a blatant lie in light of the fact that on the tape he says that he is following the boy.

Miami Herald:

"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2 ... qus_thread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy"

Zimmerman told the police that the only reason he exited his car was to see the name of the street. We've all heard the tape by now. Sanford PD: "Are you following him?" Zimmerman: "Yes." Sanford PD: "OK, we don't need you to do that."