Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Following someone is going to make them fearful. If GZ had done nothing and done what he was originally going to do, rather than intimidating someone by obviously following them...

How do you know he intimidated someone? If TM beat him as GZ says he did, TM doesn't sound very intimidated to me. More likely really angry.

no one would have been harmed.

If GZ's statement is true, if TM hadn't beat him no one would have been harmed either.

Having a gun, which everyone here has been telling me makes you safer because you can kill with it, just makes GZ reckless in this situation. He doesn't have to worry about intimidating the other person, he can just kill them if they don't like being followed.

 

[Xulld]

If the weapon was exposed, the gun carriers here would tell you that the priority would be to eliminate the threat.

Not even close, full on straw man. An overt threat is different than a holstered firearm.

If a police officer with a holstered firearm walks up to me should I take that as an overt threat and open fire? Of course not, and why would the lack of a uniform change that situation?

I carried an openly holstered firearm for ~ 2 years in North Carolina. One would think if your conclusion here is even remotely accurate I should have been shot when ordering pizza when a dozen police came into the shop behind me to order themselves, or that they should have drew down on me in the parking lot as they were walking up behind me. However instead of that happening they noticed my firearm, and did nothing. Why, becuase I made no overt threats at all, and went and sat down at my table and had a conversation with my friends. Many such situations occurred. ie non-events.

It seems to me the folks either with no experience regarding firearms, or those with an anti 2a, or anti carry perspective want to simplify human interactions into black and white decisions tree's. I am sorry to inform you, but its just not that black and white, and I think most who carry understand this and would go pretty far to avoid shooting someone, maybe even too far and getting themselves killed becuase they were busy assessing, and not shooting. It happens. (What we know is not always close to what is actually happening. Ontic vs Epistemic)

In this particular case where GZ and TM started fighting its so far past the assessment phase when someone is on top and beating on you while you cry for them to stop as to be silly (If that part is true of course).

No one has the right to beat on you, no one should mount you and walay your head for any duration (outside of the octagon!). IMHO if we find anything other than GZ hunting the kid down and starting the fight then the moral of the story for anyone you know should be . . . . dont start fights, even if the a***h*** seems like he is following you and wont tell you why.

 

[LTC8K6]

Following someone is going to make them fearful. If GZ had done nothing and done what he was originally going to do, rather than intimidating someone by obviously following them, no one would have been harmed. Having a gun, which everyone here has been telling me makes you safer because you can kill with it, just makes GZ reckless in this situation. He doesn't have to worry about intimidating the other person, he can just kill them if they don't like being followed.

I don't think GZ ever actually followed TM on foot.

I think he started to, but abandoned the idea at the dispatcher's request.

I think GZ just tried to keep TM in sight or see where he went, without ever getting, or intending to get, anywhere near TM.

I think it is TM who wanted to confront GZ, and did so.

But we will see how the case develops and what the evidence shows.

 

[Dan O.]

I carried an openly holstered firearm for ~ 2 years in North Carolina. One would think if your conclusion here is even remotely accurate I should have been shot when ordering pizza when a dozen police came into the shop behind me to order themselves, or that they should have drew down on me in the parking lot as they were walking up behind me. However instead of that happening they noticed my firearm, and did nothing. Why, becuase I made no overt threats at all, and went and sat down at my table and had a conversation with my friends. Many such situations occurred. ie non-events.

Did you ever get out of your truck and follow one of those police officers into a dark alley without identifying yourself but openly speaking on your phone about him running and not knowing where hie is?

 

[Xulld]

Did you ever get out of your truck and follow one of those police officers into a dark alley without identifying yourself but openly speaking on your phone about him running and not knowing where hie is?

No, but would you think the officers reaction to finding this out would be to try to deck the guy with a punch to the face? OR question him and call for backup?

I can imagine exactly that situation. If someone thought the "police officer" might not be a real police officer they might try to keep him in sight while calling the police.

An officer would not likely react the way TM is alleged to have reacted. Do you disagree?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think GZ ever actually followed TM on foot.

I think he started to, but abandoned the idea at the dispatcher's request.

I think GZ just tried to keep TM in sight or see where he went, without ever getting, or intending to get, anywhere near TM.

I think it is TM who wanted to confront GZ, and did so.

But we will see how the case develops and what the evidence shows.

I think you are totally wrong. George's recorded call gives us a lot of information about where where George was that is inconsistent with George stopping at the dispatchers request. There is also the walkthrough the next morning as relayed by George's father that says he went on the Retrete View Circle before turning back and the location where they ended the altercation which is inconsistent with returning straight back to the truck. There will definitely be more evidence but it will be difficult to take away what we already know.

 

[Dan O.]

An officer would not likely react the way TM is alleged to have reacted. Do you disagree?

Of course not. The officer is presumed to be armed so doesn't need to close the distance in order to equalize or gain the advantage. The officer would step out of the shadow with his hand on his weapon and order George to take a non-threatening position. Any non-compliance and the weapon would be drawn with a repeat of the order.

At least that's the way it goes down on COPS when they encounter a threatening looking black. The encounter with another good oll white boy might go down differently but they don't tend to show those.

 

[Xulld]

Of course not. The officer is presumed to be armed so doesn't need to close the distance in order to equalize or gain the advantage. The officer would step out of the shadow with his hand on his weapon and order George to take a non-threatening position. Any non-compliance and the weapon would be drawn with a repeat of the order.

At least that's the way it goes down on COPS when they encounter a threatening looking black. The encounter with another good oll white boy might go down differently but they don't tend to show those.

So your own hypothetical does not show that anyone should react the way TM is alleged to react?

In what context is it ok to react by hitting someone when you think they may be following you?

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think GZ ever actually followed TM on foot.

I think he started to, but abandoned the idea at the dispatcher's request.

I think GZ just tried to keep TM in sight or see where he went, without ever getting, or intending to get, anywhere near TM.

I think it is TM who wanted to confront GZ, and did so.

But we will see how the case develops and what the evidence shows.

Following someone is threatening behaviour, particularly when they are doing nothing wrong. How people react to being threatened varies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

First thing having read the last few pages, I have to say I feel that it's a sad inditement on a society when people feel they have to carry firearms to protect them from other members of that society.

Following someone is going to make them fearful.

Perhaps in a society where everyone is out to get each other. However the fact is, even if you are fearful, having someone following you is not an reasonable excuse to attack them.

If GZ had done nothing and done what he was originally going to do, rather than intimidating someone by obviously following them, no one would have been harmed.

This goes to show the lengths that some people are willing to go to try and bais the argument. There is zero evidence that GZ's following was a form of intimidation or even causes intimidation. Having said that, even if you are being followed and feel intimidated by that, it's still not a reasonable excuse to attack someone.

Having a gun, which everyone here has been telling me makes you safer because you can kill with it, just makes GZ reckless in this situation.

Again I have to disagree. There is no reason to believe that the gun would come into play at any point, just because he followed (and then lost) TM. If he had run after TM with the gun out wwaving it in the air, that'd be reckless, but without the 20/20 hindsight that one side seems to be displaying, there is no reasonable senario where GZ will draw the gun and use it simply because of following TM. Note here the word "reasonable". There are senarioes (obviously because one happened) but that all rely on unreasonable actions from either one or both parties involved. Merely carrying a concealed gun and following someone is not a reckless action.

He doesn't have to worry about intimidating the other person, he can just kill them if they don't like being followed.

Which would be an unreasonable action depending on how they objected to being followed. If they objected to his following by telling him to "F-Off" totally unreasonable to shoot them. If they attacked him in a manner that made him believe that they meant to disable or kill him, then it becomes a totally reasonable action.

See the problem here is that like most people you want to skip a step. You go from "GZ gets out of car and follows TM" directly to "GZ kills TM" and ignore what happened in the middle of that. The first step does not lead directly to the second, it requires a third middle step, and that is the vital one because that determines what happened and if the shooting was justified. One could just as easily point out that either hiding and waiting for someone who you think is following you, and then approaching them in what could be taken as an aggressive manner, or losing them and then going back looking for them, can also both be called reckless behaviours and had TM not done whichever he did, the shooting would never have occured.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Following someone is threatening behaviour, particularly when they are doing nothing wrong. How people react to being threatened varies.

You must really hate walking through town with all those people following you.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Following someone is threatening behaviour, particularly when they are doing nothing wrong. How people react to being threatened varies.

If following someone is threatening, actually walking towards them with a determined look on your face must be downright terrifying.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think you are totally wrong. George's recorded call gives us a lot of information about where where George was that is inconsistent with George stopping at the dispatchers request.

I don't know that it's really worth getting into again ... but ... such as ?

Here is the call. You can hear the car door open and the wind start to 'whistle' in the phone and the then operator asks 'are you following' and after he says 'we don't don't need you to do that' the wind noise stops about 15 seconds after that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KgR7gCxXQYg#t=124s

 

[a_unique_person]

If following someone is threatening, actually walking towards them with a determined look on your face must be downright terrifying.

You are just making the story fit your preconceptions. GZ followed TM. That was a threatening act. I see plenty of people saying it's OK to respond to a threat with a gun here.

 

[Xulld]

First thing having read the last few pages, I have to say I feel that it's a sad inditement on a society when people feel they have to carry firearms to protect them from other members of that society.

My friend a pacifist, vegetarian, volunteer at the animal rescue, and my first love was brutally murdered by a stranger 15 minutes after opening up shop at the pet store she was working at. She was beaten with a fire extinguisher, then raped. I have always had guns, but before that never carried them. Since then, I will never be without. If at anytime I can protect myself, or any other innocent person from having such violence met out against them I will. It is just a fact of the environment that a percentage of honest, caring and kind citizens will meet such an end.

I see plenty of people saying it's OK to respond to a threat with a gun here.

Not even close, this has been explained. Direct quote or this is just garbage.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You are just making the story fit your preconceptions. GZ followed TM. That was a threatening act. I see plenty of people saying it's OK to respond to a threat with a gun here.

Utter nonsense. In fact your occasional postings in the thread repeating the same fallacies make me guess you've read very little of it. As Xulld said, why don't you quote where someone said it's OK to respond to a threat with a gun? Unless you mean a serious threat to ones life in which case you disagree??

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps in a society where everyone is out to get each other. However the fact is, even if you are fearful, having someone following you is not an reasonable excuse to attack them.

That seems to be the point of the SYG legislation.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~~

I do note that they tend to be called "less lethal" on the packaging, and not "less than lethal", which tells us something, I think.

I suppose one of the things you would say is that by loading a less lethal round first, you were trying not to kill, even if that round actually did kill the assailant.

You can say that, however, even if you don't kill, you have just committed a serious assault, one that could have led to a death. You can be charged for that, and if convicted recieve 2 years for that assault, plus a 20 year enhancment for that assault involving firing a firearm.

 

[Rare Truth]

First thing having read the last few pages, I have to say I feel that it's a sad inditement on a society when people feel they have to carry firearms to protect them from other members of that society.



Perhaps in a society where everyone is out to get each other. However the fact is, even if you are fearful, having someone following you is not an reasonable excuse to attack them.



This goes to show the lengths that some people are willing to go to try and bais the argument. There is zero evidence that GZ's following was a form of intimidation or even causes intimidation. Having said that, even if you are being followed and feel intimidated by that, it's still not a reasonable excuse to attack someone.



Again I have to disagree. There is no reason to believe that the gun would come into play at any point, just because he followed (and then lost) TM. If he had run after TM with the gun out wwaving it in the air, that'd be reckless, but without the 20/20 hindsight that one side seems to be displaying, there is no reasonable senario where GZ will draw the gun and use it simply because of following TM. Note here the word "reasonable". There are senarioes (obviously because one happened) but that all rely on unreasonable actions from either one or both parties involved. Merely carrying a concealed gun and following someone is not a reckless action.



Which would be an unreasonable action depending on how they objected to being followed. If they objected to his following by telling him to "F-Off" totally unreasonable to shoot them. If they attacked him in a manner that made him believe that they meant to disable or kill him, then it becomes a totally reasonable action.

See the problem here is that like most people you want to skip a step. You go from "GZ gets out of car and follows TM" directly to "GZ kills TM" and ignore what happened in the middle of that. The first step does not lead directly to the second, it requires a third middle step, and that is the vital one because that determines what happened and if the shooting was justified. One could just as easily point out that either hiding and waiting for someone who you think is following you, and then approaching them in what could be taken as an aggressive manner, or losing them and then going back looking for them, can also both be called reckless behaviours and had TM not done whichever he did, the shooting would never have occured.

Had GZ not removed himself from the truck, where he said he was fearful of this 'suspicious' dude, a dude so aggressive, according to Z, he "circled' his vehicle, thus causing an imminent threat -- then we can say with 99.99% certainty, the killing of Mr. Martin would have never occurred.

 

[Xulld]

That seems to be the point of the SYG legislation.

Its this kind of nonsense that helps no one. The point of the statue that is often called stand your ground, was to remove the black and white burden of retreat from a person with clean hands in a deadly situation. I think anyone being honest can see lots of good reasons to remove that burden. Your hyperbolic response shows us that a granular understanding is not beneficial to your agenda.

Had GZ not removed himself from the truck, where he said he was fearful of this 'suspicious' dude, a dude so aggressive, according to Z, he "circled' his vehicle, thus causing an imminent threat -- then we can say with 99.99% certainty, the killing of Mr. Martin would have never occurred.

. . and if neither of them had been born it wouldn't have happened either, should we arrest their parents? We could do this all day, lots of things wouldn't happen if only a single thing were changed. The conclusion of what we should do on the other hand is less clear.

Please tell me you have a point?