George Zimmerman - Deeper Questions: Civilians, Guns, and Authority

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Z was doing just what he was supposed to be doing as neighborhood watch, I'd expect same in my neighborhood.

There's no "twisted logic" involved. It's having reasonable expectations of how someone will likely respond.

The logic is simple:

1) Having a gun is something we generally afford to cops.
2) Having a uniform and badge projects power and authority to criminals
3) A civilian "neighborhood watchman" with a concealed gun does not project the same power and authority as police officers
4) Based upon 1), 2) and 3), it is unreasonable to expect criminals to respect neighborhood watch.
5) A Neighborhood watch who carries a weapon can potentially imperil the lives of criminals.

Sorry in hopes of not doing big quotes I Ha e to address the numbered list first.

(1) having a gun is a fundamental right afforded prior to the constitutions naming it as one "not to be infringed" by government.

(2) That were true we'd have no crime at all. LEO would be omnipotent.

(3) It should if government schools actually taught our "real" rights.

(4) disinformation breeds ignorance.

(5) My fervent hope.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
To all those that replied to me, let me clarify:

There is what is and then there is what is perceived to be. A distinct portion of the population believe, via the media, that Zimmerman was the instigator. What I'm openly pondering is the effect of that belief. On the face of what was initially presented at the time of the incident, which would constitute the public's first "informed opinion" that may stick in those that accept that opinion and nothing more, is that belief that Zimmerman was the instigator. You can see that belief all over the place, regardless of its veracity. I was not present in the trial nor was I on the jury. My curiosity and queries are based on the various popular beliefs held about the case and what the effects of those beliefs may be.

Perhaps you are merely misinformed. What was initially presented was that there was no crime committed by Zimmerman. That was why he was not charged or arrested at first. 6 weeks later, someone wanted a race incident and mistook Zimmerman for being White. They then FALSIFIED evidence, showing Martin as a 12 yr old, intentionally changed a 911 call to make Zimmerman look like a racist, the race baiters stepped in about a poor innocent black child hunted down and shot to death on the street by a White cop wannabe. Then Obama stepped in making it even more about race. None of the above was true. It was made up BS to create a race problem. Even the specially appointed prosecutor and lead investigator PERJURED themselves in a court of law to have Zimmerman illegally detained under color of law. They have hired lawyers to defend themselves even though they admitted they had perjured themselves and withheld exculpary evidence to intentionally get Zimmerman arrested. Out of curiousity were you even aware of the above?

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by introV

 

I'm not debating any of that. Treyvon was clearly a thug.

My question is: should someone who isn't a police officer - and doesn't possess the power and authority a badge and uniform projects - be allowed to parole neighborhoods with a gun?

It's not a particularly difficult question. Guns are lethal weapons. Because police officers are "protected" by the aura of their badge and uniform, it doesn't happen very often where they have to use a gun against thugs. Thugs get the point: they understand the system. They aren't retarded. Badge & Uniform = a temporary submission to authority.

10.000s of non police officers parole neighborhood with guns every day and do not have police powers.
I did it after i got out of the navy and was going to collage.

I was a security officer on a navy base.

My job was to observe(Stalk) and report. yes i was in uniform but i had no more police powers then GZ.

I have also been a neighborhood watch and they are only to observe(Stalk) and report.

When i was a security officer i had people get in my face about me watching them.
The cops took great interest in people that had a this problem.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
If someone isn't a police officer - and thus doesn't possess the power and authority that a uniform and badge projects - should they be allowed to carry guns and go about stocking people?

A person can’t harass or stalk random people in public. They will call the cops on you and the cops will tell you to bug off.

But!!!!!!! When I am on my own property, and someone else is on it, then YES!!!! I can follow them around all day if I want to. I can ask them why they are there as many times as I want. I can tell them to remove themselves from that property and never come back for any reason I so choose. And if they don’t’ follow orders, then I can call the cops and have them removed by force.

If they don’t want me to bug them, then they can get off MY PROPERTY!

I can do all of that with a hand gun openly visible on my side, or a shotgun/rifle slung over my back.

If someone threatens my life, or the lives of my family while they are on that property, you can be rest assured that they will see the open end of a gun in their face. And no, I won’t wait until my head is pounded into the ground before I respond with deadly force.

For those are my rights when I am on my own property, and within my own domicile.

And I have the right to delegate that authority onto anyone I so chose, to stand in my place when I am not available to keep watch over that property, or home. It may be a family member, close friend, or someone I hire.

The person that I have delegated my authority to will have the same right to track, question, and expel anyone from my property as I have. If they are threatened, then they have the same legal right to defend themselves with lethal force as I, the property owner, have.

Public CCW, and right to carry laws have no bearing over someone carrying on your property when you give them permission to carry a gun. They will have the same right to carry on your property, as you have. For you have delegated that authority to them.

The only time public CCW, and right to carry laws will apply is if you did not directly give them permission to carry. They will still retain the right to carry granted them by public law.

When a neighborhood authorizes someone to perform security duty/neighborhood watch, then they are delegating their authority to him to watch their properties and keep track, and question people that are on their properties. For that reason, zim had the full authority to keep track of suspicious people and question who ever he wanted while he was in the property boundaries that made up the HOA. The same authority that the individual owners would have while on their own property.

If you can’t handle the authority that property rights gives the owner of that property, then I suggest you go to a country where they don’t have property rights, like the UK.

reply to post by christina-66


aww is the anti gun person upset cuz Americans can own guns?god forbid people defend themselves.......

i live in kalispel montana,i grew up in sanjose area so i been followed by toughs/thugs before funny im still here and some of them are in jail now not really getting your point as if some one was following me id call 911 and put the phone on speaker phone and ask them what they were up to,sure as hell wouldn't ambush some one even if they were some "creepy cracker" and if they punch me they stand a good chance of getting shot by a .44 black powder revolver.funny where i live every one is armed and thus pretty polite there is no road rage,there is no racial tension as most of us know better then to screw with native Americans(largest minority in montana) just going about their business.


and before you call me racist hick i was part of the group of towns people that chased the frigging Nazis out of our public library who were trying to corrupt our children by showing them mien kamph(or how every that bigots book is spelled) they showed up to preach hate we told them to get the frack out of our town and go back to idaho if they want to preach hatred because we dont stand for that crap here

thankfully for us Americans have a right to self defense and have not had our gun rights over legislated away,we have the right to defend our self in our homes and in some states our vehicles,you dont like how america runs things dont visit us or support us with tourist dollars but dont try to change our system because you dont like it or think that" omg some kids will die save the children"

funny how the doj says violent crime is down and gun violence is down but i dont think thats what you wanna hear as your blinded by your views that all guns are bad bad bad bad guns bad guns we get it you dont like guns but you also dont live here so quite frankly your opinion on our bill of rights and amendments that are in it are not wanted or asked for.

funny when i was almost robbed in the uk (2005) by three "soccer hooligans"(i believe that's the term) who had knives i didnt knotice a lack of crime in your country i guess that means your whole set of laws are stupid and need to be changed so soccer hooligans cant arm them selves with knives,(edited my self so i wouldn't violate t and c)

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


The sequence of events that were reported in the media within the first week were as follows as per my memory:

a. In the midst of gun control debates and debate about the "Stand Your Ground" law passing in Florida, the media reported the Zimmerman/Martin incident and noted that no charges or arrest had been filed by police, leading to public outcry.

b. Department heads re-examined the case and *eventually* filed charges against Zimmerman.

c. Stories came out portraying Zimmerman as disobeying police orders and Martin as being a skittle toting/iced tea drinking youth amidst conflicting reports of Zimmerman being assaulted by Martin and the portrayal of Martin being a questionably "innocent" youth.

Based off of all the comments that I have viewed out there, I would say that this is the point at which the public basically solidified their individual beliefs in regards to the incident. I'd say that a good deal of people tend to be ADD when it comes to news stories and once they adopt an idea, there is a tendency to move onto the next "hot topic". The odds of every single person following the Zimmerman trial closely is pretty slim due to time constraints, lack of interest, and/or significant value being placed on simply knowing the outcome--"guilty" or "not guilty" and how that relates to their specific ideology regarding the incident, That is the "key", at least in my perspective, as to how the public will respond to the outcome of the trial. You can see it for yourself all over twitter.

I watch the media and the public response to it. It's a weird hobby, I know. Personally, I only rarely form an opinion on these matters but I do "try on" presented viewpoints to better understand ramifications to perceptions. As I said in a prior post, I was neither present in the trial or within the jury and to further expand on the meaning of that, in order to form an opinion, I would have to rely on a media that I tend to find to be terribly twisty in their presentations. I don't trust that and, therefore, have no personal opinion in regards to the matter. All I know is what I can see in the public response.

Pardon the pun but trigger finger--double post.

If I see someone suspicious in my neighborhood, I watch them, and follow them if necessary. This is everyone's right.

I have been watched and followed looking for someplace myself. I smile and wave, and if approachable, will talk to the person to let them know I am not a threat. That is the way I think people should act.

These thugs will try to intimidate you, and beat you up if they think they can.

One of the issues that no one seems to address, is that TM didn't know if GZ was following him.

Have you ever been going someplace, when a stranger was going to almost the same location, and the person in front wonders if the person behind is following them, and the person behind hopes the person in front does not think they are following them?

Anyone could have been anyone going in the same direction as TM, and by all indications, TM would have jumped the guy and beat him up, and possibly left him for dead. All the people who want to pretend that TM did nothing wrong, are wrong, morally wrong.

No one has the right to attack someone, knock them down on the ground, and pummel them, because they think the person was following them, or just a creepy old cracker.

Raise your children properly, and teach them that you can not beat someone up because you think you can, and you think you can justify it.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Z was doing just what he was supposed to be doing as neighborhood watch, I'd expect same in my neighborhood.

There's no "twisted logic" involved. It's having reasonable expectations of how someone will likely respond.

The logic is simple:



Of course, carrying a gun is one thing, and provoking a violent response from a criminal is another thing. If the neighborhood watch is just there minding their own business, simply watching out for misbehavior and calling the cops when they see it; that's their job. If someone attacks them while they're doing that, then they have every right to make use of that concealed weapon. But if they engage in an action that provokes violence against them, the criminals can hardly be held completely responsible for their predictable response.

Plenty of research on self control has proven that hardened criminals do not possess the same degree of free will and self regulation that normal people exercise. This does not mean that we should simply "let them loose" and commit havoc; but it does mean that we should appreciate that some people are constitutionally unable to respond in socially appropriate ways. This is the sad truth of the matter.

I will never ever stake my or my neighbors lives on the kind of logic that is in the OP. Provocation could be as simple as saying "hello" to a dangerously unbalanced person - sorry I will not run nor expect others to run if that "rogue" person decides to react with violence. Its asinine to expect.

Provoking, just who's definition do you use? a reasonable person who's on neighborhood watch or do you use the criminals version which could mean anything - basically those who have something to lose vs. those who have nothing to lose - what's rational locally in that neighborhood? I say it is perception of crime and thugs that drive that perception.

If a neighborhood is driven to have to have a "watch" then how can you say "minding their own business" when it comes to anything out of the ordinary - that is exactly what a neighborhood watch should be doing "minding business that is out of the ordinary"

The belief that criminals are products of an "environment" and cannot help themselves is not my or my neighbors problem nor was it Zimmerman's problem - their problem was and is crime committed by individuals who believe they can get away with things and a society that continually offers excuses to never stop that activity with you as the poster child on how its done.

As long as excuses for this kind of thing are made then I guess many more unfortunate TM's will meet their fate in ignorance of human nature and natural law as well as legislation.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

 

The sequence of events that were reported in the media within the first week were as follows as per my memory:

a. In the midst of gun control debates and debate about the "Stand Your Ground" law passing in Florida, the media reported the Zimmerman/Martin incident and noted that no charges or arrest had been filed by police, leading to public outcry.

b. Department heads re-examined the case and *eventually* filed charges against Zimmerman.

c. Stories came out portraying Zimmerman as disobeying police orders and Martin as being a skittle toting/iced tea drinking youth amidst conflicting reports of Zimmerman being assaulted by Martin and the portrayal of Martin being a questionably "innocent" youth.

Based off of all the comments that I have viewed out there, I would say that this is the point at which the public basically solidified their individual beliefs in regards to the incident. I'd say that a good deal of people tend to be ADD when it comes to news stories and once they adopt an idea, there is a tendency to move onto the next "hot topic". The odds of every single person following the Zimmerman trial closely is pretty slim due to time constraints, lack of interest, and/or significant value being placed on simply knowing the outcome--"guilty" or "not guilty" and how that relates to their specific ideology regarding the incident, That is the "key", at least in my perspective, as to how the public will respond to the outcome of the trial. You can see it for yourself all over twitter.

I watch the media and the public response to it. It's a weird hobby, I know. Personally, I only rarely form an opinion on these matters but I do "try on" presented viewpoints to better understand ramifications to perceptions. As I said in a prior post, I was neither present in the trial or within the jury and to further expand on the meaning of that, in order to form an opinion, I would have to rely on a media that I tend to find to be terribly twisty in their presentations. I don't trust that and, therefore, have no personal opinion in regards to the matter. All I know is what I can see in the public response.

edit on 14/7/13 by WhiteAlice because: corrected an error

a. This happened 6 weeks after the event.
c. happened long after b. What happened with b. was falsification
c. was not by department heads. They had decided not to charge Zimmerman. Also why the police chief was fired. He and the local prosecutors REFUSED to use the law for political advancement or to pander to race baiters. That is when the state appointed a special prosecutor who is facing perjury charges for withholding evidence from the court and perjuring herself to have Zimmerman put behind bars. By then private partys had already put out rewards to whoever would murder Zimmerman.

Understand something. The US is NOT a democracy. It is a nation of law, not mob rule, which is what democracy is. However many people are trying to turn us into a nation of mob rule. What happened here is an example of this and it is not over. In the beginning Zimmerman was not charged because by LAW he had not committed a crime. Mob rule, political pandering, and race baiting overcame the LAW and by other people breaking the LAW a trial was forced. Again the LAW said Zimmerman had committed no crime. Now again mob rule is trying for another trial. Politicians are destroying Zimmerman in violation of the LAW in order to advance their agendas and placate the mob. The LAW is supposed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. That is why it is there.

reply to post by christina-66


Let's look at worst nations by homicide alone.

murder-rates.findthedata.org...

The US is number 155 on the list, with 5.6 per 100k, Switzerland leads among European nations at number 201 with 2.9 per 100k, Scotlands at 2.6 per 100k, England and Whales 1.6 per 100k.

Cyprus is at the bottom of the list with .2 per 100k, Japan .5 per 100k.

Most of the murder in the US takes place within very specific locations.

The problem isn't guns, it is people who think they are justified in their violence.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot



And you apparently didn't read anything that I said in full. What I am stating is how public opinion became stratified on the subject of Zimmerman and Martin due to media influences. You presume to lecture me on whether or not the US is a democracy and mob rule when the latter is precisely what concerns me the most and is what I am targeting. In terms of my opinion on what this nation is, you could've reasonably implied that, by my statement that I was neither present at the trial nor was I a member of the jury and, ergo, formed no opinion as the "facts" presented within the media were probabilistically riddled with taint/bias/slant, to imply that I defer to the judgment of the court, itself. If you look at my other posts on the same subject, you'll see that there is a consistency there even insomuch as questioning whether a civil case when Zimmerman was acquitted was not just another way to retry the case and rather like double jeopardy.

Additionally, I am very, very much aware of "mob rule" and the threat therein. This would be the development of "faction" that Madison was so frightened of in Federalist #10. Faction, or "mob rule", is not fed by the actions of a nation of law but fed instead by those who would stand on soapboxes and the press. The development of faction, or "mob rule", is what can lead to insurrection and is highly dangerous. It is what occurred that actually created the second (current) US Constitution post-Shay's Rebellion. The question that I have is whether or not the deliberate baiting of the "mob" through the various media representations of the Zimmerman case was deliberate for the promotion of "mob rule" or purely profit-based as sensationalism sells.

We clear?

If the HOA gave the neighborhood watch permission to operate on the property the cops had no right to interfere or tell GZ to back off and not watch TM as i understand ti now the neighborhood watch was acting as unpaid security officers
and as security officer they GZ had the legal right to observe (stalk :puz and report.
i now see this as a case of rage at being watched that lead to a attack by TM on GZ.

Sounds like the government was feeding the press/media BS about what was going on not because of "stand your ground" But because of a security officer doing his job.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

 

And you apparently didn't read anything that I said in full. What I am stating is how public opinion became stratified on the subject of Zimmerman and Martin due to media influences. You presume to lecture me on whether or not the US is a democracy and mob rule when the latter is precisely what concerns me the most and is what I am targeting. In terms of my opinion on what this nation is, you could've reasonably implied that, by my statement that I was neither present at the trial nor was I a member of the jury and, ergo, formed no opinion as the "facts" presented within the media were probabilistically riddled with taint/bias/slant, to imply that I defer to the judgment of the court, itself. If you look at my other posts on the same subject, you'll see that there is a consistency there even insomuch as questioning whether a civil case when Zimmerman was acquitted was not just another way to retry the case and rather like double jeopardy.

Additionally, I am very, very much aware of "mob rule" and the threat therein. This would be the development of "faction" that Madison was so frightened of in Federalist #10. Faction, or "mob rule", is not fed by the actions of a nation of law but fed instead by those who would stand on soapboxes and the press. The development of faction, or "mob rule", is what can lead to insurrection and is highly dangerous. It is what occurred that actually created the second (current) US Constitution post-Shay's Rebellion. The question that I have is whether or not the deliberate baiting of the "mob" through the various media representations of the Zimmerman case was deliberate for the promotion of "mob rule" or purely profit-based as sensationalism sells.

We clear?

Almost. You forgot to mention that in the post previous to this that you said "All I know is what the public perception is." Also what you claimed happened in the first week actually happened 6 weeks later which I pointed out to you. Public perception is to a large degree what causes mob rule so by your words the only thing you knew is what the mob knew. This was shown by your lack of knowledge of when things occurred. As to my belief about the media presentation their was a number of reasons. Gun control is one. The attempt to prevent citizens from being able or willing to defend themselves is another. The instigation of a race war is a third. Money is a fourth. Political advancement and agrandizement for certain politicians is a 5th one. In the real world there is no simple easy answers. To me you implied that public belief should dictate peoples actions. That because of what the mob might think you should not follow someone, carry a gun, or do anything that might incite a criminal as they have no control or different control over their actions and the public, mob rule, might not like it. So forget the law and act according to what people might perceive. Now having said that if that is NOT what you mean then I suggest YOU rephrase yourself in such a manner as the rest of us can understand. From the posts you have received I perceive, lol, that the mob you are writing to infer the same as me.

reply to post by Astrocyte

Yours is a fascinating OP. It's a new approach and I'm grateful for that, but it raises yet more questions in my mind.

If someone isn't a police officer - and thus doesn't possess the power and authority that a uniform and badge projects - should they be allowed to carry guns and go about stocking and interrogating people?

In Florida he was perfectly entitled to carry a gun. I don't see any problem there. But I'm curious about the idea that he was stalking and interrogating. Does following for fewer than a hundred yards constitute stalking? Does interrogation mean one or two questions? Or are these words emotionally loaded to disguise what really happened?

This question goes beyond the race question. But it is at the very heart of this issue.

Why do you say that? The FBI questioned three dozen people and no one said anything to indicate Zimmerman had any racial bias at all. His grandmother was Black, he mentored Black kids, supported a Black man in his fight against "City Hall." Race isn't at the heart of the issue, it's nowhere near the issue.

Why should someone who does not possess the requisite authority and power believe he has the right, and even more concernedly, the ability, to question and harass another person? Is harass another of those emotionally loaded terms? There's no evidence that he did. And yes, he had the right to. Every citizen in the country has the right to walk up to another person and ask questions. all one has to do is turn and walk away.

Shouldn't the predictable response of a suspicious black kid prevent you in your pursuit?

This worries me. It seems you are saying that a neighborhood watch person can ask a question or two of a white youth, but if he does the same thing to a Black youth, he has to be prepared for the predictable response of a potentially deadly fight. Do you think Black youth are that much more violent than White youth? It certainly sounds as though you're saying we should treat white and black youth differently.

So neighborhood watch people can't approach Black youth? The fact that there had been a number of robberies by Black youth recently doesn't allow a little curiosity in this situation? Hey, neighborhood watch, if you're going to approach a Black youth, know that he's going to come after you and try to kill you.

As I say, a new and fascinating approach, but I'm not sold on it yet.

Just think, if TM had killed GZ while banging his head on the pavement. He would have just ran off and not said a word. Justice? Where would the justice have been then? All you bleeding hearts have to understand the kid got what he asked for, if he did or not. Tragically? Yes. But you do not know what fate had instore for this kid or any of his future victims. He may have even grown to be a doctor. Doubt it, but who knows. We'll never know because he chose to be a punk.

So all Americans should learn the real lesson here,... Do everything in your power to prevent your kids from being punks and hoodlums. And if your "race" of people believe that "gangsta" is "part of your culture" I'd consider a cultural overhaul. Try some pants that fit a pair of boots and a shirt a man would wear. Then maybe you wouldn't attract suspicion, creating an environment for lead poisoning.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Phoenix

As bad as any physical altercation can potentially be, there is no parity between fists and a gun. Guns kill most of the time, fists only rarely.

I respectfully disagree. If someone even 30 feet from me started shooting at me I know 80% of the shots will miss me, especially in a situation where they have no time to aim properly. Up close the odds of getting shot go up of course, but getting shot does not guarantee death by no means unless its in the head, heart, throat, major artery or upper spine of course.

Fists... now there's a misconception. I will not list any information on this one because I don't want to educate the clearly unknowing or be put on some list somewhere. Any object is potentially lethal in the right hands, and hands/fists are particularly lethal when wielded by someone with the proper knowledge and/or training... but fists can be deadly none-the-less as this example states:

5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight.

Link and FBI Source

So how do you define "rarely"? I would say if the defender is knowledgeable it would be 99% of the time.

It's rather simple. Authority is a man-made concept. Anybody can act "authoritatively," it's a question of whether one gives him or herself the permission to do so. Pigs and people are cut from the same cloth, the only difference is that they are given presumed "power," and thus are made socially exempt from criminal prosecution for committing atrocities.

However, if you put the barrel of a pistol to a cop's head and pull the trigger, he or she will die all the same.

I suppose the real question would be why we should treat this case any differently if Trayvon had been gunned down by a pig. If anything, a civilian has more of a right to defend him or herself with a gun than a pig does, simply because most civilians aren't trained in how to subdue an attacker using non-lethal means.

Originally posted by christina-66
What has occurred here is immoral. The fact that it has made global news and stimulated international debate should be an indication to US citizens of how abhorrent their sense of justice (and actual justice) is to many people around the world.

Agreed. We shouldn't have even had a trial, we should have just thrown Zimmerman in jail and tossed the key in the garbage. How moral is that? The right to a trial by jury? I guess that's an old and outdated concept just like the rest of the Constitution.

We could always have mob rule. Seems to be what many are advocating right now.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
My question is: should someone who isn't a police officer - and doesn't possess the power and authority a badge and uniform projects - be allowed to parole neighborhoods with a gun?

Yes.

- 2nd amendment right to bear arms for self defense.
- the neighborhood agreed to have a neighborhood watch.
- Zimmerman attended classes on gun safety and knew how to handle a weapon.