George Zimmerman F***ed up

[JHB]

Honest question: what do responsible gun owners in Florida think of this case?

I ask as someone with plenty of hunters and target shooters in the family and had very strict gun safety drummed into me when I was still in the single-digit age range. Those lessons revolved around one thing, whether it was gun ownership and gun usage in general, or with various laws to liberalize gun ownership, or to act in self defense.

That thing was the central responsibility of a gun owner TO NOT FUCK UP AND KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON!

There is no scenario that justifies the shooting of Treyvon Martin. None. Martin was a kid walking to his dad's place from a nearby store. That Zimmerman did not allow for that possibility is just one of the ways he FUCKED UP WHILE CARRYING A LOADED WEAPON.

If anything, had Martin been armed, he would have been justified at "standing his ground" against a larger unidentified man who had been following him, appoaching closely, and accosting him.

Every argument ever made against tightening regulations and restrictions on gun ownership assume that someone who acts irresponsibly with a gun will be held accountable.

So when is that happening here?

[teddy51]

1. What's even more disturbing is that he still has both his gun and his permit. WTF? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Not clear if he has that gun back, but he still has his permit since he has not been charged nor

convicted. In many ways it is handled like a Drivers License. You can get arrested for DUI, but until you get at least a hearing, they can not take your license.

[teddy51]

13. As I understood in another Thread, they never took his gun from him! n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Lots of mixed reports on this and other important details

It is at times infuriating.

My understanding is that they took him into custody, took him to the police station and later released him. I cannot imagine them not holding the gun for testing. Lots of unanswered questions on this case...and I believe at this point it is clearly criminal

[Life Long Dem]

24. No need to test the gun when Zimmerman admits to shooting and killing the victim.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. I would think they would want at least balistics match just to make sure

and to hold on to the weapon. What if he repudiates his prior statements and the gun (if it was returned) was "stolen".

Like I said, lots of questions and no one from the LEO side is being forthcoming.

[arthritisR_US]

2. Well said and great question! n/t

[JI7]

3. that would mean he made a mistake but what i'm saying is he wanted to kill a black kid

if not Trayvon it would have been some other kid. or trayvon on another day. as long as that thug had a gun a kid was going to die.

[zbdent]

12. I heard that most of his calls as "neighborhood watchperson" or whatever

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

involved minority-looking individuals.

And then, there's also the "Those n*ggers get away with everything" on the 911 tape ...

On edit ...

I missed that it was not "n*ggers" ... it was "assholes" ... my apologies.

[TorchTheWitch]

14. to be clear he said "assholes" not "n*ggers"

The evidence is bad enough as it is without embelishing it with non-facts.

[uppityperson]

29. No, he didn't. He said "these assholes always get away". No need to embelish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html

[Devil_Fish]

25. And preferably one who was black. NT

[TheWraith]

4. Dunno about Florida, but most of our DU gun owners appear to think he's guilty as hell.

At least, that's by my very informal observation of the regular participants in the DU Guns and RKBA forum. I've seen one who's taking a wait and see approach, one who thinks there's more to the story, and three who think he's guilty. Four if you include me.

[Hoyt]

7. Not initially. Many are now that it's clear what happened and that the public is outraged.

All but one who routinely carry a gun in public are defending gun laws in Florida -- including the Stand Your Ground junk.

The NRA ain't saying crap. The NRA right wing board of directors and lobbyists are trying to come up with a statement that doesn't sound ludicrous. In the meantime, they are making contributions to -- and entertaining -- all their right wing legislative pals to keep them supporting lax gun laws and the expansion of gun sales in the USA.

Zimmerman -- without a gun -- would never have chased this unarmed teenager, and obviously would not have shot him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Some of us believe in reading the law

SYG has nothing to do with this. FL statutes that govern the use of deadly force are the ones that do, and I like just about everyone cannot see how Zimmerman's actions qualify as those of a reasonable person in fear of GBI or death.

[Hoyt]

15. No matter how many times you post SYG doesn't apply, it clearly does. They may be mistaken, but

the police apparently think it does; Zimmerman apparently thinks so; those who carry for same reasons as Zimmerman think so; you know damn well the NRA and even more callous right wing groups want it to apply and will assert it any time one of theirs shoots a poor, unarmed teenager. . . . . . so it does apply. Especially, if you look at the "Stand Your Group Law/Doctrine" in the broader context of gun laws in general.

Every commentator on radio, TV and other media sees it as applying. Now, they may think it's fine as it is, but they still think that it applies. . . . . . .maybe not "legally," but it applies.

Admittedly, there are some folks who don't want it to apply because of the adverse publicity it brings to their grand scheme to put millions more guns on the street in the next few years.

I guess those with a boat load of guns (including lethal weapons routinely carried in public) just can't see beyond their gun sights.

[PavePusher]

41. Please cite the law....

then explain how Zim-tards actions fit under it's protection.


We'll... wait.

[Hoyt]

42. Everyone but those who carry guns seem convinced SYG applies in some respect, and goes too far.

Maybe you guys are the ones that ought to examine this.

Funny how it's "Zim-tards" now, but when this story broke it was more along the lines of "let's wait for all the facts," "don't convict on internet," "Oh, I missed that story (even though there were a bunch of threads the first day the story broke on DU)."

[spin]

46. I legally carry in Florida and from the beginning I felt that Zimmerman ...

lost his right to claim self defense when he pursued Martin after he was told not to by the dispatcher.

Of course, I should add that we have not heard all the details of the incident at this time. Would you prefer that the news media should replace the current legal system that we have?

Under our system of justice, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

That's why I feel Zimmerman should be arrested and face a jury.

[Hoyt]

48. Innocent until proven guilty? Then, I have to ask -- how can you play judge/jury and shoot someone?

[spin]

50. Easy. A person is attacking me with the intention of severely injuring or killing me ...

and has the capacity or weapon to do so and I feel that the only hope I have to stop his attack is to use my concealed revolver.

Chances are that I will not kill my attacker nor is that my intention. All I can hope for is a reasonable chance to stop his attack.

It sounds like you oppose any form of self defense. Should I merely allow my attacker to put me in the hospital for an extended period or six feet under?

[PavePusher]

47. Yes, and at this point, much more information is available.

Funny how that works, eh?

[Hoyt]

49. Except you guys were ready to let it die, so to speak.

[PavePusher]

51. You are either very confused or lying.

No-one said anything like that.

"Wait for more evidence" =/= ""let it die"

[Mojorabbit]

20. He could have used a bat, or his fists, or a knife, or a taser

He( if the media reports are correct and it seems they change daily) was looking for trouble and a dead child is the result. I hope he is brought to trial and it seems he will be.

[Hoyt]

32. Instead, he shot him dead center - meant to kill him. Trial doesn't bring him back.

[Mojorabbit]

43. And there is another post on this board

about a black man beat to death and then run over but there was a trial and the vile peson that did this got life.
Life sentence in Mississippi hate-crime case (beating a black man and running him over)
Source: CNN

A white Mississippi man has been sentenced to life in prison for the 2011 murder of an African-American man, with the judge calling it an inexcusable, "despicable" crime.

Deryl Dedmon pleaded guilty to murder and a hate-crime charge before a judge in Jackson on Wednesday afternoon, admitting to the June killing of James Craig Anderson. Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill sentenced him to two concurrent life terms, saying, "This craven act isn't who we are."

"Whatever excuse you offer, forget that. There is no excuse," Weill said. He added, "The state of Mississippi condemns this despicable crime."

Dedmon, 19, told the judge that he was a "changed man" who had found religion since his arrest.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/mississippi-hate-crime/index.html

[Honeycombe8]

11. I'm a gun owner.

I think he's probably guilty. That's my personal opinion, though, based on some, but not all, of the fact. Not all the facts have been discovered yet.

I think the big indication of what was going on was that Zimmerman followed the teen and didn't "stand back" like police told him to. That tells me what his mindset was. Not to let the teen get away. My common sense also tells me that the teen probably did not attack the much larger man, esp if he saw that he was packing. And even if he had done that, would shooting the teen be justified in self defense against a much smaller and younger person? I think not.

But I want all the facts to come out.

Something seems to have been wrong with Zimmerman, from what we've all heard. And yet, he was allowed to continue to be captain of the neighborhood crime watch?

[guitar man]

30. Make it 5

I don't spend a lot of time in the gun forum anymore but I think this asshole need to fry for this.

[rustydog]

5. He is a coward who carried a gun to give him a senseof manly worth

He had no balls, and attacked a 17 year old kid. I lived in a town with horrendous gang violence and high murder rate, I had almost daily run-ins with some of these dangerous idiots and was threatened hundreds of times.

I have never been so pussified that I felt then eed to carry a gun walking around....

[moriah]

34. What about female concealed carriers?

I don't have my permit, though I've considered getting it... tho there's little point in having one unless you actively plan to carry, and while I'd like the option, I don't feel the need strongly enough to go through the process. A job I'd consider getting it for would be like the one my mom had, she worked at a suicide hotline on night weekends in the middle of the downtown of a city, and her car was stolen from her parking lot on her shift there.

Honestly, those who are looking at self-defense statutes should look at how it would have been had the people having the guns been reversed -- obviously, the person being followed wasn't a minor in this thought experiment:

If someone was following me without identifying themselves verbally as security or police through a parking lot at night when I was walking in a place I had every right to be, I'd likely wish I was carrying even if I wasn't. If I were caught by a person who was following me, I would consider that assault in the legal sense, since they were detaining me and threatening me with their behavior, enough to consider it to be force used against me that could be met with force under the law. If an altercation had gotten to the point I felt my physical well-being was in true jeopardy (and for me, therefore my life could be in danger -- I wouldn't do well in a physical fight), I would have felt justified to draw my firearm if I had it. Drawing a firearm in a fight earlier than that can be considered aggravated assault itself. If I was cornered or the person was very close to me, and they kept coming toward me, I probably would be scared enough for my life to shoot.

That's standing your ground *after retreating*, which would have been lawful even before the law changed. The victim in this case had a valid self-defense claim in my opinion, if it were being analyzed from that side. (Edit to add: which is one way it should be analyzed under the law in determining whether Zimmerman had a self-defense claim at all, if his victim could use one himself!)

--------

Given that you have used gender slurs against the man, even if they might be deserved... how *do* you feel about women who carry?

[COLGATE4]

35. Unless you have ever actually fired a weapon

at another human being you have no idea how you would actually react when confronted by your hypothetical assailant. As a good Deputy Sheriff friend once told me about pulling your CCW on a criminal "you'd be lucky if he didn't take it away from you and shove it...". In fact, having a CCW may well prompt you to keep yourself in a dangerous situation instead of taking advantage of any possibility of disengaging yourself from it.

[moriah]

36. There are some things I would rather die than have happen to me. My lines.

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)

So what I do know, is this:

1) If someone was stalking me across a dark parking lot, and they caught me and I couldn't get away, that might be enough force used against me for me to use pepper spray on them to try disable them enough to get away -- meeting force for force, as is what the law allows. That's force, not deadly force. Whether or not I would actually use pepper spray if I had it would depend on a lot, but (if) Zimmerman's act of following Trayvon the way he did does not have bearing on his "self-defense" claim, I'll eat my hat. If there was any pushing from Trayvon to try to get past his assailant to run away, which is what it sounded like might have happened... Had I the bodily strength to use that kind of force I would choose it over pepper spray, and I think either would have been justified under the law.

2) No matter if I'm carrying or not, a gun will never make its way from where it's stored to my hands unless I'm afraid for my life or my bodily integrity (or going to the range with it/cleaning it, etc, you get my drift... you don't just pull out a weapon for shits and giggles unless you're an idiot). That's the law. That doesn't mean I am saying I would always make the decision in every instance the law would allow to actually draw a weapon -- once the firearm is drawn almost all decisions will come from instinct -- but that's the level of danger is the line for legal use of deadly force. Was Zimmerman in that kind of danger? No, in my opinion, and if he was it was because of his own extremely poor decision to follow someone in a dark parking lot. Would Trayvon have been in that kind of danger? Obviously the situation escalated to the point he was... if anyone could claim self-defense, it was Trayvon, from the beginning.

3) Gender slurs imply negative things about women, and even if this man may deserve the insults he was given by this poster, there are women who do carry. Since the poster used gender slurs against Zimmerman and other men who carry concealed, I was curious to see if he had a double-standard for women. The majority of us are fairly low on less-lethal weaponry like muscles naturally.

4) A person may choose not to defend themselves, or they may choose to take the actions they feel are the most appropriate defense. I do not think anyone has the right to accost me on the street. I do not think anyone has the right to forcefully put their hands on me. I certainly don't think anyone has the right to tie me up, make me go anywhere with them, or injure, rape, or kill me. I believe I would have the right to do what was necessary to stop those threats. The things on that "certainly" list are ones where I would see my life as in danger, and I would see those instances as where deadly force might be an action I could choose to take. What I would do in a situation, I can't say for sure. I'm just saying that's my line. And I'm allowed to have that line.

Edit: must proofread carefully so I don't any words out.

[PavePusher]

40. The frequency of this:

"As a good Deputy Sheriff friend once told me about pulling your CCW on a criminal "you'd be lucky if he didn't take it away from you and shove it...". "

...is pretty damn low. Vanishingly rare, in fact.

[moriah]

44. I'll accept his point that it's a possible outcome.

That there are also ways -- training, which takes over instinctively if training is done right -- to lessen the possibility.

But since I will not draw a weapon unless my life is already in danger.... there is already a risk I might die. If, God forbid, I'm ever in that awful of a situation, I'd see the risk of a quick death from my weapon being turned against me as far better odds than what might happen if someone succeeded in binding or abducting me. (The attempt at either demonstrates that they intend to do things they couldn't do to a person otherwise, which is generally worse and very well likely could end in death anyway).

[Speck Tater]

6. There is no problem in allowing someone to carry a gun.

The problem is when they allow ANYONE to carry a gun.

Some people should not be trusted to carry guns. How do we figure out who can be trusted and who can't? I don't have a clue. But the real problem is that we need to allow responsible people to carry a gun yet prevent the irresponsible people from doing so. When we figure that one out we've solved the whole gun control problem.

[JHB]

8. I know, but that wasn't the question

The point is that every anti-regulatory position argues that a mechanism for guarding against and punishing irresponsible use already exists in the form of the basic laws of the legal system. Theoretically, every gun owner in Florida should want the book thrown at this guy. I'd like to know if that's the case, since it wasn't looking like any books would even be cracked until the case went national.

[Speck Tater]

23. I almost iagree with you.

It would be nice if every gun owner in Florida wanted the book thrown at him, but the reality is that there are a number (hopefully a small percentage) of gun owners who are NOT responsible, and who might do the same thing in the same circumstances, and who think what he did was O.K.

That's what I mean when I say that it's not O.K. to let just anyone carry a gun. There must be standards. Right now there are no standards. We need it to be the case that every gun owner is the type of person who would want the book thrown at him. In other words, a person shouldn't be a gun owner unless he is a responsible person. And there's the rub. There's really no way to know before it's too late.

I only know three people who own guns. Two are really great people who I trust to carry a gun and the third really creeps me out with his reckless attitude. Somehow, and I don't know how, that third guy shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

[GobBluth]

17. I won't go so far as to say he was looking to kill a black child

But he for sure targeted this child because Martin was black. He for sure thought he would be able to detain this kid until authorities got there, and then found himself on the losing end (justifiably!) of a fight. I will change my mind, but I think a fight did happen (and who can blame Martin! I would hope my kids would first try to lose their stalker, and then put up the biggest fight known to man should the stalker come too close. I know more info will come out, but from what I have read Martin did everything the way he should!).

At the very least this guy needs to be charged with manslaughter. He went looking for a fight, realized he was going to lose, and then pulled out his gun. He fucked up, he REALLY fucked up, but he is a danger to anyone he is around, and I hope the State is able to put him away for a significant amount of time. It does not matter to me if HE was racist. What matters to me is that police just took him at his word because a black child was dead. In their minds (at least to me) Zimmerman was thinking what THEY probably always think "Black kid up to no good".

Actually (sorry, 2nd glass of Merlot tonight, so I tend to ramble) he fucked up when he continued to stalk this child after being told not to. After that he became a predator, and then a murderer.

Martin's family....ugh....what they must be going through. First your child is dead, then it seems like no one gives a shit, now it's in the national media and all the bigots are coming out.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Responsible gun owner here.

From everything I've read about this case, it sure does seem like* Zimmerman fucked up massively and, for an innocent kid, fatally. He behaved irresponsibly and recklessly in several ways. The 911 call seems to indicate a person in a high emotional state (mostly anger), and everything I've ever been taught about responsible fireamrs use says you do not mix guns with impaired reason, whether due to anger, alcohol, or what-have-you. He essentially stalked and pursued Treyvon Martin on the sole basis that Zimmerman thought he "looked suspicious" (translate: looked black), despite being advised by the 911 operator not to do so. Basically, he initiated the conflict, and therefore had no ethical justification for using deadly force.

I agree: the argument (which I myself make) that existing laws and regulations are sufficient depends on those laws being properly enforced. That must happen here. If Zimmerman is indeed guilty of what everything we've learned so far indicates he's guilty of, then justice must be served. I think a strong case can be made for murder in the first degree...and a life sentence.

*with the usual caveat that I'm a remote observer not privy to all the facts...

[gvstn]

19. Here is a forum

Definitely not liberal but in this case the consensus is that he was a cop wannabe that broke the basic rules or responsible gun use.

http://www.floridashootersnetwork.com/trayvon-martin-shooting-near-orlando-t100337.html

[caseymoz]

21. Never. I'll tell you what I've told everyone.

You watch, Zimmerman is going to walk. And he's going to beat the rap not because of racism, but specifically because of SYG.

Have you wondered why he's not arrested yet? It's because authorities can't figure out how to make any manslaughter or murder charges stick. Hell, they can't even figure out how they can arrest the guy on anything but trespass or assault charges, maybe. And, of course, he'll make bail voiding that maneuver.

Legislators and gun advocates were warned by prosecutors and police chiefs that the law would cause things like this.

SYG is an example of fixing what wasn't broke.

[Pacafishmate]

22. Actually when people are prosecuted for justified self defense, something's broken.

[caseymoz]

33. Really? Have you forgotten that nothing's perfect?

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 05:15 AM - Edit history (3)

If somebody commits a homicide and it looks like it might not have been in self-defense or justifiable, that is, it's suggestive but not clear cut, then it has to be investigated and probably prosecuted. Otherwise, how would the court, or anyone, determine if the the homicide was justifiable? Either that, or murder isn't always important enough for authorities to look into.

And you're saying prosecution is an injustice? It becomes an injustice when you're innocent but get convicted anyway. Otherwise, if you proceed from the notion that prosecution itself is an injustice, the whole system of jurisprudence becomes unworkable, and you have to start from scratch, which will take an awful long time to redesign and rebuild. (That's not to say that there aren't wrongful, harassing prosecutions. Different subject.)

You have to consider prosecution an unfortunate, terrible ordeal, but not an injustice until it reaches an unjust outcome.

If you try to perfect our system to keep justifiable homicides from even being prosecuted, because less than perfect is broken, you have to do things like change the definition of "justifiable" to something different than what has been understood in Common Law for centuries, that's SYG.

The unintended consequence of this is you make homicide, in general, less of an earth-shaking matter than it's always been. That is, the life of the person is not important enough to be your last resort. Well, if it's not your last resort, which resort is it? It isn't easy for police to recognize if a homicide is justifiable unless it's the last resort.

Moreover, if homicide of any sort isn't offensive enough to a person that they wouldn't attempt to run from it first, how ethical might they be otherwise? People don't realize the implications that they're supporting with this law. They think they could have it without its consequences.

And those consequences are why Zimmerman was allowed to walk away from the scene and will be now be allowed to get away scot-free. Last I checked, gun-righters didn't like coddling criminals. Man, they'll enjoy cuddling Zimmerman.

[bluedigger]

26. My (non-Floridian)gun owner thoughts.

I think that this has been a travesty of justice, and that I am amazed at the restraint being shown in Florida right now, given the fact that George Zimmerman isn't in custody. Or the oppression...

I haven't followed all the discussion, but to attack one group for wanting to know all the facts, while applauding those who impulsively decided what the facts were, seems contrary to DU's general advocacy of fact-based decision making.

As for the attacks on Stand Your Ground laws, I think it is wrong to attack Zimmerman's defense on the grounds of the law's illegitimacy. He may have believed he had the law on his side. In any case, it is like attacking insanity defenses. Guilty people use them all the time, and sometimes they get away with it. People rarely attack the legitimacy of the defense itself, though. SYG laws are an attempt to codify basic human behavior, i.e. fight or flee. I think this is something that will have to be worked out over a lengthy period of time. This case, when it is inevitably brought, will go a long way on establishing precedent in law, clarifying the actual "rules of engagement" in modern society, and how law enforcement investigates such claims.

[guitar man]

27. It should have already happened

This asshole should have been in jail the night of the shooting and should still be there awaiting trial. "Stand Your Ground" law or no, you can't appoint yourself a vigilante and hunt someone down and kill them. Period.

I am a strong supporter of 2A and self defense rights....I'm probably a little biased because 25 years ago I was shot by an armed criminal while I was unarmed. Had I been armed that night things would have turned out differently, so yeah, I'm all for law abiding citizens being able to arm and defend themselves.

But what Zimmerman has done here has nothing to do with legal self defense, he's a murderer and should be locked up. The damn Sanford PD needs to be locked up with him....all of them.

[Devil_Fish]

28. I am not currently a gun owner, but I have had guns in the past.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Sometimes with guns; knives; bats; cars; pretty much you name it, and some one has killed some one with it.

I supose that a gun advocate would say that if only Treyvon had had a gun, but if he did then that may have been all the justification that the police would need to say "Yup it was self defence." or to put Treyvon in jail if he had been the quicker draw.

Is this seriously what this country is comming to??? We all have to have guns to protect our selves from people with guns????

This whole thing is fucked up on so meny levels.

[slackmaster]

37. I think Zimmerman used poor judgement, got himself into a needless confrontation, and panicked

Or something like that.

[PavePusher]

38. What is happening is inept/corrupt local police and politicians. n/t

[raouldukelives]

39. I think he watched too much Fox and Jack Bauer

He probably felt like some kind of uberman charged with the sacred task of making sure his neighborhood was free from evil conspirators and criminals.
Then he actually put a live round in a living person and instead of them going "Ya got me! I'll lay here quietly now." The living thing started shrieking and crying at the sudden image of impending death before it. He then decided people might not understand his reasoning for putting a bullet into a child and coupled with the realization that if the victim were able to speak his side of the story it would really look bad on his part he decided to finish the job.
Either that or he was in dreadful fear of his life and the first bullet only enraged his assailant.

[spin]

45. I have a Florida Concealed Weapons permit and I carry ...

It is my understanding that the Florida Stand Your Ground law allows me to use force including lethal force in self defense when I am attacked by an individual who I seriously believe intends to severely injure or kill me and I reasonably believe has the capacity to do so. This would include an individual armed with a knife, club or gun or one that was much larger and in much better physical condition than I.

Of course if I start an altercation and refuse to break it off before the situation turns violent, I can't claim self defense.

Threatening language from another individual is no reason for me to fear that I will be attacked and would be a reason for me to walk away from the incident even if it makes me look like a coward.

Under Florida law, I can't pull my weapon and use it as leverage in an argument. That can and will land me in jail for three years and would cause an individual that I was arguing with to have good reason to fear for his life and use force against me for his own self defense.

The law may be rewritten to better define when an individual can use legitimate self defense and suspect it will be. Even so in the Trayvon Martin shooting incident, the "neighborhood watch volunteer", George Zimmerman did not follow the advise of a dispatch operator and pursued Martin. He was told that the police were responding and not to follow Martin. I believe that he lost any claim to self defense when he continued to pursue and left his vehicle to confront Martin.

In my opinion he should have been arrested for his actions and should have to explain the reason for his action to a jury.

[seabeyond]

52. my hubby is a big time gun person. i am anti gun. he is very much into responsibility and supports

laws. he is anti nra and had to join again for the gun club he is in. with all the calls, he has given me permission to address the calls, since they wont leave him alone.

he has a concealed permit

he is also beyond outraged with what happened.