Zimmerman Not Guilty - DPChallenge Forums

07/14/2013 11:26:10 PM · #76

Originally posted by yanko:

No I didn't say that. You're comparing apples to oranges. The kid was minding his own business and doing it in a public space he had ever right to be. Thats nothing at all like little old ladies getting beaten up. Surely you can see the difference.

Minding his own business?

Sure, up until he actually attacked someone.

And if Zimmerman had shot him while he really was minding his own business, then I'm sure Zimmerman would have rightly been convicted of first degree murder.

07/14/2013 11:30:16 PM · #77

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

'Cuz he profiled him as a suspicious type, and 'cuz he lives for moments like that.

You know Zimmerman lived for moments like this? How?

Even if that's true, what is criminal, or even wrong, with following someone in your neighborhood?

...

What if someone just 'thinks' you're following them? Since there's really no way to tell, it would seem that you're saying Martin was in the right for attacking Zimmerman, but that doesn't take into account the fact that there's no solid way to discern if someone following you is either a threat, or armed (a fact Martin couldn't have known until after he attacked Zimmerman, and had he known it, almost certainly wouldn't have attacked him)..

No sir. I disagree entirely, you cannot meet a suspected threat with force, it's not legally allowed - you can however, according to the law, meet an immediate threat to your life with deadly force, and brother, someone slamming your head into concrete is absolutely an immediate threat to your life.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 06:03:24.

07/14/2013 11:45:59 PM · #78

Originally posted by blindjustice:

After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I can only think that Zimmerman was following Martin because he thought the young man's behavior was suspicious, walking between houses, avoiding the streets, in the rain, wearing a hoodie and trying to actively avoid Zimmerman's surveillance. EXACTLY what a burglar would be doing, sadly, also exactly what a kid talking on his phone while milling around would be doing.

I too would have found that suspicious, no matter WHAT color Martin was.

I really do have to please ask you to stop referring to this young man as a kid - it's just not at all accurate, and to do so really clouds the issue. At 17 I was very happily employed as an enforcer for some very unsavory people, I assure you, considering me a harmless 'kid' at that point would have been a very unfortunate mistake - I could put 300+ lbs off my chest, push over 1000lbs with my legs on the leg press, and had a very bad attitude, helped along with massive amounts of testosterone..

Now to be fair to Martin, he really was just a silly kid, and wasn't really anywhere near the threat I was at that age - I don't think he was a particularly rotten egg, or anything of that sort. He just made a really tragic mistake and attacked someone who was prepared to face an assault. Martin didn't expect Zimmerman to be armed, and almost certainly wouldn't really have killed Zimmerman (doesn't seem like Martin was the type really), but having said that, if it's your head being banged into the concrete, that really does tend to cloud your ability to make a well reasoned judgement as to just how committed the guy beating your ass is.

Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM A

07/14/2013 11:50:15 PM · #79

Originally posted by yanko:

He WAS minding his own business while Zimmerman was profiling him for the operator, and providing information on his activities, appearance, and location.

He WAS NOT minding his own business when Zimmerman perforated him..

dmadden

Canon EOS-40D

07/15/2013 12:45:33 AM · #80

Life in America lol

Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM A

07/15/2013 01:01:31 AM · #81

Originally posted by dmadden:

Life in America lol

Oh heck, it's not just America.

But, there was a major difference in demeanor between the two in that video. The first guy didn't sound nervous, the second one did. People pick up on that far more readily than the words themselves. But I can't totally argue that race didn't play a part in that experiment...

And the fact that a man will do something stupid for a pretty girl isn't exactly news. ;)

..

With that being said, did race really matter, do you think race played a major role in this? If so, how so?

I can see several ways race may have played a role

1. Zimmerman wouldn't have followed a white person (very possible, but I do think anyone acting suspicious like that may well have attracted his attention)
2. A white person wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman (complete crap)
3. Zimmerman wouldn't have shot a white person who was attacking him (complete crap)
4. A black man in Zimmerman's position would have been convicted (sadly very possible, but this doesn't make Zimmerman guilty)
5. A black man wouldn't have shot Trayvon if he was being attacked (also complete crap)
6. A black man wouldn't have followed Trayvon (complete crap)

..

I think that pretty well goes over it, yes?

I think there are some sad things about the fact that #'s 1 and 4 are possible or even probable, but neither really changes anything about this case.

If I've missed one, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

ETA: I do realize I only used black/white in the above, but that's the 'jist' of the issue, despite the fact Zimmerman wasn't even quite white.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 01:07:08.

dmadden

Canon EOS-40D

07/15/2013 01:06:23 AM · #82

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dmadden:
Life in America lol

Oh heck, it's not just America.

But, there was a major difference in demeanor between the two in that video. The first guy didn't sound nervous, the second one did.

And the fact that a man will do something stupid for a pretty girl isn't exactly news. ;)

..

With that being said, did race really matter, do you think race played a major role in this? If so, how so?

I can see several ways race may have played a role

1. Zimmerman wouldn't have followed a white person (very possible, but I do think anyone acting suspicious like that may well have attracted his attention)
2. A white person wouldn't have attacked Zimmerman (complete crap)
3. Zimmerman wouldn't have shot a white person who was attacking him (complete crap)
4. A black man in Zimmerman's position would have been convicted (sadly very possible, but this doesn't make Zimmerman guilty)
5. A black man wouldn't have shot Trayvon if he was being attacked (also complete crap)
6. A black man wouldn't have followed Trayvon (complete crap)

..

I think that pretty well goes over it, yes?

I think there are some sad things about the fact that #'s 1 and 4 are possible or even probable, but neither really changes anything about this case.

If I've missed one, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

My only thought on your thoughts = :)

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/15/2013 01:11:32 AM · #83

Originally posted by dmadden:

My only thought on your thoughts = :)

Well, it's not exactly productive and enlightening conversation, but I am glad to have pleased or amused you I suppose.

ETA: This place is, I'm sure you've noticed, a little bit on the light side in the forums usually. It's a shame that you aren't willing to share your thoughts and discuss it - I feel you would have enriched the conversation a great deal with your perspective on the matter.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 01:13:59.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/15/2013 01:15:00 AM · #84

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

No I didn't say that. You're comparing apples to oranges. The kid was minding his own business and doing it in a public space he had ever right to be. Thats nothing at all like little old ladies getting beaten up. Surely you can see the difference.

Minding his own business?

Sure, up until he actually attacked someone.

So you're absolutely certain he wasnt trying to defend himself? It's unclear to me how Zimmerman was able to shoot Martin straight in the chest if he was lying on his back getting hit in the face while Martin sat on top of him, unless he had already drawn the gun prior and there was a struggle afterwards. Had he shot him in the leg or the bullet traveled upward into Martin's chest cavity as opposed to a direct entrance into the chest, it would make Zimmerman's story more plausible, IMO. Instead we are supposed to believe that Zimmerman was getting punched, having his head hit repeatedly against concrete and while pinned down he pulled a gun out of his pocket and somehow pointed it straight at his heart. He can't overpower a smaller person to prevent getting pinned down but was able to somehow maneuver the gun to that position? Did Martin stop to blow his nose? Now maybe there was an opening and he took advantage of it. It's a shame he shot to kill instead of to maim. As a result we only get one side of the story and that's a damn shame.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 01:16:30.

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

07/15/2013 01:39:13 AM · #85

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

No I didn't say that. You're comparing apples to oranges. The kid was minding his own business and doing it in a public space he had ever right to be. Thats nothing at all like little old ladies getting beaten up. Surely you can see the difference.

Minding his own business?

Sure, up until he actually attacked someone.

So you're absolutely certain he wasnt trying to defend himself? It's unclear to me how Zimmerman was able to shoot Martin straight in the chest if he was lying on his back getting hit in the face while Martin sat on top of him, unless he had already drawn the gun prior and there was a struggle afterwards. Had he shot him in the leg or the bullet traveled upward into Martin's chest cavity as opposed to a direct entrance into the chest, it would make Zimmerman's story more plausible, IMO. Instead we are supposed to believe that Zimmerman was getting punched, having his head hit repeatedly against concrete and while pinned down he pulled a gun out of his pocket and somehow pointed it straight at his heart. He can't overpower a smaller person to prevent getting pinned down but was able to somehow maneuver the gun to that position? Did Martin stop to blow his nose? Now maybe there was an opening and he took advantage of it. It's a shame he shot to kill instead of to maim. As a result we only get one side of the story and that's a damn shame.

Smaller person?

Martin was bigger than Zimmerman? A really good example of just how much of the crap you've bought into.

Martin was 5'11" tall, and weighed 158lbs, lean and muscular, 17 and athletic. Zimmerman was 5'8 and weighed 194lbs, he wasn't athletic either, dumpy would be a more appropriate term.

I'd say that at best he was heavier, but that's not all that helpful in an altercation, especially once you're on the bottom, on the ground. Being young and in shape is a much bigger advantage.

And even if Martin was much smaller, that in no way precludes him from being able to fight well.

Now, on to your fallacy - shoot to maim? That's a HORRIBLE idea. In fact, if you tell a jury that you were shooting to maim, not kill, then it will, in fact, work against you, since that is likely to be argued as an indication that you were not, in fact, in fear of your life.

In addition to that, I don't think Zimmerman really aimed and fired with deliberation - your suppositions here really do reveal that you've not engaged in too much physical combat. Only a REAL pro would be cool enough to act decisively under those circumstances, anyone who doesn't fight really often would be way too freaked out to do anything but fire quite randomly. Fights are super dynamic, and there's no trouble in believing Zimmerman would have been able to draw in that situation.

Assuming it's true that Martin did go for the gun, as Zimmerman stated, that would require that he opened up access to the weapon in order to attempt to grab it, since by definition he would not have been able to grab it unless it was in a position to be grabbed.

Go take another look at the evidence, I am pretty certain he wasn't trying to defend himself, for various reasons.

1. He doubled back, and confronted Zimmerman, that's aggressive behavior
2. Zimmerman's injuries: injuries to the face, nose, and back of head, consistent with being beaten as described.
3. Martin's injuries: injuries to the knuckles and a single fatal gunshot wound.
4. The fight lasted for 40 seconds, one can assume that there was a point somewhere in there that the gun was accessible
5. Powder tattooing on Martin's chest/clothing indicated that the weapon was discharged at a distance consistent with Zimmerman's account.

..

There is no reason, of which I am aware, to really suspect that Zimmerman is deceiving anyone. The jury certainly didn't think so, and neither did the cops or the prosecutor until the news media made a circus of this by posting up some very curious pictures, with some very incautiously worded articles. Then they found a 'Special Prosecutor' and had their circus.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 02:51:28.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

07/15/2013 02:14:15 AM · #86

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by yanko:
. Zimmerman's personal responsibility started and ended with the 911 call.

So essentially, you think we should simply let the police protect us and do nothing to help our neighbors or ourselves.

If you saw a group of men beating an old woman on the ground, you'd feel you had done everything you should just by calling 911?

Just remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

No I didn't say that. You're comparing apples to oranges. The kid was minding his own business and doing it in a public space he had ever right to be. Thats nothing at all like little old ladies getting beaten up. Surely you can see the difference.

You said it.

The kid doubled back to confront Zimmerman. That's a far cry from minding his own business. Minding his own business would have been just going back to his dad's place and calling the cops to say "Some guy is following me."

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

07/15/2013 02:58:14 AM · #87

Originally posted by Cory:

Even if that's true, what is criminal, or even wrong, with following someone in your neighborhood?

That's the point I was bringing up earlier. I in fact don't think it's "right" to have someone follow me in my own neighborhood. Or any other neighborhood for that matter.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

07/15/2013 03:09:52 AM · #88

Throwing my two cents worth in here...

Originally posted by Spork99:

The kid doubled back to confront Zimmerman. That's a far cry from minding his own business. Minding his own business would have been just going back to his dad's place and calling the cops to say "Some guy is following me."

Totally agreed.

I also agree with 95% of Cory's points (and even *gasp* Spork's) except...

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here.

Right, totally true.

Wrong. Zimmerman could very likely have been killed.

This guy laid out the facts very well (before he goes on about the plight of black children in the last 12 min or so). He put it out before the verdict. There are quite a few things in there that apparently came out in the trial that I (and most) are unaware of. Primarily, the evidence put forth in the trial paints a very different picture of TM than the media had been putting out and than what many in this discussion seem to cling to. The evidence doesn't prove anything about how TM acted that night, but it gives you much more basis for filling in the blanks or figuring out his motives than the LACK of evidence (or even contrary-to-the-evidence) assumptions you have for making GZ into a racist, gun-crazy, vigilante, cop wannabe looking for excitement.

Then he put out a follow up after the verdict where he addresses comments, criticisms and questions about his first video.

Major key point for me that really settles this is: ALL of the EVIDENCE and most of the witness testimony corroborates GZ's account.
And GZ's account (and the evidence to support it) states that he stopped following TM when asked, but he went to go check the street sign and that's when TM confronted HIM and TM not only threw the first punch, but beat GZ continually. The gun did not even appear to TM until GZ was trying to shimmy onto the grass to stop his head from being pounded into the cement and his jacket rose up and TM saw the gun and told GZ he was going to kill him. That was the first time GZ went for the gun. He could have reached for it (justifiably) after the punch in the face.

Obviously the jury wholeheartedly agreed with GZ's account as well and they had the benefit of hearing all of the evidence.

The issue of race was manufactured by the media from the git go and they fanned the flames the whole time. I also believe that if Trayvon was white or hispanic, we would not even be discussing this and many of the bleeding hearts or "Justice for Trayvon" crowd would be silent or cheering for GZ.

Anyway, that's where I'm at on the issue, FWIW.

07/15/2013 03:17:53 AM · #89

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Cory:

Even if that's true, what is criminal, or even wrong, with following someone in your neighborhood?

That's the point I was bringing up earlier. I in fact don't think it's "right" to have someone follow me in my own neighborhood. Or any other neighborhood for that matter.

Well, that's not really a relevant question.. The important question is, does it give you the right to initiate an attack, ostensibly to defend yourself from the threat?

I appreciate that you wouldn't like it, and that would absolutely justify you calling the police, or even confronting the person, and possibly getting a restraining order. There's nothing wrong with any of those actions.

If, however, you choose to punch, pepper spray, threaten them, hit them with your car, or otherwise engage in an activity that is actually unlawful, then you have crossed a 'red line' as far as the law is concerned. The lawful response is dictated by the nature of the transgression - a verbal assault / threats are clearly sufficient (if recorded) to prove a criminal case for assault, pepper spray or punching would be cause for battery charges, and potentially open up the option of violence as a response. Hitting them with your car would almost certainly earn you an attempted murder charge, or worse.

Surely though, I think I know you well enough that I can assume that you weren't trying to advocate attacking someone who was following you, right?

You're simply saying that it would make you uncomfortable, so you think it's wrong.

Let's spin this for a second - imagine that your neighborhood had a series of home invasions, where the people in the home were robbed, and one person was beaten or raped (totally hypothetical, not a reference to the Martin situation). Now, would you appreciate some 'creepy ass cracker' who would volunteer to watch suspicious people in your neighborhood, in the hopes that maybe the person guilty of those crimes could be either caught, or at least discouraged?

Does anything change when you view it from the perspective of the homeowners being robbed? It's not like Zimmerman was just a lone nutcase - he really was the leader of the neighborhood watch organization, and there was a previous incident Zimmerman was praised for where the neighborhood watch did catch a burglar in the act (a young black man if it matters at all) who was indeed arrested and charged with burglaries in the neighborhood. Basically a free security guard, and you're criticizing him for that why?

Or are you just saying that you wouldn't like it if you were being followed, but do recognize that this wasn't just a random case of one guy following another for absolutely no reason at all?

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 03:21:58.

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

07/15/2013 03:19:38 AM · #90

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I also agree with 95% of Cory's points (and even *gasp* Spork's) except...
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:
Umm, nobody would have died or been beaten in the head had Zimmerman been one of those little scared Americans. You're really not making a whole of sense here.

Right, totally true.

Wrong. Zimmerman could very likely have been killed.

Nah, we agree 100% I suspect.

I read him to mean that if Zimmerman had not even attempted to follow Martin, but had simply called, and left without trying to provide more information, then Martin could never have attacked him.

Which is, by definition, true.

...

I agree with everything you said before and after that though. :)

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

07/15/2013 03:22:30 AM · #91

Originally posted by dmadden:

Life in America lol

Beyond all the blah blah blah, it's as simple as that.

07/15/2013 03:35:12 AM · #92

Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by dmadden:
Life in America lol

Beyond all the blah blah blah, it's as simple as that.

It's a shame that you two are so vague, as it causes me to wonder if I've understood your position, and makes me hesitate to even respond to such a post. Clearly you have a position on the issue, or you wouldn't bother posting, but you seem to be unwilling to be clear on your position, which is really quite unfortunate, since it leaves me to simply answer to what I think you are implying.

If you are indeed saying what I suspect you may be saying, effectively that Trayvon was killed simply because he was black, then you would guilty of having no eye for the details, and no ear for the facts. I'd never claim that race has no effect on things, but a claim that race was somehow crucial in this matter would simply be beyond egregiously ignorant.

If that's not what you're saying, then I've failed to fully grasp your point, and would love clarification on your positions. However, a more verbose response would be most appreciated, as I do not think your current approach is adding anything of much real substance or value to the conversation.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 03:42:50.

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

07/15/2013 03:51:10 AM · #93

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

This guy laid out the facts very well

Then he put out a follow up after the verdict where he addresses comments, criticisms and questions about his first video.

Major key point for me that really settles this is: ALL of the EVIDENCE and most of the witness testimony corroborates GZ's account.

I don't want this to get buried. Art posted a great post, and it NEEDS to be watched if you think Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

Please, spend the time, they're not a short videos, but the guy really does a fine job of laying it all out.

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

07/15/2013 03:51:10 AM · #94

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by dmadden:
Life in America lol

Beyond all the blah blah blah, it's as simple as that.

It's a shame that you two are so vague as it causes me to wonder if I've understood your position, and makes me hesitate to even respond to such a post. Clearly you have a position on the issue, or you wouldn't bother posting, but you seem to be unwilling to be clear on your position, which is really quite unfortunate, since it leaves me to simply answer to what I think you are implying.

If you are indeed saying what I suspect you may be saying, effectively that Trayvon was killed simply because he was black, then you would guilty of having no eye for the details, and no ear for the facts. I'd never claim that race has no effect on things, but a claim that race was somehow crucial in this matter would simply be beyond egregiously ignorant.

If that's not what you're saying, then I've failed to fully grasp your point, and would love clarification on your positions. However, a more verbose response would be most appreciated, as I do not think your current approach is adding anything of much real substance or value to the conversation.

As this amusing clip shows, if he wasn't black there would have been little chance of him being followed, the situation simply wouldn't have happened, I hold no other judgment than that.
The extreme polarities of ones mind are always the driving force behind such human stupidness.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 03:51:57.

07/15/2013 03:54:53 AM · #95

Originally posted by jagar:

At this amusing clip shows, if he wasn't black there would have been little chance of him being followed, the situation simply wouldn't have happened, I hold no other judgment than that.
The extreme polarities of ones mind are always the driving force behind such human stupidness.

Fair enough.

But do you think it's reasonably fair to say that the dozen or so previous robberies that were consistently committed by black men might have had a little something to do with his suspicion? Maybe even justifying it to some degree when he saw an unfamiliar young black man acting in an unusual way and clearly trying to avoid him? That would, after all, seem to perfectly fit the pattern one would be conditioned to expect in Zimmerman's case.

Of course it's still a non issue, since Zimmerman wasn't on trial for following him, and I think we can all agree that it was indeed perfectly lawful for Zimmerman to follow Martin in the manner that he did.

Watch the videos that Art posted, and get back to me on this. Really. I want to see if your opinion changes.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 03:58:31.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/15/2013 03:56:32 AM · #96

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

This guy laid out the facts very well

Then he put out a follow up after the verdict where he addresses comments, criticisms and questions about his first video.

Major key point for me that really settles this is: ALL of the EVIDENCE and most of the witness testimony corroborates GZ's account.

I don't want this to get buried. Art posted a great post, and it NEEDS to be watched if you think Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

Please, spend the time, they're not a short videos, but the guy really does a fine job of laying it all out.

With this caveat: he's white, so that invalidates everything he says and also exposes him as a racist. ;-)

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/15/2013 07:37:24 AM · #97

Originally posted by jagar:

GZ profiled TM racially? maybe, the FBI sure didn't find any basis that race was a motivating factor in the shooting, however race does play a part in profiling as does age, gender, attire, location. I keep hearing if TM was white he would not have been followed, well what if he was a she, or old, or dressed in a business suit, change those variables as well and you will have a different outcome.

my big issue with this whole case is that we even know anything about it, its a Florida murder case and should have been stayed as such, there is no reason this case should have become high profile.

The media and government fabricated this racial issue for some reason, my guess its going to be a grab at guns again. in order to politicize an issue you need to emotionalize it and that is what was done here playing the race card.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 07:39:42.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

07/15/2013 09:46:39 AM · #98

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Cory:

Even if that's true, what is criminal, or even wrong, with following someone in your neighborhood?

That's the point I was bringing up earlier. I in fact don't think it's "right" to have someone follow me in my own neighborhood. Or any other neighborhood for that matter.

Well, that's not really a relevant question.. The important question is, does it give you the right to initiate an attack, ostensibly to defend yourself from the threat?

I appreciate that you wouldn't like it, and that would absolutely justify you calling the police, or even confronting the person, and possibly getting a restraining order. There's nothing wrong with any of those actions.

If, however, you choose to punch, pepper spray, threaten them, hit them with your car, or otherwise engage in an activity that is actually unlawful, then you have crossed a 'red line' as far as the law is concerned. The lawful response is dictated by the nature of the transgression - a verbal assault / threats are clearly sufficient (if recorded) to prove a criminal case for assault, pepper spray or punching would be cause for battery charges, and potentially open up the option of violence as a response. Hitting them with your car would almost certainly earn you an attempted murder charge, or worse.

Surely though, I think I know you well enough that I can assume that you weren't trying to advocate attacking someone who was following you, right?

You're simply saying that it would make you uncomfortable, so you think it's wrong.

Let's spin this for a second - imagine that your neighborhood had a series of home invasions, where the people in the home were robbed, and one person was beaten or raped (totally hypothetical, not a reference to the Martin situation). Now, would you appreciate some 'creepy ass cracker' who would volunteer to watch suspicious people in your neighborhood, in the hopes that maybe the person guilty of those crimes could be either caught, or at least discouraged?

Does anything change when you view it from the perspective of the homeowners being robbed? It's not like Zimmerman was just a lone nutcase - he really was the leader of the neighborhood watch organization, and there was a previous incident Zimmerman was praised for where the neighborhood watch did catch a burglar in the act (a young black man if it matters at all) who was indeed arrested and charged with burglaries in the neighborhood. Basically a free security guard, and you're criticizing him for that why?

Or are you just saying that you wouldn't like it if you were being followed, but do recognize that this wasn't just a random case of one guy following another for absolutely no reason at all?

If I think I am being threatened by someone following me (ie I am a woman, rape is a threat) do I not have the right to turn around and confront that person, and pepper spray them if I perceive a threat? And no, my view is not changed if my neighborhood has had a lot of robberies. We DO have robberies in my "hood" - a whole series of them lately - I still don't want someone following me. Of course, I'm old, small, female and white, so if someone IS following me, I can only assume it is for reasons of ill intent.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D