Help George Zimmerman. Send Money!

JWGriebel said:

Despite the replies to my comments, I never said I agree with Zimmerman. In fact, several of his claims don't hold up to facts that have been proved, such as when he claimed he didn't know how old the kid was. I believe the "running" claim was another of the same kind. According to the girlfriend, who said she was on the phone until the first and second blows or pushes were dealt, by which side I'm not sure and neither is anyone, Martin refused to run and, after doing so, the conflict broke out in whatever way it did. The reason I believe this is because, as the map thingy pointed out (not sure I believe the exact way it was planned out) there is a twenty minute window after Zimmerman's call. If Martin had run, as Zimmerman claimed, he would have been long gone--and Zimmerman chasing after Martin, as has been claimed, is laughable; he's an overweight, out of shape man.

...

Click to expand...

No, it was not anywhere near a twenty minute window from the sources I've read. I'm going to have to ask for a good link on that one.

Seraph said:

You're very wrong if you think any of the calls, Trayvon's included, were merited. None resulted in arrests. Phoning the cops is only right when there's a good reason to phone them. The guy was paranoid, looking for any excuse, grasping at straws, a trigger happy vigilante. There's an old lady walking down the street outside my window right now. Personally, I think she's sketchy. By yours and Zimmerman's logic I should phone the cops right now.

Click to expand...

Now we're getting into the specifics of this particular case. I was speaking more in general.

backslashbaby said:

No, it was not anywhere near a twenty minute window from the sources I've read. I'm going to have to ask for a good link on that one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no credible source I've seen has claimed a twenty-minute window. Probably because it's easily proven incorrect, just by looking at the documented times. This source has a timeline at the top of the page that states Zimmerman's call began at 7:09 (and has Zimmerman getting out of his truck at 7:11:43). Police found Trayvon Martin dead at the scene at 7:17 pm.

thebloodfiend said:

It's the Just World Fallacy. Nancy was raped because she was a hooker; because she wore a short skirt; because she didn't yell no. Not because, you know, a rapist just wanted to rape a woman. By placing the blame on Nancy, it becomes easier to imagine that it won't happen to you, because you'll be "smarter". You won't walk in the dark alone, or wear seductive clothes, or lie limply on the ground. Because she did, she was dumb, and therefor, she deserved it. Or she was asking for it. Either or.

In a way, that falls onto blaming Martin, too. After all, if he was just a pot smoking thug (you didn't inhale in college, remember ) there's no way this could happen to your children. Martin was shot, therefor, he did something wrong. I mean, who accidentally shoots innocent teenagers? If a guy like that exists, you have to worry about your kids, too.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that this is the essence of victim-blaming.

But I think there's another element in this story, which is vigilante-glorification, as Richard alluded to earlier. And that's what has me so taken aback - the lionization of George Zimmerman, an unlikely hero if ever there was one.

Lyv said:

Since there are so many, please provide a link. I would love to see what you consider "slanted toward slandering Zimmerman." Especially what you consider "slander," given demonstrated your interest in using the legal definitions of words. Bear in mind, factually reporting on Zimmerman's past legal issues isn't slandering him. It's doing exactly what the articles I linked to did--reporting facts.

But, please, show me the slander!

Click to expand...

JWGriebel: I'd also like to see this, because as I've understood your posts, you have condemned what you call slander against Zimmerman while repeating slanders against Martin. By comparison, whatever comments in the media you consider slanderous against Zimmerman must be some humdingers, if they're worse than what you have presented as reasonable concerns about Martin, and I'll be surprised if I've missed them.

JWGriebel said:

Actually, since slander is oral in legal terms (as you want it used--although in layman's terms it can refer to defamation in any form), I'll keep to bias. But, I'll post some of the articles up this afternoon when I have time to go through my history, seeing as there are dozens more each day.

Click to expand...

The word for slander in written, published form is "libel," not "bias." FYI.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Not disagreeing on the matter of Batman's morality which was always one of the best aspects of the character (along with his mind-boggling omni-competence).

That's kind of why I chose Batman as the exemplar of the idea that's being conflated. As a vigilante hero he's probably the most strongly iconic. If I were being more technically exact I'd have cited the Shadow or the Death Wish movies, but they don't have the cultural reverberation of Batman these days.

Click to expand...

While I have a feeling the George Zimmermans of the world do say and think the phrase "Dark Knight" a lot, I suspect that when they lie in bed at night or drive around alone in their cars on daily errands, they imagine the Punisher more. That idealized vigilante character had a lot more rage than Batman. I think the G.Z.'s of the world tend to have a lot of rage, too.

Oddly (?), when I think of people like that, the fictional character I imagine providing their internal monologue is Travis Bickle.

Ari Meermans said:

Trayvon Martin's "prior bad acts" (however egregious someone might consider them) have NO bearing on this case, imo. In this instance he was walking home from the store and minding his own damned business. He wasn't fleeing a crime. He wasn't participating in a crime. He was simply walking down the street. He was followed and approached by a strange man. It wouldn't have taken long for him to realize this encounter was potentially dangerous. If he'd run and was chased, that would only have heightened the danger in his mind. It would mine. But, whether he ran or not, no scenario for the events of that night that I can think of--other than Zimmerman staying in his vehicle AS HE WAS TOLD TO DO--has the potential to end well.

George Zimmerman didn't know Trayvon and, sure as hell, didn't know his history. His history, on the other hand, shows a pattern of bad judgment in reliance on the use of force. This is a man who should never have been given any sort of authority.

Again, the aforegoing is strictly my opinion.

Click to expand...

Just one little quibble: Zimmerman was never given any sort of authority. He apparently took it upon himself to claim the mantle of Neighborhood Watch Captain. No national or regional association of watch groups, which train and educate neighborhood watches, says that he had ever officially organized a watch in his neighborhood.

JWGriebel said:

Since I can answer both with the same words, I'll just do so. It isn't whether or not Martin's past is a green light for what happened (said it so many times I'm tired of having to say it--never said he deserved to die, but that seems to by the popular response or counter-argument), it is that his personal life, which his family has not given much insight into and which, from what little has been gathered, has been much different than they have claimed, can help figure out if Martin did or did not provoke. Yes, personalities play a big role in this case, because knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents can show if he was randomly shot or if he was the aggressor and the victim of chance--that the man he attacked for whatever reason happened to be armed.

Click to expand...

That's a nice round-about way to say that we can just make shit up based on our personal prejudices to declare without facts that killing Martin was okay. If a person is prejudiced against a certain set of personality markers (such as, oh, say, teenage, male, possible pot-smoker, possible urban youth) then, sure they can assume that such a person might "provoke" a fight with the armed stranger who stalked them in a car and then followed them down an alley on foot in the dark after they made an effort to avoid him, and thus be entirely responsible for getting themselves shot by poor, innocent Mr. Zimmerman.

But the hell with personalities. Unless we know for a fact that Martin did indeed provoke Zimmerman, "knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents" is useless trivia which can serve no purpose but to prejudice the public against the victim of the shooting. It will accomplish that by dirtying Martin's reputation and suggesting that he deserved to die because of his background, which is why that objection was raised in the first place.

muravyets said:

But the hell with personalities. Unless we know for a fact that Martin did indeed provoke Zimmerman, "knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents" is useless trivia which can serve no purpose but to prejudice the public against the victim of the shooting. It will accomplish that by dirtying Martin's reputation and suggesting that he deserved to die because of his background, which is why that objection was raised in the first place.

Click to expand...

It's that, but it's even more. Treyvon, being confronted with a person pursuing him, had a right to defend himself. Being pursued generates fear and and a legitimate self-defense mechanism. Did Treyvon fear any less of an insidious motive of Zimmerman than Zimmerman did of Treyvon?

The whole "what kind of person (or what state of mind) was Treyvon in," is irrelevant--unless you're talking about fear. Fear for your own safety. If there is any substance to "Stand Your Ground" law, Treyvon had the justification. He was the one being relentlessly and unjustly pursued.

JWGriebel said:

Since I can answer both with the same words, I'll just do so. It isn't whether or not Martin's past is a green light for what happened (said it so many times I'm tired of having to say it--never said he deserved to die, but that seems to by the popular response or counter-argument), it is that his personal life, which his family has not given much insight into and which, from what little has been gathered, has been much different than they have claimed, can help figure out if Martin did or did not provoke. Yes, personalities play a big role in this case, because knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents can show if he was randomly shot or if he was the aggressor and the victim of chance--that the man he attacked for whatever reason happened to be armed.

Click to expand...

Provoke? Provoke? I'm sorry, but pursuing someone is provoking them. Anyone would have the right to object to being pursued. Hindsight tells us there was no legitimate reason for Treyvon to be pursued.

The fault is in the pursuer. The fault is in the provoker. And that provoker is Zimmerman.

muravyets said:

Just one little quibble: Zimmerman was never given any sort of authority. He apparently took it upon himself to claim the mantle of Neighborhood Watch Captain. No national or regional association of watch groups, which train and educate neighborhood watches, says that he had ever officially organized a watch in his neighborhood.

Click to expand...

I think this is an important fact. There are many good, helpful people working to make their communities safer, from Guardian Angels to Neighborhood Watches and are trained on how to deal with intruders.

I doubt any of them would have even HAD Zimmerman sign up, given his preference to carry a firearm. The first rule for most, if not all of these organizations is that you do not carry a weapon.

Chrissy said:

It's that, but it's even more. Treyvon, being confronted with a person pursing him, had a right to defend himself. Being pursued generates fear and and a legitimate self-defense mechanism.

The whole "what kind of person (or what state of mind) was Treyvon in," is irrelevant. If there is any substance to "Stand Your Ground" law, Treyvon had the justification. He was the one being relentlessly and unjustly pursued.


Provoke? Provoke? I'm sorry, but pursuing someone is provoking them. Anyone would have the right to object to being pursued. Hindsight tells us there was no legitimate reason for Treyvon to be pursued.

The fault is in the pursuer. The fault is in the provoker. And that provoker is Zimmerman.

Click to expand...

Frik-yeah, +1 with bells on.

muravyets said:

Just one little quibble: Zimmerman was never given any sort of authority. He apparently took it upon himself to claim the mantle of Neighborhood Watch Captain. No national or regional association of watch groups, which train and educate neighborhood watches, says that he had ever officially organized a watch in his neighborhood.

Click to expand...

I didn't catch that. He's been described as a neighborhood watch captain from the start. Plus the early news stories included Neighborhood Watch signs in their video. So I took that at face value.

That solidifies my opinion of George Zimmerman.

FalconMage said:

I didn't catch that. He's been described as a neighborhood watch captain from the start. Plus the early news stories included Neighborhood Watch signs in their video. So I took that at face value.

That solidifies my opinion of George Zimmerman.

Click to expand...

There's nothing to stop anyone from setting up a watch of their own, but "Neighborhood Watch" is the name of programs arranged in partnership with local law enforcement. There are regional and national associations for it, that are connected to such organizations as the National Sheriff's Association. These groups train watch groups and post the official rules for Neighborhood Watches. Those rules include specifically no guns, ever. Also no confronting suspicious persons, ever. Such rules are published on the web for all to see for free. Not only had Zimmerman apparently never contacted his local NW association or his local police about setting up a watch, he seems also never to have bothered with the actual rules of NWs.

>http://www.wagist.com
>Click through to the homepage
>Homepage looks like a Zimmerman fan page.
>Blaims the victim half a dozen times
>http://iowntheworld.com
>Click on homepage
>Find article on Coroner in Breitbart case dies due to posioning
>First comment is conspiracy nutbag

Wow, real accurate wackjob sites you have there.

Any proper news sites that mention these stories?

muravyets said:

Just one little quibble: Zimmerman was never given any sort of authority. He apparently took it upon himself to claim the mantle of Neighborhood Watch Captain. No national or regional association of watch groups, which train and educate neighborhood watches, says that he had ever officially organized a watch in his neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Well, neighborhood watch programs are not required to belong to the regional and national associations. Our POA watch doesn't, but there have been discussions about doing so.

There's definitely conflicting information out there about whether Zimmerman was self-appointed or was actually recognized by the homeowners association as their watch captain. The March 17th Miami Herald article calls him both "self-appointed watch captain" and "volunteer".

In September, the association started looking into setting up a neighborhood watch program, scheduled a neighborhood watch presentation by the Sanford Police Department, and during that meeting called for volunteers. Zimmerman was the only volunteer.

According to that same Miami Herald article, Wendy Dorival, the Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator, conducted that September presentation to the association:

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

Click to expand...

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

Click to expand...

In articles--such as this one from The Chicago Defender--suggesting the homeowners association could be sued in this case, assertions are made that the February homeowners association newsletter named Zimmerman as "our Captain".

Plus, lawyers say, Exhibit A would be a newsletter sent by the association to residents in February, the same month as the shooting. It said Zimmerman was the go-to person for residents who had been the victims of a crime.

Under the heading "Neighborhood Watch," the newsletter's message recommended that residents first call police and then "please contact our Captain, George Zimmerman ... so he can be aware and help address the issue with other residents."

Click to expand...

So, was Zimmerman self-appointed or was he recognized by the HOA? I don't know which is true; but I do know the possibility of shared liability and a helluva lot of money hinges on the answer.

Ari Meermans said:

So, was Zimmerman self-appointed or was he recognized by the HOA? I don't know which is true; but I do know the possibility of shared liability and a helluva lot of money hinges on the answer.

Click to expand...

Possibly both. He could have appointed himself and then the HOA just went along with it.

I think it's an irrelevant point whether Zimmerman was appointed by committee, self-appointed, or appointed by God himself after finding his flashlight in a burning bush.

The undisputed facts are that he broke NW ROE regarding the pursuit of a "suspicious person" (namely "don't do it"). Not only that, he was flat-out told to stand down by a police dispatcher and didn't. And you can probably get Nighttimer to rattle off the list of lies Zimmerman has been caught red-handed on with little to ZERO room for creative interpretation.

Bottom line, those are really the most important things in this case. The rest is just smoke, mirrors or bullshit.

Something I've found interesting about the question of whether Zimmerman was on patrol or not is that in an early statement, Police Chief Bill Lee wrote the following about Zimmerman:

"He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department."

It's just one of those things that has stayed in my mind. It's possible that even in a prepared written statement, Lee is playing fast and loose with the word "fact," or perhaps Sanford Police verified, with a receipt or video camera footage, that Zimmerman was not patrolling as was his habit at the time. I can't remember if I've read that he was on his way to or from Target at the time. But I'm surprised, given the cursory investigation, if police verified Zimmerman's story. I'd be even more surprised, given the fire they've been under and the amount of selective information Sanford PD leaked, that police wouldn't say that they had a proof that Zimmerman was running an errand.

Zimmerman could have the gun on him as a private citizen, so it's better for him and for police if he was on an errand and not patrolling. But I don't trust Zimmerman and I look forward to finding out if Lee was misspeaking or if they did verify what Zimmerman was doing.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Sounds like a Neighborhood Watch fanboy.

Click to expand...

He seems pretty clearly to be a law enforcement fanboy in general.

Ari Meermans said:

Well, neighborhood watch programs are not required to belong to the regional and national associations. Our POA watch doesn't, but there have been discussions about doing so.

There's definitely conflicting information out there about whether Zimmerman was self-appointed or was actually recognized by the homeowners association as their watch captain. The March 17th Miami Herald article calls him both "self-appointed watch captain" and "volunteer".

In September, the association started looking into setting up a neighborhood watch program, scheduled a neighborhood watch presentation by the Sanford Police Department, and during that meeting called for volunteers. Zimmerman was the only volunteer.

According to that same Miami Herald article, Wendy Dorival, the Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator, conducted that September presentation to the association:



In articles--such as this one from The Chicago Defender--suggesting the homeowners association could be sued in this case, assertions are made that the February homeowners association newsletter named Zimmerman as "our Captain".



So, was Zimmerman self-appointed or was he recognized by the HOA? I don't know which is true; but I do know the possibility of shared liability and a helluva lot of money hinges on the answer.

Click to expand...

"Self-appointed" and "volunteer" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say just about all people who self-appoint themselves into a task are volunteering to do that task, so the use of those two words to describe Zimmerman does not suggest two different statuses.

Okay, so let's say the HOA wanted to set up a neighborhood watch. Then, indeed, they are partially liable for what Zimmerman did, because if indeed he was volunteering to do this job as a service of the community, then they, the providers of the service would be responsible for making sure it was done right. According to the quoted article, they would have received the information of exactly what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do and what it is not permitted to do. Zimmerman got that information, too.

If this report is accurate, then it means that Zimmerman cannot claim he did not know he was not supposed to carry a gun. So while he might have been okay carrying it with him when he went to run his errand, according to his story, he had absolutely no justification for taking it with him when he left the car to follow Martin, which he was also not justified in doing. So there goes that part of his defense. Better for him to claim ignorance of the rules than to be exposed as having received the training as well as the immediate instruction and disregarded both.

Further, if the HOA were indeed aware of Zimmerman's actions, then why would they not be aware of the nuisance calls he had made to 911 in the past? If they, as the directors of the community were officially setting up a watch, then it was their responsibility to make sure it was done right and in accordance with the law. If this report is accurate, then they should be liable for damages, in my opinion, absolutely.

But still, none of it means that Zimmerman had been granted authority over that neighborhood. NW's are organized community groups that use a coordinated method for communicating with the police. They are not authorities, and there are good reasons for that which touch on both social order and the personal safety of NW volunteers.

As the police volunteer said in the quoted article, there are laws against vigilantism, laws against impersonating police or other public officials, laws against assuming the power and authority of the police even if one does not literally impersonate a cop. No one is required to cooperate with a neighborhood watch. If a neighborhood watch demands that someone on a public street stop and account for themselves, that someone can tell the NW to go fuck themselves, and legally there is not a damned thing the NW can do about it, except call the police. The NW volunteer who takes it upon themselves to forcibly stop that random stranger is breaking the law because they are not the police. Simply volunteering to be the neighborhood watch, with or without any official nod, does not give anyone any extra authority under the law.

That is why there are official organizations for neighborhood watches. Their primary purpose is to give out the instructions and information that prevent NW volunteers from getting killed and prevent them from becoming law-breakers themselves.

Zimmerman's actions on that night and his record of other 911 calls suggest that he thought claiming the title of Neighborhood Watch Captain, with or without training or coordinating with the local police on how to set up a real watch, somehow deputized him in someway and gave him some measure of authority in relation to the police. He seemed to think it made him an Auxiliary Police Officer (even though typically Auxiliaries are not permitted to carry weapons), or better yet, an armed security guard/bodyguard of some kind (even though they, too, have nowhere near the authority of the police to stop strangers on the street). It would be a nice little fantasy he invented for himself, but of course it would also be utter nonsense.

Remember, I was responding to the observation that Zimmerman should never have been given any kind of authority. I was pointing, because of the above points, that he had in fact not been given any authority by anyone. He simply claimed an utterly fictitious kind of authority for himself. It's fictitious both because, whether or not he had ever set up a real watch in his neighborhood*, real neighborhood watches don't give anyone the authority he seemed to think he had.

Mharvey said:

I think it's an irrelevant point whether Zimmerman was appointed by committee, self-appointed, or appointed by God himself after finding his flashlight in a burning bush.

The undisputed facts are that he broke NW ROE regarding the pursuit of a "suspicious person" (namely "don't do it"). Not only that, he was flat-out told to stand down by a police dispatcher and didn't. And you can probably get Nighttimer to rattle off the list of lies Zimmerman has been caught red-handed on with little to ZERO room for creative interpretation.

Bottom line, those are really the most important things in this case. The rest is just smoke, mirrors or bullshit.

Click to expand...

Agreed, absolutely.



(* And I have to say, frankly, I'm not sure the watch ever was set up properly, but that just might be because of a personal prejudice of my own. I've seen how organizations like HOA's operate, and they can often be, sadly, the most half-assed, we-really-have-no-idea-what-we're-doing, well-intentioned but utterly clueless operations imaginable. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the process of setting up a watch had been brought up in a meeting but never followed through on by anyone except Zimmerman, because everyone on the board thought someone else had dealt with it or that it was okay for Zimmerman to do it all himself since he was so dedicated and committed and other positive and affirming team-speak words often bandied about by untrained community/group directors.)

I agree with you. Whether Zimmerman's title of watch captain was self-assumed or bestowed by the HOA does not change the events of that night. Nor does it mitigate Zimmerman's participation in those events culminating in his killing Trayvon Martin, the final undisputed fact.

Still, when my word choice is questioned, I will explain why I made that choice.

Lyv said:

Something I've found interesting about the question of whether Zimmerman was on patrol or not is that in an early statement, Police Chief Bill Lee wrote the following about Zimmerman:

"He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department."

It's just one of those things that has stayed in my mind. It's possible that even in a prepared written statement, Lee is playing fast and loose with the word "fact," or perhaps Sanford Police verified, with a receipt or video camera footage, that Zimmerman was not patrolling as was his habit at the time. I can't remember if I've read that he was on his way to or from Target at the time. But I'm surprised, given the cursory investigation, if police verified Zimmerman's story. I'd be even more surprised, given the fire they've been under and the amount of selective information Sanford PD leaked, that police wouldn't say that they had a proof that Zimmerman was running an errand.

Zimmerman could have the gun on him as a private citizen, so it's better for him and for police if he was on an errand and not patrolling. But I don't trust Zimmerman and I look forward to finding out if Lee was misspeaking or if they did verify what Zimmerman was doing.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my other post, but I'd like to highlight it because I feel like the watch patrol angle is a red-herring in this case (as well as an unearned blot on the idea of what NWs are), the personal errand point does not help Zimmerman at all, really.

For the reason why, let's assume for the moment that there was a real watch and Zimmerman, its sole member, had received the police education and orientation on the rules of how to operate on watch. (I'm not 100% convinced on that, but I'm willing to accept it and amend my view accordingly.)

Next, let's assume that Zimmerman carries a gun on him when he goes to the grocery store because he can under Florida law.

That still does not allow him to carry a gun on watch. Nor does it allow him to follow a suspicious person as a watch volunteer.

When Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person, he was doing the job of a neighborhood watch volunteer. That means he was "on duty" at that moment. Even if he could claim to be officially "off duty," he would still have been trained in the rules, and the rules don't get suspended just because one is off duty at the moment.

So when Zimmerman called the cops on Martin and the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin, Zimmerman should already have known he was not supposed to follow the suspicious guy and should not have exited his car at all.

Further, having made the bad decision to ignore the rules and the instruction and exit his car to follow Martin, he should have known he was not supposed to bring his gun with him, but should have left it locked securely in his vehicle.

If indeed there was a real watch in his community and he was the creator, organizer, captain and sole member of it, then his self-defense claim is blasted into even tinier smithereens than before.

Ari Meermans said:

I agree with you. Whether Zimmerman's title of watch captain was self-assumed or bestowed by the HOA does not change the events of that night. Nor does it mitigate Zimmerman's participation in those events culminating in his killing Trayvon Martin, the final undisputed fact.

Still, when my word choice is questioned, I will explain why I made that choice.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that. I feel the same way. I also wasn't trying to argue with you. Rather, I was trying to explain my own take on the matter in more depth. I was basing my comments about there being no watch in place on media reports I had seen. Your link to the Florida newspaper report added more information, but on reflection, as you and I agree, that doesn't make any difference for Zimmerman.

In fact, as I said to Lyv, it could hurt his defense even more.

I do hope some social good can come of this tragedy, and among the possible good lessons learned, I hope it will encourage communities to take things like setting up watches very seriously. Most do, I believe, but in the current social climate, I think there may be too many George Zimmermans running around out there, eager to "help." I hope community groups and HOAs will be more careful. If it takes a careless HOA getting hit by a huge lawsuit to drive that message home, then I'd be all for it, frankly.

muravyets said:

As I pointed out in my other post, but I'd like to highlight it because I feel like the watch patrol angle is a red-herring in this case (as well as an unearned blot on the idea of what NWs are), the personal errand point does not help Zimmerman at all, really.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I cut your post only for length.

My interest in the police chief's comment goes more to why the police chief said that it is "fact" that Zimmerman wasn't acting as a watch captain, but rather, a private citizen, at the time. IMO, at the time Lee released that statement, the police department was trying to justify their actions in not arresting Zimmerman. And Zimmerman was trying to justify having the gun on him, which, as a private citizen, he could. When I bring up that comment, I'm looking more critically at the police chief. As you point out, no matter what Zimmerman was doing when he spotted Trayvon, his actions were those of a watch captain when he made that call. "Personal errand" makes a better story for Zimmerman and the police (or I believe they thought so, because they were trying to invoke "Stand Your Ground." I am curious as to who first came up with it, and if Lee knows for a "fact" as he said he did. I'm glad the FBI is investigating.

If the "in fact" phrase meant anything at all, it might have been an attempt to say that Zimmerman was justified in having the gun on him because private citizens have the right to carry guns in Florida. It would be a tacit acknowledgement that neighborhood watch rules do not allow carrying guns, and that Zimmerman may very well have known that.

But Florida law does not grant private citizens the right to provoke violent confrontations. Not even SYG grants that right according to the authors and sponsors of the law.

So Lee's comment, like so many of his comments in this case, is useless and suggests a police chief who doesn't know the first thing about the law in his state or even basic law enforcement.

As details of this story emerged, I have been struck several times by how the officials who seemed determined to let Zimmerman off the hook for this shooting -- the police chief and the first prosecutor, primarily -- seem to be a lot like Zimmerman, with a pretty lawless take on law enforcement. Horrible when it's Zimmerman talking like that. Terrifying when it's an actual cop and prosecutor.

We have a neighborhood watch. There is no on and off duty. No one patrols the neighborhood.