Exactly.
The truth of the matter is, Zimmerman has a long history of this type of nonsense. He clearly was more motivated by this imagined "power" and "authority" than with any altruistic acts.
Like most mall cops, he had self esteem issues.
Sadly, for both parties, he picked on the wrong kid. I just wish that he hadn't died. Zimmerman deserved an *** beating. Trayvon did not deserve to be killed. I think if you put most folks on this board in Trayvon's position and you'd see a physical conflict occur. Wonder if they'd be shot too?
I honestly think this is a real problem (I discussed it earlier in this thread with OB).
But if I'm going to go against my better judgement and attempt a meaningful discussing all I ask is we keep name calling and insults out of it. Fair?
Anyway, the problem in my mind is this:
If threatened with life or limb a person has the right to defend himself with lethal force. (can we agree?)
So just as you describe, is it okay for an overzealous community watch captain to pester people in the neighborhood? Going so far as to stalk them and chase them if they run? I think if we take Zimmerman and the killing out of this it gets harder to say that no neighborhood watch volunteer should ever try to keep an eye on suspicious behaviour. So if we say it is okay for neighborhood watch volunteers to watch people and even follow them then we're saying that Zimmerman's initial actions were acceptable.
But this isn't only about Zimmerman and the neighborhood watch. There has been a large concealed carry movement over the last 10 years or more. Many states that didn't allow concealed carry have started allowing it and in general states have move to a "shall issue" status as opposed to a "may issue" status, meaning you don't have to justify your need to conceal carry, you just have to show that you are not disqualified from doing so. So the number of people carrying concealed I think it's safe to say is at an all time high and it's only getting higher. So for me we need to establish a more robust set of "rules of engagement." The Zimmerman case is a good example.
The case in Utah where a neighborhood watch volunteer (and his buddy) were following three girls around because they seemed suspicious. The girls ran home and told on of their dads. The dad got his gun and went out to find out what these old guys were doing bothering his daughter. The NWV, who also was a CCL holder, was also carrying a gun.
In the Utah case you have CCL holder in a confrontation with an armed father. Both have a seemingly legitimate concern. The NWV is keeping an eye on some potential trouble making kids. The dad is trying to protect his daughter.
When the dad confronts the NMV (details hazy) they both draw and the dad shoots the NWV.
The dad tried to claim self defense. The judge called that claim ridiculous.
So I want a solid definition of when a person losses the right to self defense. Can I lose my right to self defense if all of my actions are justified? Can I only lose my right to self defense if I commit a crime? Do I lose my right to self defense anytime someone feels threatened by my actions? If I'm the 51% aggressor in a mutual confrontation do I lose my right to self defense but if I'm the 49% aggressor do I retain my right to self defense?
Was Zimmerman's right to self defense forfeit at some point? If so, when? As soon as the operator told him to do something and he didn't follow their advice? So anytime a 9-11 gives me an instruction I have to follow it or forfeit my right to self defense? Or was it that Zimmerman basically threatened Martin? So Martin's reaction to the threat can legitimately include physically attacking Zimmerman? And at that point Zimmerman is legally barred from defending himself? So he must curl up into a ball and hope that this justified beating doesn't last too long?
Just let me know at what point Zimmerman lost his right to self defense and please be willing to apply that standard across the board. It's a mess. I admit it's a mess.