Zimmerman NEEDED to Carry Gun - Here's Why!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 2012
311
41
North Texas
1. He was a "security" worker. Doesn't matter what local police or NW protocols are . They wrong, contradictory to the state rules, and the state rules trump theirs.

You are free to call it what you like, but self-employed "security" workers are no more police than the fact I fly an airplane makes me an astronaut.
 
Aug 2012
311
41
North Texas
Nonetheless you keep trying to legitimize Zimmerman's actions as a "security worker", whatever the heck that is, when anyone with more than half a brain knows he is no different than any other citizen.

In fact, Martin had just as much right to be there that night as Zimmerman. If Martin had a gun, he would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman in self-defense. However, given the circumstances of the social order, I doubt the outcome would have been the same:

1044995_156317071223738_1658754804_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Dec 2012
677
13
Florida
Nonetheless you keep trying to legitimize Zimmerman's actions as a "security worker", whatever the heck that is, when anyone with more than half a brain knows he is no different than any other citizen.

In fact, Martin had just as much right to be there that night as Zimmerman. If Martin had a gun, he would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman in self-defense. However, given the circumstances of the social order, I doubt the outcome would have been the same:

1044995_156317071223738_1658754804_n.jpg

NONSENSE! Zimmerman didn't even confront Martin, let alone attack him. And yes, Zimmerman was a security worker. Whatever that is ? A security worker would be one who does security work. :giggle:

And the caroon is equally Nonsense. Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because Martin didn't seem to belong in the neighborhood, or because he felt threatened. He shot him because he was being attacked, as eyewitnesses reported, and Officer Tim Smith concurred.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2012
311
41
North Texas
NONSENSE! Zimmerman didn't even confront Martin, let alone attack him. And yes, Zimmerman was a security worker. Whatever that is ? A security worker would be one who does security work. :giggle:

Says who? Only Zimmerman.

So, according to you, all vigilantes are "security workers". I disagree.
 
Dec 2012
677
13
Florida
Says who? Only Zimmerman.

So, according to you, all vigilantes are "security workers". I disagree.

No the phone conversations pointed it out too. Let me just say I no longer discuss Z case details. Trial held. Verdict reached. Done deal.

No that's not according to me. "Vigilantes" is YOUR word , not mine.:giggle:
 
Aug 2012
311
41
North Texas
No the phone conversations pointed it out too. Let me just say I no longer discuss Z case details. Trial held. Verdict reached. Done deal.

No that's not according to me. "Vigilantes" is YOUR word , not mine.:giggle:

Vigilantes are "security workers" by your own definition. I was simply pointing out how ludicrous your definition was since it also applies to vigilantes.
.....yes, Zimmerman was a security worker. Whatever that is ? A security worker would be one who does security work. :giggle:.....
 
Mar 2013
44
21
Arkansas
Want to know why George Zimmerman absolutely needed to be armed with a gun while doing his rounds at his housing complex ? Well, just what happened with Trayvon Martin might be proof enough. But for those still not convinced, CLICK THIS AWESOME LINK and take a look at the list of 295 security persons who were killed (most of them unarmed), just in 5 years time in America (2007-2013).
...
Zimmerman wasn't a "security person". He was in the neighborhood watch.
He was tasked with "watching". Notifying the police of suspicious activity is the required activity in such an organization. Police can do their job much better w/o interference from the peanut gallery.
 
Oct 2013
61
16
Midwest
A security worker would be one who does security work.

Correction: a security worker would be one who is paid to do security work. And that security worker would be beholden to the policies of the employer, they don't get to cowboy up on their own and do their own thing just because they want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Dec 2012
677
13
Florida
Vigilantes are "security workers" by your own definition. I was simply pointing out how ludicrous your definition was since it also applies to vigilantes.

No my definition does NOT have security workers as vigilantes. Vigilantes are people who most ofter operate outside the law. I never said that.
 
Dec 2012
677
13
Florida
Correction: a security worker would be one who is paid to do security work. And that security worker would be beholden to the policies of the employer, they don't get to cowboy up on their own and do their own thing just because they want to.

Correction: a security worker is one who does security work. The word security does not carry with it the requirement of payment. One who volunteers to do security work, does security work, pay or no pay. As for Zimmerman, he was asked by his community members to do what he did, and rather then "cowboy up", he was acting with their trust, and I'd say he fulfilled it quite well. So did a jury and the Florida justice system.
:balanced:
 
Oct 2013
61
16
Midwest
Correction: a security worker is one who does security work. The word security does not carry with it the requirement of payment.

You're right, the word "security" doesn't imply payment, the word "work" implies payment.

One who volunteers to do security work, does security work, pay or no pay.

Incorrect. If you're not employed then you're not covered by the insurance of the business and/or property owner. That's why neighborhood watch and even most private security firms stick with the observe and report model. Something else to note in this case is that Zimmerman was not operating his neighborhood watch on public property.

As for Zimmerman, he was asked by his community members to do what he did, and rather then "cowboy up", he was acting with their trust, and I'd say he fulfilled it quite well.

This has been disputed. The Sanford Police have Zimmerman listed as the coordinator but how he came to be the coordinator is less clear. The reports of resident complaints regarding Zimmerman's actions as the NW "captain" are documented well enough that I'm not going to bother linking, anyone interested can easily find those reports online.

So did a jury and the Florida justice system.
:balanced:

I agree and this is the problem. Zimmerman is always going to be a lightning rod because of what he represents, a legal idea that is so foreign to some people that they can't believe he was allowed to do what he did. Extending Castle Doctrine onto public property is a horrible idea, the Zimmerman-Martin case just gives people a chance to personify the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Feb 2013
1,219
174
just past the moons of Jupiter
Zimmermann didn't technically do anything wrong at all. You can get out of your car, that isn't a criminal or threatening act, you can follow people that isn't a criminal or threatening act. Out wasn't smart but being stupid isn't a crime. Beating the daylights out of sometime because they are a cracker that is following you on the other hand is a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Oct 2013
61
16
Midwest
Zimmerman didn't "technically" do anything illegal...in the state of Florida. Right and wrong is a different matter. The Sanford Police said they had to by law let him go after they questioned him because he claimed self-defense and no one could contradict his claim. That's a total load.
 
Feb 2013
1,219
174
just past the moons of Jupiter
Zimmerman didn't "technically" do anything illegal...in the state of Florida. Right and wrong is a different matter. The Sanford Police said they had to by law let him go after they questioned him because he claimed self-defense and no one could contradict his claim. That's a total load.

Load or not that is the way the law works. If you don't do anything illegal you can't be punished by the law
 
Oct 2013
61
16
Midwest
Load or not that is the way the law works. If you don't do anything illegal you can't be punished by the law

We agree on this. People like me are just astounded that the law worked the way it did in this case and that's why this case isn't going to go away for a very long time. What he did was obviously legal (in Florida) but it was also clearly wrong. That kind of conflict between legal and wrong is going to draw discussion for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Dec 2012
677
13
Florida
You're right, the word "security" doesn't imply payment, the word "work" implies payment.
No it doesn't. Plenty of people do"work" every day on a volunteer basis, entirely without pay. To say their work is not work is an extreme disrespect to them, who deserve perhaps more respect than the ones who do get paid. And I would include George Zimmerman as one of those to be highly respected volunteers.
I feed stray cats in my apartment community every morning. I don't get paid. I assure you. It IS work.



Incorrect. If you're not employed then you're not covered by the insurance of the business and/or property owner. That's why neighborhood watch and even most private security firms stick with the observe and report model. Something else to note in this case is that Zimmerman was not operating his neighborhood watch on public property..
When one has done security work (both with and without pay) for 38 years, as I have, and in supervisory positions as well as ordinary guard jobs, it is easy to spot when someone is just making things up as they go along, as you appear to be doing now. Your statement here is so convoluted I can hardly even address it. The observe and report protocol is not a "model", it is the standard security MO for every security operation in America. As for public or private property, this has no bearing. Security MO is approximately the same either way, and insurance doesn't matter much either.



This has been disputed. The Sanford Police have Zimmerman listed as the coordinator but how he came to be the coordinator is less clear. The reports of resident complaints regarding Zimmerman's actions as the NW "captain" are documented well enough that I'm not going to bother linking, anyone interested can easily find those reports online.
Disputed ? HA HA. By whom ? The race hustlers who created this whole fiasco ? I'm not going to bother linking, because how Z came to be the coordinator is quite clear. This is old ground, I'm not going to go over again and again., The CNN reports et all all said his community group requested him to do the job. Anyone interested can easily find those reports online.



I agree and this is the problem. Zimmerman is always going to be a lightning rod because of what he represents, a legal idea that is so foreign to some people that they can't believe he was allowed to do what he did. Extending Castle Doctrine onto public property is a horrible idea, the Zimmerman-Martin case just gives people a chance to personify the issue.
This statement goes beyond wrong and goes well into the realm of bizzare. "Foreign" ? If any people find the legal ideas of self-defense, of community security, and maintaining peace and law and order to be "foreign", then I don't know what they've been smoking or drinking.
Everything about what Zimmerman did is 100% American and normal procedure, fully supported by the American people for hundreds of years.
Also, what Zimmerman did is not extending castle doctrine on to public property. The apartment complex is PRIVATE property, and the residents living there have every bit as much right to defend it as one does of the individual home. Hundreds of people crossed Zimmerman's path for many months before the Martin shooting and they did not get shot. Martin did because he committed a violent criminal act, which had no reason to be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2013
1,219
174
just past the moons of Jupiter
We agree on this. People like me are just astounded that the law worked the way it did in this case and that's why this case isn't going to go away for a very long time. What he did was obviously legal (in Florida) but it was also clearly wrong. That kind of conflict between legal and wrong is going to draw discussion for a long time.

What part of it was wrong? Shooting someone that was beating you? Out greeting out of the car?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top