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

Protectionist · Jul 5, 2013

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).

Officer Down Memorial Wall PG 2

Here's a few examples from my neck of the woods (Central Florida) >>

1. LEON DASH 48
CLEARWATER FLA.
JULY 2007
While working security at a club he was attacked and died of head trauma.

2. CARL SHOAL 41
TAMPA, FLA.
JANUARY 2007
Was stabbed to death while working security at an apartment complex.

3. CHRISTOPHER MANOS 27
TAMPA FLA.
OCTOBER 2006
Was shot while sitting in a guard shack at the Tampa Electric Company.

4. WILLIAM T. WILLIAMS 64
CLEARWATER FLA.
OCTOBER 2006
While patrolling the Fairfield Inn, he interrupted a robbery in progress and was shot.

5. MATHEW F LITTLE 26
ST PETERSBURG FLA
MAY 15 2011
Was shot and killed at an apartment complex.

6. RUSSELL HORNER 61
TAMPA FLA
MAY 27 2011
Retired FBI agent employed by Target security died in struggle with shoplifter.

7. LUIS SHON 49
MARGATE FLA
SEPTEMBER 22 2012
Walmart LP shot to death by shoplifter.

8. MICHAEL VALENTIN 38
TAMPA FLA
NOVEMBER 21 2012
Shot to death at apartments.

9. JACQUES NOVEMBRE 61
WEST PALM BEACH FLA
OCTOBER 1 2011
Was attacked, beaten during burglary.

10. MILTON TORRES
ORLANDO FLA
MAY 7 2011
Stabbed to death at nightclub

Road Warrior · Jul 6, 2013

I have no problem with people carrying guns. In fact, I encourage it. I also encourage responsible use of firearms and that people be held accountable for the use of firearms such as when shooting unarmed minors.

Protectionist · Jul 7, 2013

Road Warrior said:
I have no problem with people carrying guns. In fact, I encourage it. I also encourage responsible use of firearms and that people be held accountable for the use of firearms such as when shooting unarmed minors.

I also encourage responsible use of firearms, and that people be held accountable for the use of firearms such as when shooting unarmed minors, armed minors, unarmed and armed adults, and anyone. One of those responsible uses is the use of the firearm in self defense, including against unarmed minors, armed minors, unarmed and armed adults, and anyone.

Road Warrior · Jul 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
I also encourage responsible use of firearms, and that people be held accountable for the use of firearms such as when shooting unarmed minors, armed minors, unarmed and armed adults, and anyone. One of those responsible uses is the use of the firearm in self defense, including against unarmed minors, armed minors, unarmed and armed adults, and anyone.

Absolutely! Agreed again.

OTOH, when an armed man pursues a minor whom he suspects of being on drugs, armed and up to no good then kills that minor, I do expect our valient law enforcement officials to conduct a thorough and complete investigation by preserving all evidence, not just letting the body lay on the ground in the rain for 3 hours or solely going by the word of the shooter.

Protectionist · Jul 8, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Absolutely! Agreed again.

OTOH, when an armed man pursues a minor whom he suspects of being on drugs, armed and up to no good then kills that minor, I do expect our valient law enforcement officials to conduct a thorough and complete investigation by preserving all evidence, not just letting the body lay on the ground in the rain for 3 hours or solely going by the word of the shooter.

Whose word would you like them to go by ? Al Sharpton ? Jesse Jackson ?
They DIDN'T just go by the word of the shooter. They had 2 eyewitnesses (Jonathan Good & Austin Brown), both of whom reported that they saw Zimmerman in a fight with him "on the bottom and blows being rained down on him". They also had the report of Sanford Police Officer Tim Smith who told them Zimmerman's back was all wet with grass stains, and Martin had wet grass and dirt stains on his knees, confirming the reports of the witnesses. All this was consistent with "the word of the shooter." This was all known 4 months ago. Have you been following this ?
CAUTION: Do not watch MSNBC for coverage of this. Or NBC News.

Road Warrior · Jul 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Whose word would you like them to go by ? Al Sharpton ? Jesse Jackson ?

Straw man argument. I don't like nor trust either of those asshole politicians, but if you're only going to draw names out of thin air as a means to insult others, I will consider your opinions to obtuse.

As it is, we only have Zimmerman's word and, for those willing to think about, his opinion is biased for reasons of self-survival.

BTW, do you think it was Zimmerman screaming like a little girl on the 911 call or the 17 year old kid?

Protectionist · Jul 9, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Straw man argument. I don't like nor trust either of those asshole politicians, but if you're only going to draw names out of thin air as a means to insult others, I will consider your opinions to obtuse.

As it is, we only have Zimmerman's word and, for those willing to think about, his opinion is biased for reasons of self-survival.

BTW, do you think it was Zimmerman screaming like a little girl on the 911 call or the 17 year old kid?

Do you always make statements ("we only have Zimmerman's word") that someone just refuted in the previous post ? ("They had 2 eyewitnesses (Jonathan Good & Austin Brown), both of whom reported that they saw Zimmerman in a fight with him "on the bottom and blows being rained down on him". They also had the report of Sanford Police Officer Tim Smith who told them Zimmerman's back was all wet with grass stains, and Martin had wet grass and dirt stains on his knees, confirming the reports of the witnesses")

As for who was screaming, I'll go with the many people in the trial who said it was Zimmerman, and more likely it's the guy who was getting the crap beaten out of him, not the guy who was doing the ground & pound.
Actually though, it could have been either, or even someone looking out a window. I did an OP on this subject. It's called >> IT DOESN'T MATTER Whose Voice It Was.

Road Warrior · Jul 10, 2013

Protectionist said:
Do you always make statements ("we only have Zimmerman's word") that someone just refuted in the previous post ?

We only have Zimmerman's word on who started the fight. Yes, there are witnesses that he was losing the fist fight and screaming like a little girl, but no one alive except Zimmerman knows who threw the first punch or what precipitated the fight.

Protectionist · Jul 11, 2013

Road Warrior said:
We only have Zimmerman's word on who started the fight. Yes, there are witnesses that he was losing the fist fight and screaming like a little girl, but no one alive except Zimmerman knows who threw the first punch or what precipitated the fight.

Before you didn't say anything about who started the fight. No we don't know who started the fight. And anytime jurors are in a state of not knowing, that spells acquittal.

Road Warrior · Jul 11, 2013

Protectionist said:
Before you didn't say anything about who started the fight. No we don't know who started the fight. And anytime jurors are in a state of not knowing, that spells acquittal.

First, are you certain I've never said it or words to that effect? You started several threads on this topic. Have you carefully reviewed every post I've made in response?

Second, don't you think who started the fight is an important part of this or any self-defense case? Zimmerman testified Martin started it. No corroborating evidence exists. No witnesses, video, DNA or anything else. Just Zimmerman's word.

Protectionist · Jul 11, 2013

Road Warrior said:
First, are you certain I've never said it or words to that effect? You started several threads on this topic. Have you carefully reviewed every post I've made in response?

Second, don't you think who started the fight is an important part of this or any self-defense case? Zimmerman testified Martin started it. No corroborating evidence exists. No witnesses, video, DNA or anything else. Just Zimmerman's word.

First, I was referring to just in this thread.

Second, sure it's important who started the fight. And the problem with the prosecution's case, when they charge, of who started the fight, that the defense has no proof , is that the defense then says "Neither do you."

And, the big trouble for the prosecution is that the defense does not need to show proof (of anything). It is the prosecution who has to prove who started the fight, and prove Zimmerman to be guilty. Thus far (and we're almost at the end of the trial), they have not done that. And Zimmerman remains innocent, until proven guilty (which isn't happening).

Road Warrior · Jul 13, 2013

Innocent is not the same as "not guilty" as Zimmerman's lawyers pointed out.

Zimmerman isn't innocent; he was playing cop, sought out an innocent child and then killed him. Whether or not he is declared guilty of that crime remains up to the jury.

Protectionist · Jul 13, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Innocent is not the same as "not guilty" as Zimmerman's lawyers pointed out.

Zimmerman isn't innocent; he was playing cop, sought out an innocent child and then killed him. Whether or not he is declared guilty of that crime remains up to the jury.

1. A not guilty verdict simply means that there is insufficent evidence to proclaim a guilty verdict. But always, we are innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.

2. Zimmerman wasn't playing cop. At no time did he do (or try to do) the job of a cop. It appears that you (like many others) still don't know the diffence between security and police, and their proper roles.

3. You don't have a shred of evidence to prove that Martin was innocent (other than the legal presumption of innocence as I mentioned in # 1 here).

4. Yes, he killed him. But thousands of people have killed someone, and with a gun too, and they were never declared guilty, but rather were declared "justifiable homicide" by reason of self defense.

Road Warrior · Jul 13, 2013

Protectionist said:
3. You don't have a shred of evidence to prove that Martin was innocent (other than the legal presumption of innocence as I mentioned in # 1 here).

It's very amusing to me that you are quick to defend Zimmerman unless there is incontrovertible evidence of wrong, yet you freely speculate that Zimmerman shot Martin before Martin could burglarize a house or attack someone thereby implying that Zimmerman did everyone a favor by shooting an unarmed black kid.

Protectionist said:
1. We'll probably never know who Martin may have attacked, or whose apartment he may have burglarized.

Road Warrior · Jul 15, 2013

Aufgeblassen said:
Or you could say: Zimmerman was innocent of any crime. He was merely being a conscientious citizen, reporting and keeping an eye on an individual who appeared suspicious in the neighborhood, and was attacked, beaten, and as a last resort after his cries for help went unanswered, defended himself from the high likelihood of further great bodily harm or even death.

Nonetheless, Zimmerman intentionally left his vehicle in pursuit of a kid who turned out to be innocent but thinking he was chasing a burglar. That's a huge assumption.

What was Martin doing that compelled Zimmerman to violate Neighborhood Watch protocols and the advice of police? Since Zimmerman had previously made 46 911 calls, do you think this is the very first time the police told him not to chase people?

Protectionist · Jul 16, 2013

Road Warrior said:
It's very amusing to me that you are quick to defend Zimmerman unless there is incontrovertible evidence of wrong, yet you freely speculate that Zimmerman shot Martin before Martin could burglarize a house or attack someone thereby implying that Zimmerman did everyone a favor by shooting an unarmed black kid.

That might be YOUR implication. I never imply anything, ever.

Protectionist · Jul 16, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Nonetheless, Zimmerman intentionally left his vehicle in pursuit of a kid who turned out to be innocent but thinking he was chasing a burglar. That's a huge assumption.

What was Martin doing that compelled Zimmerman to violate Neighborhood Watch protocols and the advice of police? Since Zimmerman had previously made 46 911 calls, do you think this is the very first time the police told him not to chase people?

1. Leaving his vehicle and pursuing a suspect is correct, standard Florida security policy for ANYONE doing security work ANYWHERE ( Florida Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Licensing. which maintains the 40 hour course and manual for the Security Officer Class D license)

2. There is no proof that Martin was "innocent". For all we know he may have been casing the apartments whose windows he was looking at, to burglarize them.

3. There is no proof that Zimmerman was thinking he was chasing a burglar. Martin was only a suspect. No assumption had been made.

4. Martin fit the profile of a burglary suspect. >> Young, black, male, walking SLOWLY in the rain. STOPPING in the rain. Walking between apartments, looking in windows. That what he "was doing."

5. NW protocols and advice of police SHOULD BE violated, because they are MISinformation, which can allow suspects to roam freely, UNOBSERVED, and this could be damaging and dangerous to residents. Guards should follow state guidelines to OBSERVE & REPORT, not the foolish "advice of NW, with their poorly set up police-geqred rules.

Road Warrior · Jul 17, 2013

1. Zimmerman wasn't a "security" worker. He was a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. Their own protocols state volunteers should be the "eyes and ears" of police, not to pursue suspects. I know you know this.

2. Innocent until proven guilty applies to Martin too.

3. Understood you think "walking while black" makes one a burglary suspect.

5. There we have it: you disagree with the NW protocols and police advice. Obviously so did Zimmerman. Awesome.

Think Zimmerman will appreciate being watched and followed for the rest of his life? He should be since he's a known killer who violates the rules.

Iolo · Jul 17, 2013

Nobody needs to carry a gun except soldiers and paranoid cowards. Use the soldiers to lock up the cowards.

Protectionist · Jul 20, 2013

Road Warrior said:
1. Zimmerman wasn't a "security" worker. He was a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. Their own protocols state volunteers should be the "eyes and ears" of police, not to pursue suspects. I know you know this.

2. Innocent until proven guilty applies to Martin too.

3. Understood you think "walking while black" makes one a burglary suspect.

5. There we have it: you disagree with the NW protocols and police advice. Obviously so did Zimmerman. Awesome.

Think Zimmerman will appreciate being watched and followed for the rest of his life? He should be since he's a known killer who violates the rules.

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.

2. Nobody said Martin was guilty of anything. He was a suspect. Sounds like you don't even know what that means.

3. You were told what made Martin suspicious. YOU KNOW.

4. There we have it: you agree with the NW protocols and police advice.

5. You don't have a shred of evidence that Zimmerman is a killer, and his actions were in conformance the CORRECT rules (Florida Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Div. of Licensing.)