Holy crap it's like Sweeny is talking about a completely different incident with how much wrong he's posting.

 

-----signature-----

OK Give me the link with the instructions from his HOA that details his duties for that property.


I deal with 4 HOAs right now. Each one is different. If one of my staff didn't follow and unknown person they would be fired. That includes all staff and not just guards. JHC Zimmerman had no business even calling 911 about this yet. Martin had not done any crime to call them. ALL he was suppose to do was follow him or ask him wtf he was doing?

 

-----signature-----

You CAN shoot someone who is physically attacking you and slamming your head into the pavement.

The reasons why that came to be don't really matter. Once Martin physically attacked Zimmerman the law says that Zimmerman was within his legal rights to shoot.

Zimmerman could have been standing in from of Martin scream racist remarks. That does not give Martin a legal right to attack Zimmerman.

Of course this all assumes that Martin was the first one to physically attack.

 

-----signature-----

That's the same argument Ardenwolfe had or has. There are no laws in the state of Florida mandating that neighborhood watch be unarmed. The police came out right away and said Zimmerman was within his rights to be carrying a weapon at that time. It's a non-issue.

Do you understand what you're saying? So, if I don't know you, and I instigate an issue with you, and you attack me, I can now turn around and shoot you?

The Neighborhood Watch issue is nebulous. Here's why: Zimmerman was not part of the actual association, he and the neighborhood self-appointed him as the guard captain . . . if we believe that. Given this scenario, he didn't follow the actual rules or regulations stated in the HOA's official handbook. Being that it was a 'self-appointment' you have others arguing that because of this, he's allowed to carry a hand gun.

This is actually correct. However, since this is a self-appointment, and not part of the actual, and binding charter organization, he's not part of the 'real' Neighborhood Watch. He's just some guy watching his neighborhood on his free time . . . with a gun.

It's kind of like sticking an ADT sticker or sign in your window, but not having any certified home security system in place. You hope that the sign is enough to scare off would-be criminals.

Hope that makes sense.

 

-----signature-----

If I attack you and you feel that your life is threatened then under Florida's law yes, you could shoot me.

None of the other stuff matters. It may not make common sense but that's what the law says. HOA rules don't even play into this. Zimmerman had as much right to walk around the area as Martin did. Martin had as much right to ask Zimmerman what he was doing as Zimmerman had to ask Martin what he was doing. At this point no one had a legal right to shoot anyone.

Once Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman felt his life was threatened then Zimmerman had a right under Florida law to shoot. If Zimmerman had attacked Martin first then Martin would have a right under Florida law to shoot.

The bottom line is don't physically attack people in a state that has "stand your ground" laws in place.

 

-----signature-----

Dude get this through your thick skull.


Even if he was part of an actual registered neighborhood watch program it doesn't mean squat. The rules of some organization DO NOT TRUMP THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. He is allowed BY LAW to carry his weapon wherever he likes as long as it is not a courthouse, post office, federal building or alcohol serving establishment.

He was on PRIVATE property. He was allowed by law to carry that weapon, civilian or watch commander.


I don't understand how you insist on beating that dead horse over and over. It's a really simple concept to get.

That's part of the reason there's this outcry over the "Stand Your Ground" law. As far as the other issues, you're forgetting a key component.

You instigate it.

Let's say you see a stray dog on the street. You got over and prod the dog repeatedly with a stick. Annoyed enough, the dog attacks you. You shoot and kill the dog because he bit you. And then, you accuse the dog of being in the wrong because he attacked you.

You don't see the disconnect there?

 

-----signature-----

At that point is the dog allowed to bite you until you're dead?

 

-----signature-----

And to answer your hypothetical situation. If I was standing in my driveway and someone I didn't like was walking by and I started verbally cursing at him and he physically attacked me without me swinging first and I felt my life was threatened with death or great bodily harm then under Florida's SYG and castle doctrine laws I could shoot him dead.


Unfortunately for Florida it happens all the time, which is why I didn't think twice about moving away.