Watching The Neighborhood: George Zimmerman

Watching the neighborhood

I’m sure that by now you’ve all heard of George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch guy who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a young African American man who was walking home from a local convenience store.

Zimmerman says he shot Martin in self defense, while the prosecution and Martin supporters claim the shooting was a deliberate murder motivated by race.

But what role in this tragic story does the Neighborhood Watch program play? And what exactly is the Neighborhood Watch program? Who sponsors it? And why was George Zimmerman out on patrol? Well…

The Neighborhood Watch program officially began in 1972.

Created and organized by the National Sheriff’s Association, Neighborhood Watch was established to reduce crime. Watch members are groups of citizens who live in the same areas and want to make their communities safer.

Local police agencies work closely with local Neighborhood Watch programs, providing guidance and, as events occur, use information gathered by Watch volunteers to better formulate a plan that best suits the needs of a particular neighborhood (more patrols in a given area, foot patrol instead of vehicle patrol, etc.).

Neighborhood Watch members are also active in providing assistance to the homeless and those in need after a major disaster.

Boris the Burglar is the widely-recognized symbol of the Neighborhood Watch program, and the presence of signs bearing his image is a signal to criminals that the eyes of the community are watching them and that the locals will be calling the police if they sense anything out of the ordinary.

Each “Watch” group should have a police officer liaison whose job is to provide guidance and to assist with the needs of individual communities.

It is the duty of Watch members to be on the lookout for suspicious activity in their neighborhoods. The Watch guidelines offered by the National Sheriffs Association (NSA) defines suspicious activity as “anything that feels uncomfortable or looks out of place. The guide also lists a few “activities” that could be considered suspicious, such as loiterers in places like school grounds or businesses that have closed for the night, and signs of forced entry on homes and businesses.

Watch members are encouraged to report any strange or unusual activity, including suspicious or illegal actions and dangerous situations.

It is important that all Watch members report legitimate concerns and they should do so by calling 911. It is also important that Watch members remain safe, and that includes watching and reporting from a safe distance from where the odd or illegal activity is taking place. In fact, the Watch guidelines spell out a very important safety suggestion for its members. Here’s a screenshot of the reminder taken from the NSA Neighborhood Watch manual:

This somewhat brief notice leaves very little room for interpretation. Actually, the statement is pretty much to the point.

So where does this leave George Zimmerman? He was a Neighborhood Watch member, a leader in his local organization, I believe. He was also well known to members of the police department. In other words, he was no stranger to “how things work.” And, more importantly to this case, he took action.

On the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Zimmerman was driving through his neighborhood (I understand he wasn’t on duty as Neighborhood Watch). He saw Martin walking through the neighborhood (there had been recent burglaries in the area) and called the police to report the stranger (Martin’s father lived there, but Martin did not).

Martin wore a dark hoodie, with the hood up and on his head, as he made his way to his father’s house. By the way, many criminals, of all races, wear hoodies as part of their disguises—an attempt to mask their identities. However, it was raining, therefore a hood worn over the head would be a natural thing to do. I’ve done it many times, including the night I was in my own yard clearing heavy, wet snow from some very young Deodar Cedars. Well, my neighbors saw a dark figure wearing a hoodie and immediately called the police. After all, who in their right mind, other than someone who was up to no good, would tromp around outside during a brutal snowstorm, at midnight? It took a lot of convincing on my part that I was indeed who I said I was, and I still don’t think the two deputies believed my “snow on the trees” story.

Anyway, Zimmerman parked his car, got out, and headed after Martin, supposedly to see what he was up to and to keep him in sight until police arrived. Of course, we all know that within a matter of minutes Martin was dead and today George Zimmerman is on trial for murder.

Let’s assume Zimmerman did exactly what he said he did. And while we’re here, let’s leave out the racial aspect. I want to address only the fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow Martin.

Was it illegal for him to get out of his car to follow Martin on foot? Remember, a dispatcher told him, “You don’t need to be doing that (following Martin).” And, the paragraph from the NSA Neighborhood Watch manual clearly states that citizens should never take action on their observations.

Well, the key word here is SHOULD.

There is no law preventing anyone, including George Zimmerman, from getting out of his car and taking a walk. The dispatcher’s statement was not a police order, so he didn’t disobey her. Besides, she doesn’t have the authority to order someone to remain inside their vehicle. Still, she didn’t say, “Do not get out of your car, and that’s a direct police order.” But to include the word should, well, that’s like telling your kid that he should eat his broccoli. Will the little darling eat his green vegetable after hearing that statement? Or would he be more inclined to do so if you said something like, “Eat your broccoli…now!”

I believe Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a firearm. So he didn’t violate any laws there either. Should he carry a weapon while on Watch duty? I don’t know what their rules say regarding firearms, but I’d think the police and the organization would both frown on Watch members carrying guns. Again, though, no laws were broken. Keep in mind that an organization’s rules and regulations are not laws. You can be removed or fired for breaking a private rule, but you cannot be arrested for it (unless the rule is also an actual law on the books).

What happened after Zimmerman and Martin came together is now up to a Florida jury to decide, and they must do so based on facts, not assumptions, race, prejudices, media speculation, gut feelings, wishes, hopes, or dreams.

But whether or not George Zimmerman was breaking the law by stepping out of his vehicle, well, that really should be a non-issue. Simply because someone says something—in this case, the dispatcher—doesn’t make it a binding law.

You know, as in, “I should have been working on my book instead of staring out of the window wondering why the red-headed woodpecker in the palm tree by the pool doesn’t get a headache from all that wood-pecking…but I’m not.” If only someone would come along and say, “Get to work!”

Oh, oh, here comes the wife. I just might be hearing those words after all.

So what are your thoughts on George Zimmerman? Guilty of murder? Or, did he act in self defense?

 *By the way, I am a proud Sheriff Member of the National Sheriff’s Association, and I wholeheartedly urge you to support your local sheriff.


20 replies
  1. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    Frances, thanks for stopping by and for your comments about the case.

    As a police investigator with many years of experience I’d like to point out that it’s never reasonable to assume anything in these situations. To do so has come back to bite many detectives and attorneys in places where the sun doesn’t shine.

    We absolutely cannot second-guess/play Monday morning quarterback when piecing together facts, and facts are what must be presented to a jury, not opinion.

    To say Martin would have backed off when he saw the gun is based on what you would have done, not necessarily what Martin would have done in the same situation. For example, had I seen a firearm my first reaction/action would be to try to take it away from the potential shooter, and I have done so on more than one occasion. Not everyone thinks as you do, nor do they think as I do. But to say someone would’ve/should’ve acted a certain way is just not the way things happen in reality.

    Finally, simply because no warning was issued is a totally moot point. All too often there is no time to issue a warning, nor is anyone required by law to do so. In fact, many times when life threatening situations arise, there is barely enough time to react, much less formulate and offer a verbal warning while attempting to save your own hide from harm.

    No one knows exactly what happened between Martin and Zimmerman besides the two of them, and one is not here to tell his side. Still, we cannot accurately second-guess any of the events of that night because we weren’t there. Statements made by anyone other than Zimmerman are merely opinion.

  2. frances wald
    frances wald says:

    During the reenactment of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman demonstrated how he unholstered his gun and fired the shot.
    A split second between unholstering and shooting. I think it is reasonable to assume that even if Trayvon was the aggressor and was on top of Zimmerman, he would have backed off when he saw the gun pointed at him. But he never got the chance. To me all other issues are irrelevant: Is Zimmerman a racist? Who was the aggressor? Did he really fear for his life? Were his injuries severe or superficial? The fact that he gave no warning is enough to find him guilty.

  3. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    According to the Sanford Police Department volunteer coordinator, Wendy Dorival, Zimmerman was a member of the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch, and he was appointed and elected as block captain by members of his HOA.

    Not all Watch groups are registered with the National Sheriff’s Association, nor are they required to register with the NSA. And, since Zimmerman’s HOA Watch group was practically brand new and Zimmerman had recently joined (Sept. 2011), and the group was not associated with the NSA or any of the other organized groups, there was no set protocol or operating procedures to follow. And, this is not unusual by any means.

    You know, someone can be the biggest liar in the world, but if the evidence doesn’t meet the requirements for conviction, well, then justice is indeed served. The outcome may not be a popular, and often it’s not, but it will be an outcome that was decided in a court of law before a judge and jury who’ve seen and heard the facts of the case. That is how the legal system operates in this country.

  4. Mary Oehlerich
    Mary Oehlerich says:

    What Neighborhood Watch Organization was George Zimmerman a member of? According to this article he did not belong to a recognized Neighborhood Watch organization:

    George Zimmerman did not just lie once about the amount of money he had. He lied several times, including that he told Sean Hannity in an interview that he didn’t know anything about the stand your ground law. However, he had received an A in a college course in which the stand your ground law was iterated several times throughout the course and in fact was a major focus of the course. These or any other lies of Zimmerman are not going to make a difference when it comes down to convicting him with Murder 2. Murder 2 requires a higher standard of proof, and I don’t think the prosecution has reached that standard. Thus the jury will not convict on Murder 2. Unfortunately, I think Zimmerman will be acquitted. I believe he will get away with having murdered Trayvon Martin simply for lack of evidence. I don’t think Trayvon Martin’s voice was heard in this trial because there was simply not enough evidence for it to be so. George Zimmerman, in my view, is not a credible voice to inform us of what actually happened. This is a time when Justice will not be served.

  5. Daniel Smith
    Daniel Smith says:

    First, I think the whole case is tragic. I think it’s clear Zimmerman did not follow the advice of his own organization but they are not to blame for his actions. So how to understand this? There is evidence that Trayvon was no stranger to being physical, non-disclosure policies be damned. Human nature tells us that since Zimmerman exited his car to follow Trayvon, any mildly street-wise kid would have noticed this and taken some kind of action in response. Maybe Trayvon did tackle Zimmerman, maybe he ran, maybe he waited for Zimmerman to come to him or taunted him. I don’t know and we probably never will know, but I think it reasonable to assume Trayvon felt he was in danger. Zimmerman’s response to Trayvon’s heightened state was ultimately to shoot him. Without any evidence to the contrary, I think the sequence of events that led to the death of Trayvon began when George Zimmerman’s hand reached for the door of his vehicle. Is that guilt? IMO probably yes since it was against the recommendation of both Zimmerman’s organization and the dispatcher. Simply put, he knew better or he should have known better. Is this (his ignoring the dispatcher) a crime? IMO no, as Lee explained in this post. Nonetheless, someone is dead. Sometimes I think our laws need a separate category in between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder because there is clearly intent on the part of Zimmerman yet I do not believe his intent was to kill Trayvon. Likewise, this was not an accident as a charge of manslaughter might suggest since Zimmerman’s response to Trayvon was deliberate. Maybe we don’t need an intermediate category but I do not envy those who have to decide Zimmerman’s fate.

    This is a difficult case. I’m sure members of law enforcement and the Neighborhood Watch in particular will scrutinize whatever comes. Hopefully, this case will serve as a warning to those that might not follow recommendations from a member of law enforcement.

  6. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    If you feel your life is threatened, Bud, yes. It is quite possible to be beaten to death. It is also quite possible to kill someone with your bare hands without delivering a single punch. It’s all how the victim perceives the threat to his life at the time the threat is taking place.

    But we don’t know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. No one does now, except Zimmerman. Anything offered by anyone but him is merely a guess. And even then, what he says may not necessarily be fact. After all, he’s already lied to the court about the cash he had on hand at the time of his bond hearing.

  7. Bud
    Bud says:

    If I walk up to a person and start slugging, and he swings around and sluggs back, turning out to be the better slugger, I should be able to shoot him dead to protect myself?

  8. Janis Patterson
    Janis Patterson says:

    Personally I find it obscene that Zimmerman is being tried for defending himself. Self-defense is not a crime. He was battered and bloody and in fear of his life. Wasn’t Martin bigger and in better shape than Zimmerman, or do I mis-remember? This whole circus is racially based – has anyone ever heard of a ‘white Hispanic’ before the racists started flinging it around trying to get Zimmerman charged? Switch the races of the two participants and this story would never have made it out of the local news.

  9. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    I doubt seriously that a heat of the moment defense would make it in that situation, Bob. To properly argue a “heat of passion” defense the defendant must show facts that would drive a normal, rational person to lose total control. where the trouble comes to play for either Zimmerman or Martin is that they both have been involved in violent or semi-violent situations in the past.

    In other words, a scuffle on the sidewalk between two men, and yes, Martin was a young man, would probably not result in either of them losing total control, even with a weapon involved. And neither of the men were strangers to firearms and violence.

  10. Bob Mueller
    Bob Mueller says:

    Lee, I’d argue that had Martin disarmed Zimmerman and then shot him, he’d have been in the heat of the moment, and responding to someone who had already indicated a willingness to use deadly force. THAT would have been an interesting trial.

    And I agree that Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked. Really a sad case all the way around that did not at all need to happen.

  11. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    808 – First of all, thanks for sticking with me even after Southland faded to black. You know that Shawn, Ben, and Regina have all signed on to new series, right? I’m not sure what Michael’s plans are yet, though. I do know that Shawn’s new show RECKLESS will start filming soon and it’ll be in my neck of the woods.

    Anyway, to answer your question. The jury will have to consider the totality of circumstances that led to the shooting death of Martin. The problem comes when they try to decide whether or not Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. Sure, I think he’s guilty of manslaughter, without a doubt.

    Now, here’s the definition of 2nd degree murder in Florida. Read it carefully, especially the section that lists defenses to 2nd degree murder. This one in particular – Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder

    ~ To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a “depraved mind” without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant’s intent to kill.

    State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.

    Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges:

    Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property

    Excusable homicide committed by accident

    Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder

  12. Lee Lofland
    Lee Lofland says:

    Bob – The law is perfectly clear to me. Not cloudy at all. However, what you propose is a totally different animal. In your scenario, where Martin disarms Zimmerman, Martin is guilty of murder. You see, once he disarmed Zimmerman the threat to his (Martin’s) life was then over. To shoot the now unarmed Zimmerman could even be argued as premeditated murder. There is no set legal amount of time to determine how long it takes to plan a murder. Courts have ruled that time frame (premeditation) could be as little as a matter of seconds, and your scenario fits that mold.

    Sure, the scenario we have before us today could also fit. However, it doesn’t play out that way because had Zimmerman wanted and planned to kill Martin, then why wait until they fought? That would provide too much opportunity for the taller, younger, and probably more agile Martin to disarm Zimmerman.

    Actually, I believe had Zimmerman not shot Martin he’d have received a proper butt-kicking. I think Zimmerman bit off far more than he could chew when he made the decision to step out of his vehicle.

    Whether or not Martin is saint doesn’t apply, you’re right. But what would apply to both parties is whether or not they were prone to violence. Of course, I think there’s evidence to show a bit of that in both camps.

    The jury is going to have to decide this case based on very few facts and a little bit of circumstantial evidence. So far it doesn’t seem as if either side has a lot to offer when it comes to witnesses.

  13. Ashley McConnell
    Ashley McConnell says:

    I don’t know if Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or murder. All I know about the case is what I’ve seen in the media, and that’s not what the jury’s seeing.

    I do think he may well be guilty of stupidity (for confronting a possible prowler), but there aren’t enough jails in the universe to hold everyone who’s guilty of THAT.

  14. wraith808
    wraith808 says:

    I must say, Southland was the reason that I started coming to this site. Conversations like this are the reason that even with Southland’s demise, I’ll keep reading. Rational, reasoned arguments based on facts and the fact that everything is not known are too rare these days. Thank you Lee, and thank you commenters.

    As far as this case, I do have a question. Is the possible avoidance of confrontation that had presented itself a part of the case? Or is it only what happened when the confrontation occurred?

  15. Bob Mueller
    Bob Mueller says:

    Let’s posit a different outcome. Suppose Martin (who was either living with or visiting his dad, and therefore lawfully allowed to be where he was) was walking along, and was confronted by Zimmerman. Martin was under no obligation to identify himself to Zimmerman, by the way. It’s likely that Zimmerman never identified himself as being part of the Neighborhood Watch, and even if he did, Martin was still under no obligation to identify. Suppose then that Martin turns to walk away, and Zimmerman assaults him to keep him from running away. They fall to the ground and grapple. Zimmerman feels in fear of his life and draws his gun. Martin takes it from him and shoots Zimmerman.

    Self-defense? Does Stand Your Ground apply? Not quite so clear now, is it?

    Stand Your Ground applies to both men here, I think. Martin had a legal right to be where he was, and to ignore Zimmerman. And to defend himself if assaulted.

    Was Martin a saint? Doesn’t matter. Nothing that we’ve learned about Trayvon Martin since he died matters one iota to what happened that night, unless Zimmerman knew him. This case MUST be judged based on what the two parties knew about each other at the time of the confrontation, and way to many people are forgetting that.

  16. Rick
    Rick says:

    From what I understand of most stand-your-ground rules, this is not a legal excuse to shoot someone when not justified. In most states, from what I understand, these “stand your ground” or “Castle doctrine” laws were enacted for a different reason.

    Many states used to have self-defense laws which required the citizen to do everything to avoid confrontation, including fleeing from assault, even if they were in their own residence. Many people felt that a person in their own home (or castle) should not have to try to leave their own home when under assault.

    It seems IMHO that the media has used the phrase “stand your ground” in conjunction with this case to try to infer that this law is a justification for anyone to a) not show good judgment and avoid a confrontation; b) that people who legally carry firearms have this “stand your ground” in mind as a “license to shoot on sight.” In short, it seems the media just wants to sensationalize a story.

    As you astutely point out Lee, Zimmerman was not breaking the law in his actions up until the confrontation escalated and he used lethal force. I think no one would argue that Zimmerman’s decisions were all poor decision, and they all piled up to a tragic ending.

    This case boils down to the simplce fact—was Zimmerman in fear of his life at the time he used lethal force. Obviously, by his actions the government believes he wasn’t within grounds of self defense, or the shooting would have been ruled justified or no true billed a grand jury.

    It is hard to justify shooting an unarmed assailant, but there times it can be done. Also, how a civilian acts when employing lethal force vs. a law enforcement officer in the action of their duty are different (though different set of circumstances, the recent FBI shooting of the witness/suspect in Florida whom they were interviewing about the Boston Marathon bombing when the person assaulted the agent).

    Now it’s up to a jury to decide the facts of the Zimmerman case.

  17. Allan J
    Allan J says:

    Speaking to the first commenter regarding Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, what’s vague about the law isn’t necessarily the “self-defense” or “fear” portion of it. I can’t think of any state with a law that wouldn’t acquit a person who killed someone else when they were proved to be reasonably in fear for their life. And the key word is “Reasonable”. Just about every state law has a provision for “Reasonable” cause for self defense. Whether they use the word fear, or reason, etc, it must be “reasonable”. I wouldn’t get hung up on the word “fear”. Florida law does not provide for the ability to shoot someone solely because you “fear” them.

    What’s tough about Florida’s law (and you can read it here: is that it ALSO allows for the use of deadly force to “prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”. Which is defined as any of the following in FL: ” treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

    THAT (among other provisions) is what makes their law a little tough to grasp proper definition. I’m all for self-defense laws. But this is just a little too sweeping. Can I shoot someone for trying to jack someone else’s car? I think this law needs a little more clarification.

  18. Allan J
    Allan J says:

    History is written by the “victor”, or in this case, sadly, the survivor. I am in no way saying that I neither believe nor disbelieve George Zimmerman’s story, but I say simply that we’ll never truly know the full details of what happened. We’re left either to believe Zimmerman’s story on good faith and patches of evidence, or to create our own opinion of what -might- have happened. It absolutely confounds me how people are able to set social media ablaze with “he did it!” or “he’s innocent!” remarks, and somehow *actually* argue those points when it does not appear that we’ll ever have the full facts short of some breakdown and confession from Zimmerman.

    You’re right, what matters are laws, and if he broke any. Unless he is actually found guilty of murder, then we know as a matter of FACT, that he broke no laws and did no legal wrong by leaving his vehicle. While the actual facts of the altercation and the shooting will of course determine guilt, you can bet that his motivation for getting out of the vehicle will be in question to establish his character. Was it out of genuine concern for his neighbors? That he might lose eyes on the “suspect”? Or was it out of personal bravado? Was he another person with a gun and something to prove? (Both very easily possible, in my opinion.) The outcome of this could weigh heavily on a jury. Was this man only concerned, and consequently appear reluctant to kill another human being? Or was he “looking for action”, knowing he was armed and had the ability to take a life if he wanted/had to?

    While I’ll be the last person to allow race into a conversation where it need not be necessary (not helped by the media’s overbearing use of race as a crutch for a story), you can be certain that the prosecution has looked into his past for the potential for racial prejudice. Hate crimes exist, and if George Zimmerman were to show a pattern of such prejudice, that certainly does become a talking point in this case, further into the realm of establishing character and motive.

    One thing is for sure, when possible, unless you or someone else are direly placed into an unavoidable life or death situation, leave enforcing the laws to the lawmen. If he could do it over again, I’m willing to bet all my marbles that George Zimmerman would have waited in his vehicle. We don’t know what happened, we never may, but that night, perhaps with the intention only to follow, or perhaps with the full intention to intervene, a man left his vehicle to go after a person who he already presumed to be a criminal with no police training (mental or physical) knowing that there was a possibility that an altercation could occur. I can *almost* guarantee, that had a police officer been the person to follow and been party to an altercation, 99times/100, unless Trayvon was a highly trained fighter or 200 pounds heavier, that would have ended without the sad loss of life that it is.

    As a personal opinion, do I think he’s innocent? I know what everyone else does: not enough. What I can say, is that unless there are some glaring facts that we have not yet seen, I honestly think it will be difficult to prove Murder 2. Negligent manslaughter maybe, but Murder 2 will be difficult for a prosecution to prove with what we -currently- know. I haven’t really caught up lately on the case though, so I may not know newer facts.

  19. GlynnMarshAlam
    GlynnMarshAlam says:

    I live in FL and the “stand your ground law” scares me silly. The John Wayne wannabes are found all over the place here, and they are all carrying guns. Zimmerman reminds me of one of them. I doubt they would have picked me for the jury because I’d tell them exactly that. Maybe I’m wrong, but this guy sure acted like someone who thought he’d be a hero. Martin, on the other hand, saw a guy following him. Anyone would have been afraid of that.

  20. Lise Horton
    Lise Horton says:

    I think that we may never have a clear idea of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Was he ill-advised in taking the actions he did? I think so. Should he have followed the guidlines? Definitely. But perhaps the most important contributing factor (to my way of thinking) is the Florida law that says someone who has a fear of another person has the right to shoot them in “self defense” (I’m oversimplifying, I’m sure.). That wide range of permission to take action is what I believe led to this tragedy. And the easy access of guns by people who are untrained and undisciplined (as I believe Zimmerman was)will no doubt lead to more of these hasty and ill-rendered decisions. And as a native New Yorker, I am relieved that we do not have this law because, after all, most everyone I meet on a daily basis would admit to “fearing” someone at sometime or another. Our streets would be littered with victims if we all had the guns and acted on those fears. Great post encapsulating the situation and I am interested in seeing how the trial progresses going forward.

Comments are closed.