|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 22 2012 15:49 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:49 Anytus wrote:
He did stalk, chase, and detain him but again it isn't clear that you can prove that he kidnapped or assaulted. You'd have to go a bit deeper than I have to figure out exactly what constitutes a threat of physical harm in Florida. Running after someone while holding a gun might qualify, I'm not sure.
You actually can approve that he assaulted him. LOOK AT THE BULLET HOLE. oh and the fact that he admitted to it. I thought you said you were well versed in the law.
If the kid attacked him first though then that isn't assault, its self-defense. The whole situation turns on whether or not he did something illegal before he shot the kid. If not, then he is just gonna say that the kid attacked him and then (at least on my reading) he is protected by the law (however ridiculous that is). There is no evidence to contradict his story, so proof beyond a reasonable doubt seems impossible.
|
On March 22 2012 15:44 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:38 Anytus wrote:On March 22 2012 15:36 Jugan wrote:
That's clearly not what happened at all.
Under the precedence the law sets, this is what occurred:
"The police chief has said that, because Zimmerman has made a statement of self-defence, and there is no evidence to dispute that, he has not been arrested."
You keep contradicting yourself in different posts.
Sorry if i misspoke, but what you quoted is exactly what I meant to say. Zimmerman says it was self defense. The DA/Police know they can't prove otherwise so they don't even bother charging him because they know it will get thrown out of court. He cans till be charged. EDIT: OH, i didn't mean that in this case it was clear that he broke that law. that's definitely not the case. it is far from clear if eh broke any laws at all. You clearly did not read any part of the discussion in this forum, including the several posts I made. Some brief facts for you. 1) He pursued an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 2) He shot and killed that unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 3) He claimed self defense. In the court of law he is now guilty (under his own admission and the evidence procured thus far) of: Murdering an unarmed minor. He must now reasonably PROVE or a reasonable person can CONCLUDE that he felt he was in a situation where his life was in imminent danger and that all other avenues of escape were closed off. But he probably won't because: 1) He admitted to pursuing an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon. 2) The victim's cries for help lasted and were recorded for well over a minute. 3) The victim was executed in short-range. Under your standard we getting what's happening now. Under my standard he gets put on a fair trial with the chance to prove or convince a reasonable person that his life was in immediate and imminent danger.
It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true.
|
On March 22 2012 15:45 Superiorwolf wrote:
Ok, that could be a reasonable defense. Although I still think it isn't really that plausible, especially based on eyewitness accounts, he could make that claim. Regarding the chasing though, I think it does factor, here's a quote from someone who wrote the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.
"Former Sen. Durell Peaden (R-Ocala), one of the authors of the "Stand Your Ground" law, said that, based on his current understanding of the facts, Zimmerman should be prosecuted. The law does not say that a person has a right to confront another, he said. When Zimmerman ignored a police request to stay away, “The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”[48]"
yeah, I saw that quote and was relieved. Unfortuately, when I read the law it didn't seem like it supported the senator's statement.
|
On March 22 2012 15:52 Anytus wrote:yeah, definitely. I'm not saying it was self-defense, just that it's complicated (as the link says). I am honestly not sure and I have only my direct reading of the Florida law to go on, not any already administered court decisions.
Either way, My Jon H. Gutmacher (who wrote the excerpt and owns the page I linked) will probably be involved in this somehow. Looks like he is a legal adviser to police in Florida, and was a criminal defense lawyer for like 25 years so I'm sure people smarter than us will make sure he sees justice.
|
On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court....
im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up.
|
On March 22 2012 15:44 Jugan wrote:
You clearly did not read any part of the discussion in this forum, including the several posts I made.
Some brief facts for you.
1) He pursued an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon.
2) He shot and killed that unarmed minor with a loaded weapon.
3) He claimed self defense.
In the court of law he is now guilty (under his own admission and the evidence procured thus far) of:
Murdering an unarmed minor.
He must now reasonably PROVE or a reasonable person can CONCLUDE that he felt he was in a situation where his life was in imminent danger and that all other avenues of escape were closed off.
But he probably won't because:
1) He admitted to pursuing an unarmed minor with a loaded weapon.
2) The victim's cries for help lasted and were recorded for well over a minute.
3) The victim was executed in short-range.
Under your standard we getting what's happening now. Under my standard he gets put on a fair trial with the chance to prove or convince a reasonable person that his life was in immediate and imminent danger.
I have tried to read all your posts, at least since i got here. I went to your profile but the posts aren't cataloged there yet (must be some alg between psting and when they go on ur profile). I read a couple news articles, so I've read the facts as they were reported there and in the OP.
Why does he have to prove that he felt his life was in danger? Why can't he just say it? Seems like a reasonable person would say 'Well, if I thought he had a gun or he attacked me, then I'd fear for my life." What proof can he offer other than "I thought the kid had a gun and he attacked me." Is it your opinion that he needs to prove it (I basically agree) or are you basing that on part of Florida law? The DA could offer an alternate account where he isn't acting in self-defense but can they ever prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
I really want this guy to stand trial. What I don't want though are people who actually acted in self-defense to have to go through a long trial.
|
On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up.
There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place.
|
If hell exists I sincerely hope Zimmerman goes. If this man isn't executed by the United States or given life in prison then my faith in this country is entirely gone.
The victim only had skittles and an ice tea.
|
On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place.
there is only evidence of what happened before he confronted the boy until he hung up the phone with the cops. there is screaming, but its not known for sure who was screaming. and then after we know the kid was dead and the guy was bloodied up. the guy im quoting is making up shit for what happened in the middle of that time period when the confrontation went on. he is not basing it on facts.
|
What did I just read? I must be dreaming. This guy killed someone for no reason at all, and gets off scott-free? wut....
|
On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:
There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place.
There is a lot of evidence that he chased the kid with a loaded gun. As far as I've been able to tell that seems like it should be illegal, but I can't find a law that it breaks. If you can, please share cuz I want this to be against the law. You hear the kid crying but he claims it is him. Maybe audio analysis can prove who it is, I dunno. Your right that he put himself knowingly in a life threatening position, but I don't see where that factors into the Florida law. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see it in the law (or other related laws).
|
On March 22 2012 16:16 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:
There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. There is a lot of evidence that he chased the kid with a loaded gun. As far as I've been able to tell that seems like it should be illegal, but I can't find a law that it breaks. If you can, please share cuz I want this to be against the law. You hear the kid crying but he claims it is him. Maybe audio analysis can prove who it is, I dunno. Your right that he put himself knowingly in a life threatening position, but I don't see where that factors into the Florida law. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see it in the law (or other related laws).
Murder is the crime. My post was just saying how ridiculous the self defense claim is.
|
On March 22 2012 16:21 gogatorsfoster wrote:
Murder is the crime. My post was just saying how ridiculous the self defense claim is.
Ok, I gotcha. Unfortunately, the way the law is written it seems like he can't be charged with murder no matter how ridiculous the claim is because there is no way we can prove he is lying.
|
On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place.
It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true.
|
So in these ass-backwards 16 states with this "Stand Yer Ground, 'Merica Fuck Yeah", it's straight up legal to murder somebody as long as no one was there to witness it, and as long as you say "yo dawg, self defense"
|
On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up.
Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously.
It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen.
|
On March 22 2012 16:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So in these ass-backwards 16 states with this "Stand Yer Ground, 'Merica Fuck Yeah", it's straight up legal to murder somebody as long as no one was there to witness it, and as long as you say "yo dawg, self defense"
Perhaps, but if you wanted to murder someone and get away with it there are probably easier ways to go about it.
|
This is truly a scary story to me because the community law enforcement where I grew up did carry pistols but I never heard of any stories where they actually used lethal force. As I understood it their job was to monitor and alert county police to suspicious activity, not to persue and detain potential perps. It sounds to me like this man made unconcionable decisions to disregard protocol in approaching the victim. There should at least be something they can charge him with regarding his actions leading up to the shooting if they can't prove a manslaughter case.
The victim could have been anyone in this scenario and that is what is so frightening about it.
|
On March 22 2012 16:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So in these ass-backwards 16 states with this "Stand Yer Ground, 'Merica Fuck Yeah", it's straight up legal to murder somebody as long as no one was there to witness it, and as long as you say "yo dawg, self defense" Perhaps, but if you wanted to murder someone and get away with it there are probably easier ways to go about it.
Uh, ok. Your point?
|
On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen.
he is being investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
