|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
Wow, this makes me sad on so many levels.
Feel bad for the parents, and girlfriend.
Feel bad for the community.
Feel bad for a society that allows people to drive about with anti-personnel weapons (believe it or not a 9mm handgun isn't used in hunting the -only- use is to kill another human being) on vigilante patrols.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story.
We do have evidence. All of which points to him being the attacker. If you are chasing someone as a civilian you are the attacker, the only exception being if you are assisting an officer. That can't apply in this case since he was told by police to not interfere.
|
|
|
On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
[quote]
Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions.
Wrong. I don't understand why you keep defending this man. Noone has been calling for a lynching. This man isn't going to trial, he doesn't have to explain himself. This is what everyone else in this thread apart from you oppose as he is, to us with what we have been presented, obviously guilty of murder. When he chased after him he was actively seeking a confrontation, otherwise he would not have chased after him. But let's entertain the thought that Zimmerman only ment to follow and not confront Trayvon (who, by the way, was running away from Zimmerman which was established through his conversation with his girlfriend), that would mean that, contrary to what Trayvon's girlfriend is saying, Trayvon actively went towards and sought a confrontation with Zimmerman. And for this to be self defense, he would also have to have been acting in a threatening manner, after which he would have had to have been reaching for something "suspicious" or actively attacking Zimmerman. Sounds reasonable? I sure as fuck don't think so.
|
On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on?
An argument from authority is not an argument. If you're a law student, cite a case. I'm happy to be wrong if I'm wrong, but your analogy doesn't make any sense. It's possible that the body of law relating to it also makes no sense (as it sometimes does), but then I'd like to know.
Police are given all manner of power that ordinary citizens are not. In a situation like this, they would not only have the power to pursue (assuming something suspicious), but the responsibility. In most states, self defense laws include a duty to retreat, which says that the person claiming self defense prove that they either tried to retreat from an attack or were reasonably unable to. Florida does not have this provision, but my understanding is that "stand your ground" does not include the right to pursue. Everything that occured between Zimmerman spotting Martin (and thinking that he's suspicious) and the shooting is a single event. If Zimmerman had stood his ground as Martin approached him, this would potentially be a different story.
|
On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
[quote]
Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions.
When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious?
|
I have no idea how the US justice system works, but isn't all that's been released enough evidence to show that Zimmerman caused the entire situation to happen, and therefore is at least responsible for the death of Martin, which would be called manslaughter if I'm not mistaken? From what I can find on a quick google search, manslaughter is enough to put the guy away for some years, at least. To me it seems like he outright murdered the kid, but I suppose I can't be entirely sure. He was probably stressed as hell and full of adrenaline, so he thinks he sees something and Bang!
Very sad all around. My condolences goes out to the Martin family.
|
On March 22 2012 10:02 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense.
look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. We do have evidence. All of which points to him being the attacker. If you are chasing someone as a civilian you are the attacker, the only exception being if you are assisting an officer. That can't apply in this case since he was told by police to not interfere.
you have conjecture and speculation based on what the internet has provided you. the police don't arrest and prosecute people without actual evidence. im not sure where you are getting these rules from. obviously chasing someone tends to show that you are an aggressor, but its not conclusive.
|
Since this is incredibly local (Local news and radio has been covering it for over 3 weeks now) I've had so many conflicting views. The guy should not have engaged the teenager after he was told to stay put. Unfortunately he pursued the teenager, possibly engaged and shot the man.
The problem is this: Too many people are calling this a hate crime, or that it is an issue of race. I do not believe this is the case, but I do believe that the man is guilty of manslaughter.
|
I vote for a temporary day of Anarchy to shut up any protest, any arguments, and just let people do what really want to do for justice 
|
On March 22 2012 09:59 MoneyHypeMike wrote:
The sad thing about this is if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, Zimmerman would of been arrested...
What a sick world we live in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
I honestly want to say it's the truth. If anyone still remembers that Troy Davis case. Troy Davis was black and "allegedly" shot a white police officer, but they didn't even have enough proof to convict Troy Davis, but they executed him on Death Row anyways.
The world isn't always fair. 
|
On March 22 2012 10:03 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning.
but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense.
[quote]
i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. Wrong. I don't understand why you keep defending this man. Noone has been calling for a lynching. This man isn't going to trial, he doesn't have to explain himself. This is what everyone else in this thread apart from you oppose as he is, to us with what we have been presented, obviously guilty of murder. When he chased after him he was actively seeking a confrontation, otherwise he would not have chased after him. But let's entertain the thought that Zimmerman only ment to follow and not confront Trayvon (who, by the way, was running away from Zimmerman which was established through his conversation with his girlfriend), that would mean that, contrary to what Trayvon's girlfriend is saying, Trayvon actively went towards and sought a confrontation with Zimmerman. And for this to be self defense, he would also have to have been acting in a threatening manner, after which he would have had to have been reaching for something "suspicious" or actively attacking Zimmerman. Sounds reasonable? I sure as fuck don't think so.
im not defending him. in numerous posts i have said that he sounds guilty to me. im just not jumping on the bandwagon before evidence is heard in court--especially based on the limited evidence presented so far.
this is why i dont jump on bandwagons that crucify people before court cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:02 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. We do have evidence. All of which points to him being the attacker. If you are chasing someone as a civilian you are the attacker, the only exception being if you are assisting an officer. That can't apply in this case since he was told by police to not interfere. you have conjecture and speculation based on what the internet has provided you. the police don't arrest and prosecute people without actual evidence. im not sure where you are getting these rules from. obviously chasing someone tends to show that you are an aggressor, but its not conclusive.
I have eye witness accounts and a police transcript. The police are accused of acting improperly. I'm getting the rules from the same place you are, my understanding of how the law works.
|
rofl, crying self defense after he, armed, followed an unarmed child?
|
On March 22 2012 09:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:46 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. He could have had the gun out and the 17 year old might have struggled over the gun before it going off. An urban environmental doesn't really strike me as the place that someone even racially motivated would go to murder someone in cold blood. The kid probably thought that he was being threatened because of his race and tried to get the gun away from the local watch white guy. If a civilian is patroling in a city with a gun I call that a militia. When did that change? So back to my armed robbery example. If you try to stop me and we a struggle for my gun ensues. I get a shot off and kill you. That is self defense? Absolutely not.
Yes it is. You where threatened with a gun and you didn't plan to shoot them or intend to shoot them. At worse the state calls that third degree murder. The thing is that when you see your life threatened part of your brain shuts off and can't be held responsible on what happens for that.
how does the situation change if they found drugs on the guy or if he was actually drunk or high. If I wanted to get away with murder I would have planted drugs on the guy.
As for the police corruption issue I wouldn't be surprised if this zimmerman knew the local cops being good friends with them "protecting the Neighborhood" buying them a few drinks and soon they think that they want to help him out a little bit. Big cities are full of bad cops being paid very little and get frustrated working in gang areas seeing the dead kids every other night. Case's like this happen all the time and nothing will come to them for this either.
|
On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning.
but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense.
[quote]
i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious?
he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking.
That doesn't matter. He has no right to chase after him. Especially after being told specifically not to.
|
On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking.
You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, join a neighbourhood watch, follow unarmed kids, shoot them and than call it selfdefense?
|
On March 22 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:03 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. Wrong. I don't understand why you keep defending this man. Noone has been calling for a lynching. This man isn't going to trial, he doesn't have to explain himself. This is what everyone else in this thread apart from you oppose as he is, to us with what we have been presented, obviously guilty of murder. When he chased after him he was actively seeking a confrontation, otherwise he would not have chased after him. But let's entertain the thought that Zimmerman only ment to follow and not confront Trayvon (who, by the way, was running away from Zimmerman which was established through his conversation with his girlfriend), that would mean that, contrary to what Trayvon's girlfriend is saying, Trayvon actively went towards and sought a confrontation with Zimmerman. And for this to be self defense, he would also have to have been acting in a threatening manner, after which he would have had to have been reaching for something "suspicious" or actively attacking Zimmerman. Sounds reasonable? I sure as fuck don't think so. im not defending him. in numerous posts i have said that he sounds guilty to me. im just not jumping on the bandwagon before evidence is heard in court--especially based on the limited evidence presented so far. this is why i dont jump on bandwagons that crucify people before court cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
Well great fucking thing he aint going to trial then, right? That's the problem here.
|
On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story.
I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court).
It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense.
At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
6329
1915
EPT
