On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun for self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
Tasers are often restricted or forbidden. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in France.
Even Pepper sprays are forbidden on some places. A quick wikipedia look gives me this, for example:
In Belgium, pepper spray is classified as a prohibited weapon, and it is illegal for anyone other than police officers and police agents (assistant police officers) to carry a capsicum spray.[25] The use by the security services of public transport companies is also authorised after obtaining permission from the Minister of Internal Affairs
In the Netherlands, pepper spray is illegal for civilians to own and carry. Only police officers trained in the specific use of pepper spray are allowed to carry and use it against civilians and animals.
Those are just a couple of coutries that don't allow it.
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun for self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
Yeah, you just have knife crime to replace gun crime, so its all ok. Execpt for the Swiss, who all have guns and have no problems.
Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun for self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
A lot of people do use non lethal self defense weapons. Some choose the lethal route and, depending on your circumstance, that could be prudent. There are a lot of rural areas in the US where police response time is lengthy. There are parts with high crime rates. There are also a lot of criminals who have guns. It's a different situation.
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun to self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
Yeah, quite a lot of women are carrying pepper spray around. That's probably also the better option because it's way easier to use if you get assaulted, compared to a gun, and you're not risking to get the weapon turned on yourself.
And your law in unrealistic and short sighted. You are basicly making illegal to help of fear that some else bad will happen. If I see someone rob a car, I have to sit back and call the police. I can't follow the person in my car or anything else, because I might make it worse.
I wouldn't call it unrealistic,because that's just how it works here. I have never seen a neighborhood watch anywhere in Germany.
Probably because they aren't needed. Having lived in German and American neighbourhoods, there are places in America where I'd certainly want a gun and don't feel safe walking around. While in Germany, I feel completely safe walking down the street at night in all the places I've been.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them?
Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law.
Just because we don't put anyone in prison for stealing a bottle of beer for 20 years doesn't mean you are not allowed to defend yourself. You are also allowed to defend your own home. The difference is we don't define our home as "where you currently stand" so that everyone can go around and play cowboy.
So you are saying that we need to make it illegal to follow potential criminals to see/ask what they are up to? What should the punishment be for trying to protect your neighborhood exactly? I don't give a fuck if you would "freak out" if some diligent neighbors of yours tried to stop crime in your area, but what amazes me is that you are more freaked out by people who seek to stop criminals than the actual criminals. Just because it isn't the job of civilians to execute law doesn't mean we don't have the right to make the police's job easier. Most of the time a crime happens the police show up when it's too late.
Since when do we imprison people for 20 years for stealing a bottle of beer? I know plenty of people who have robbed more and gotten way less. You're image of the U.S. is obviously immensely skewed. So basically anytime you leave your home you lose your right to defend yourself. So if I run up to you on the corner of a street and start beating the fuck out of you or one of your loved ones..you are not allowed to do any physical harm back to me or you will also go to jail? So I can just kill you and it's illegal for you to protect yourself since it isn't your actual house? That makes alot of fucking sense.
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun to self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
Yeah, quite a lot of women are carrying pepper spray around. That's probably also the better option because it's way easier to use if you get assaulted, compared to a gun, and you're not risking to get the weapon turned on yourself.
And your law in unrealistic and short sighted. You are basicly making illegal to help of fear that some else bad will happen. If I see someone rob a car, I have to sit back and call the police. I can't follow the person in my car or anything else, because I might make it worse.
I wouldn't call it unrealistic,because that's just how it works here. I have never seen a neighborhood watch anywhere in Germany.
I've never personally seen a neighborhood watch in the US
Neighbourhood watch[edit]
Many German states have neighbourhood watch programmes.
Bavaria has instituted a system of citizen patrols (Sicherheitswacht) in which unarmed teams of two volunteers patrol assigned areas to improve subjective security. These teams carry a radio to call for help if necessary and a white armband with black letters identifying them as a neighbourhood watch patrol.
Citizens in Baden-Württemberg can participate in the Volunteer Police programme, where roughly 1,200 citizens voluntarily assist their local police in 20 towns. These volunteers are specially trained, wear uniforms and are armed. Their main duty is crime prevention: conducting walking patrols to deter street crime, patrolling near schools and kindergartens and maintaining contact with potential victims of crime and juvenile delinquents.
Citizens in Hesse also participate in a Volunteer Police program, where some citizens voluntarily assist their local police. The volunteers are trained for 50 hours, receive a blue uniform, pepper spray and a mobile phone. Their main duty is crime prevention: conducting walking patrols to deter street crime, patrolling near schools and kindergartens and maintaining contact with potential victims of crime and juvenile delinquents. People can also join the Wachpolizei which has less authority (and less pay) than regular police to perform basic police tasks such as traffic or guard duties, releasing regular officers for patrol work.
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun for self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
A lot of people do use non lethal self defense weapons. Some choose the lethal route and, depending on your circumstance, that could be prudent. There are a lot of rural areas in the US where police response time is lengthy. There are parts with high crime rates. There are also a lot of criminals who have guns. It's a different situation.
Yeah I agree, it's different because if you're assaulted or robbed it's likely your opponent will have a gun, so you can't really defend yourself without one. In europe, gangsters who manage to have guns will rob a bank, not a civilian (well mostly, in France some low profile criminals are starting to use guns too, since 2 or 3 years)
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
It has a protective layer that forms over the blade, making it dull and squishy. Only in Europe though.
As my brother said, pepper spray is only good if you plan to run away from the person very fast. If thats not an option, it is worthless. And he was sprayed with it in the army, so he would know.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Many in Europe value criminal's lives as much or more than the victim's life. Which is unbelievably irrational and just stupid.
In the USA it's the opposite. Everyone has the right to life and has the right to not be a victim of an assault or attack that may take their right to life. If you are the aggressor then unfortunately for you, the victim has the right to take your life to protect his own.
Lesson: don't assault, attack or try to murder others illegally.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
They can blindly stab you, if they are that close. Noone is saying it's the same. But a pepper spray also doesn't give you the same power of self defense other weapons do.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likley that spray will do nothing.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Are you serious? You do realize you can still swing or thrust a knife without being able to see? You also realize you could miss with the pepper spray? You also realize the pepper spray could be ineffective?
Here is a female Marine getting pepper sprayed and still perfectly capable of attacking.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
When your house gets robbed do you make the burglar some coffee and french toast while he steals whatever he wants from your house and then send him off with a kiss?
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
Are gated communities public space?
It depends. A lot of times the community will have roads and sidewalks and stuff provided by the state. In those cases they need to be kept open for the public. If the developer builds all that stuff than its trespassing to go in there. In any case Zimmerman lived in the community I think so he was allowed to be there.
EPT
