You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really?
Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime. Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise.
We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor.
Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical.
The end result of someone playing vigilante to keep his gated neighborhood safe is that an innocent person died. His actions made the neighborhood less safe. Why would you be all for more patrols like this? It didn't work, the results were the exact opposite of what was allegedly the original goal: making a community safer.
And you think more would-be vigilantes should arm themselves and roam the streets? Why?
Ok, this is why discussing this issue is like driving nails in to your stomach. People can't seem to figure out Bad Things happen sometimes, including people dying, and that doesn't mean the killer did anything illegal or morally questionable. It is called imperfect information; neither Zimmerman or Martin knew what the other one was doing. Hypothetical - Martin thought he'd attack someone who he thought was coming after him. I'll show this bitch not to follow me around. Maybe he is trying to find out where I live to do something to me later. People have started fights for much less. Zimmerman acts in self defense. Martin dies as a result of his misunderstanding of Zimmerman's intentions.
Trayvon is not "innocent" if he attacked Zimmerman and smashed his head against the concrete. Anyone with half a brain would find that to be a risk of at least serious bodily harm. Until someone provides evidence Zimmerman initiated the fight he walks free having done nothing wrong, an unfortunate set of things just happened and George goes free.
If Zimmerman is acting threatening enough to Trayvon that warrants such defensive behavior, isn't that still an offense? Sure it may not be murder, but something like manslaughter (as it directly resulted in a death) or threatening behavior?
On April 22 2012 01:37 dAPhREAk wrote: people. stop calling him a vigilante. even if he did pursue trayvon, which is not actually known for sure, thats not vigilantism. he called the cops, which is the exact opposite of what vigilantes do. there is no reason to believe that he intended to punish trayvon, which is also necessary for him to be a vigilante.
Definition of VIGILANTE : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
It could be argued Zimmerman fulfills the criteria of "a self-appointed doer of justice". It doesn't necessarily mean he overstepped his legal bounds, but if one cannot argue that Zimmerman was a vigilante than what is the point of this thread? Just because he may not have broken the law, does not mean his actions were justified. We should not come to this thread to determine guilt, but rather to discuss the implications of the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Is it right to confront a hooded individual in your neighbourhood while armed? What does that imply about the person who does the confronting? What does that imply about society when we allow individuals of limited authority to promote a conflict? Where does the line between surveillance and protection get drawn between vigilanteism?
If Trayvon were to hide behind a fence and jump Zimmerman than obviously Zimmerman has the right to defend himself. But if Zimmerman were to confront Trayvon, at what point does Zimmermans actions begin to impede on Trayvons rights?
Honestly, the entire notion of Zimmermans guilt resides on whether his acts stepped over the line between deterent and active vigilante. If there is no doubt in your mind that Zimmerman isn't a vigilante than you've made up your mind on the case. Perhaps you are correct, and the jury will clear Zimmerman of all charges, but until that time suppressing the notion of Zimmerman as a vigilante is actually inhibiting construction discussion.
Granted, merely stating Zimmerman is a vigilante and should goto jail is pointless and detracts from discussion, but so is stating Zimmerman is obviously in the right to defend himself (hint: nothing about the case is obvious, nor straightforward). So if you're going to harp on an uninformed post, why not harp on Zaqwe's ignorant and pointless post as well?
if zimmerman pursued trayvon for the purpose of inflicting justice on him then i would agree he is a vigilante. however, there is no evidence of that.
as i understand the circumstances, zimmerman was returning from the store and saw someone suspicious in his neighborhood (that had previous burglaries). he apparently is always armed for whatever reason. its not like he armed himself and then went on patrols around his neighborhood. people seem to confuse the facts. zimmerman meeting trayvon was just happenstance, not some planned out event. since it is legal for him to carry a weapon, the fact that he was armed really is meaningless.
it impedes on trayvon's rights once zimmerman does something illegal. walking around your neighborhood; following people; asking people why they are in your gated neighborhood; etc. are not illegal.
there is no evidence he is a vigilante. people are misusing the word. vigilante implies illegal activity, but people are referring to legal activity and saying he is a vigilante. it makes no sense. i dont understand why you think i've made up my mind. i've made it pretty clear that i think manslaughter is the likely result, but it will depend on the evidence presented at trial. i've been trying to get people to think about it without jumping to conclusions.
when zaqwe misstates the law or misstates the facts, i will harp on him. when he expresses opinions (whether i agree or not), i will comment if he is left unchallenged. people have not been shy about arguing with him so i dont feel the need.
This is a better argument than your previous "please don't call him a vigilante", which implied that discussing vigilanteism is out of bounds.
Given that Zimmerman called the police, I see no reason Zimmerman had the "right" to confront Martin, whether legal or not, this is where the ambiguity of vigilante comes from. It is an ideological difference between believing Zimmerman should be able to fulfill the role that the police should be doing (and were about to do). At the very least, why didn't Zimmerman just follow Martin without confronting him? The police were on the way were they not? This disregard of the police's authority represents Zimmermans vigilante behaviour. There is a distinct reason why legal-rational authority is divided the way it is, and Zimmerman, in my opinion, over-stepped his bounds assuming he decided to confront Martin, rather than to act merely as reasonable surveillance.
To clarify, Zimmerman may have had the legal right to confront Martin, he did not have the authority to do anything once he confronted him. Since it could be argued Zimmermans motive in confronting Martin was to fulfill the role of the police it could be argued that the confrontation was an act of vigilanteism (ie doing the polices job). Note that this perspective is ideologically based, not legally, which is why one could claim Zimmerman as a vigilante despite Zimmermans acts being legal.
This is not to say that Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but simply that his confrontation of Martin that night could be viewed as vigilanteism. Though it would seem like an over-zealous impulse, rather than pre-meditated vigilanteism that lead to the conflict that night, that impulse never-the-less could be viewed as an act of vigilanteism.
He didn't have the right to confront him? So what you're saying is that he didn't have the right to talk to him? Because thats all he tried to do.
He called the police, at that point all the responsibility should go to the police. Zimmerman wasn't going to talk to Martin, he was going to question Martin, an act he didn't have the authority to do. There is a clear difference between going to chat with someone and confronting someone you just reported to the police as suspicious. At some point he's decided the police aren't going to do their job, and so it's up to him to take the law into his own hands. That is vigilante behaviour.
If you think something should be reported to the police that means it should be the polices responsibility not yours.
If you have a problem with someone in your neighbourhood, too bad. Martin was within his rights to be walking through the area, Zimmerman had no right to question that. If you see someone suspicious, report it to the police and be vigilant about your property, you have no right to confront that person. Why is that important? Because the person doesn't have to say a word to you, so all you are doing by confronting them is encouraging a fight by offending them, putting them on the defensive, and marginalizing their very existence.
Martin likely did have every right to be there, but Zimmerman also had every right to ask him what he was doing there. Simply asking someone what they're doing is not a crime, and if it provokes a fight, then the person who took the first swing is at fault because he initiated violence. I agree Martin had no responsibility to answer any of Zimmerman's questions, but that doesn't give him the right to attack him.
Even if Zimmerman was trying to stop Martin, he's still well within the law, its called a citizen's arrest.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
here is the relevant instruction.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
At what point though does justice get served? Those Men got away that night, when does it stop? This happens everyday.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
I get the sense that the fight happened right outside his car. It isn't so much going back to it as it is just reaching inside. He also didn't throw the first punch.
Ran, under the stand your ground law it would of been lawful to shoot them the moment you felt endangered for your life or the moment you were surrounded and receiving additional punches. The law in Florida is generally lenient when it comes to self defense, so long as you didn't antagonize them or initiate the fight. The whole point of stand your ground is to allow citizens to protect themselves until law enforcement arrives without worry of being prosecuted for wanting to stay alive or prevent bodily harm.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
here is the relevant instruction.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
At what point though does justice get served? Those Men got away that night, when does it stop? This happens everyday.
umm... you call the police and they arrest them? why are you the one dispensing justice?
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
here is the relevant instruction.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
At what point though does justice get served? Those Men got away that night, when does it stop? This happens everyday.
umm... you call the police and they arrest them? why are you the one dispensing justice?
Justice is shooting them...? Thats kinda scary
And why the hell are you driving around with a bat?
George Zimmerman was released around midnight Sunday from a county jail on $150,000 bail as he awaits his second-degree murder trial for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin.
The neighborhood watch volunteer was wearing a brown jacket and blue jeans and carrying a paper bag. He met a man in a white vehicle and drove away. His ultimate destination is being kept secret for his safety and it could be outside Florida.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester said at a hearing Friday he cannot have any guns and must observe a 7 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew. Zimmerman also surrendered his passport.
Zimmerman had to put up 10 percent, or $15,000, to make bail. His father had indicated he might take out a second mortgage.
Zimmerman worked at a mortgage risk-management company at the time of the shooting and his wife is in nursing school. A website was set up to collect donations for Zimmerman's defense fund. It is unclear how much has been raised.
Bail is not unheard of in second-degree murder cases, and legal experts had predicted it would be granted for Zimmerman because of his ties to the community, because he turned himself in after he was charged last week, and because he has never been convicted of a serious crime.
Prosecutors had asked for $1 million bail, citing two previous scrapes Zimmerman had with the law, neither of which resulted in charges. In 2005, he had to take anger management courses after he was accused of attacking an undercover officer who was trying to arrest Zimmerman's friend. In another incident, a girlfriend accused him of attacking her.
Zimmerman, 28, fatally shot Martin, 17, Feb. 26 inside the gated community where Zimmerman lived during an altercation. Martin was unarmed and was walking back to the home of his father's fiancée when Zimmerman saw him, called 911 and began following him. A fight broke out — investigators say it is unknown who started it.
Zimmerman says Martin, who was visiting from Miami, attacked him and he shot in self-defense, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives broad legal protection to anyone who says they used deadly force because they feared death or great bodily harm.
Zimmerman was not charged for over six weeks, sparking national protests led by Martin's parents, civil rights groups and the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Martin was black; Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is from Peru.
Yeah I just recently read that breaking news from yahoo, man I feel like something bad is gonna still happen. Since he is released from jail, this is gonna be a big deal.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
here is the relevant instruction.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
At what point though does justice get served? Those Men got away that night, when does it stop? This happens everyday.
umm... you call the police and they arrest them? why are you the one dispensing justice?
Justice is shooting them...? Thats kinda scary
And why the hell are you driving around with a bat?
Honestly I don't think shooting people that act the way they acted is all too bad an idea. If someone tells you to stop doing something, and your immediate reaction is to hit them, then you're a pretty dangerous and uncivilized person.
On April 22 2012 10:40 ranshaked wrote: Question: Last year I was in a similar situation. I was at a red light and a bunch of black males were hounding and being disrespectful to a woman in the car behind me. I said a few choice words to them along the lines of "shut up and have some respect" I then was punches in the face while at the red light through the window. I immediately got out of the vehicle and confronted the opposer. At that point several of his friends surrounded me. I was punched several more times until my friend got out of the car and opened the trunk. He pulled out a baseball bat at which the men retreated.
If I had pulled a gun and shot the offender would I have been justified under the stand your ground law? I live in Orlando Florida near Sanford. I ended up needsjng many stitches as well as a large hospital bill.
pulled out a gun at what point in the events? what was your mental state immediately before shooting (did you fear that without shooting that you would be killed or suffer great bodily injury)?
At the point that I'm surrounded by several men not allowing me to run back to my car. Yes, it was dumb to leave my car and fight (after being punched on the face at full force through my driver window). If I had garnished my weapon and killed one of them, would it be protected? I was hit first, but I got out of my car to fight, then was surrounded, at which point I had the crap kicked out of me. Honestly, I do not "fear" anything except heights and spiders. My emotions were "black out" pissed and trying to not lose the fight. I never even got a punch thrown. It happened so fast. If it wasn't for my friend threatening them with a gun (at which point they ran away) I may have been left there in a bloody pulp. I do not believe they would have stopped punching me until I was unconscious. If I had a weapon, specifically a gun in my car (with my concealed license) do you think A) I should be allowed to use it and B) face manslaughter charges if offender dies
here is the relevant instruction.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
i am not sure it would apply in your situation because (1) you are apparently saying that you wanted to fight, not that you feared for your safety; and (2) if you have to go back into your car to get the gun, I dont see how you could argue that you reasonably feared for your safety since you had the ability to leave the fight and go get a gun out of the car.
At what point though does justice get served? Those Men got away that night, when does it stop? This happens everyday.
umm... you call the police and they arrest them? why are you the one dispensing justice?
Justice is shooting them...? Thats kinda scary
And why the hell are you driving around with a bat?
Honestly I don't think shooting people that act the way they acted is all too bad an idea. If someone tells you to stop doing something, and your immediate reaction is to hit them, then you're a pretty dangerous and uncivilized person.
On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote: My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too. Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help. Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary.
28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead.
The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place.
Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless.
Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon?
If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage.
Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way.
I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
What would have been best would be Trayvon Martin not attacking Zimmerman while he was on they way back to his car. At least that's what it looks like to me.
What would have been best is if when the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop, he instantly stopped and went back to a safe place. I dont know what the law says about this scenario specifically but even if Tayvon didnt die Id hope that people who knowingly disobey emergency services personnel are responsible in some way for whatever results.
On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote: My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too. Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help. Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary.
28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead.
The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place.
Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless.
Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon?
If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage.
Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way.
I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
What would have been best would be Trayvon Martin not attacking Zimmerman while he was on they way back to his car. At least that's what it looks like to me.
What would have been best is if when the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop, he instantly stopped and went back to a safe place. I dont know what the law says about this scenario specifically but even if Tayvon didnt die Id hope that people who knowingly disobey emergency services personnel are responsible in some way for whatever results.
Wasn't 911, wasn't asked to stop following, wasn't emergency personnel, no one over a phone will ever have enough details to make a call on what should be done. There is absolutely no legal requirement to obey a word they say.
The correct quote is "We don't need you to do that"
On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote: My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too. Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help. Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary.
28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead.
The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place.
Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless.
Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon?
If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage.
Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way.
I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
What would have been best would be Trayvon Martin not attacking Zimmerman while he was on they way back to his car. At least that's what it looks like to me.
What would have been best is if when the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop, he instantly stopped and went back to a safe place. I dont know what the law says about this scenario specifically but even if Tayvon didnt die Id hope that people who knowingly disobey emergency services personnel are responsible in some way for whatever results.
Wasn't 911, wasn't asked to stop following, wasn't emergency personnel, no one over a phone will ever have enough details to make a call on what should be done. There is absolutely no legal requirement to obey a word they say.
The correct quote is "We don't need you to do that"
That is enough. The second he heard that, if at all possible, he should have withdrawn. You are right that it was up to Zimmerman to determine if it was possible to withdraw and what his options for withdrawal were as nobody could know enough details over the phone to make those calls. There is no evidence that at that moment it was impossible for him to turn and run or that if he turned and ran somebody would be in danger. If there is no legal liability caused by this disobedience then there should be.
EPT
