Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Zoranon]

First I'm not a lawyer, lobbyist or lawmaker so I have no idea how to right the law. What I would do is not actually have the law at all, how about that? As it was written (again not a lawyer) it seemed very ambigious in saying that if you feel "threatened" you can use deadly force. So as in the Zimmerman/Martin case its the shooter vs the word of the dead person. Two things I get from the this is that you can say you were attacked and then shoot the person and claim self-defense and/or in a fight you say your life was threatened and shoot the person.

The evidence so far that has come out shows Zimmerman was attacked but again I could say that Martin felt "threatened" in that a stranger was following him he had no idea who he was because Zimmerman had no identification or markings saying any type of law enforcement. The next part is again someone gettin their butt "whooped" and all sudden saying they were going to die. Hard to prove either way.

What I do know is Zimmerman shot an unarmed person. He had not training or experience to say that person was "suspicious". Please don't give me all the crap about prior break-ins and such. I can come back with that none were tied to Marin so why should he have been "suspicious". Second was the following/pursuit. No matter if he was going to Target or on watch as soon as he followed Martin I do not think the law of possesing a firearm for self-defence is out the window.

For the zilionth time the castle law does not come to this, his actions would be as justifiable in a duty to retreat state, since if someone is sitting on you and beating you up, you have nowhere to retreat to.

You do not have the right to "whoop" the but of anyone who is following you. You do realise that you can die from a single unlucky blow to the head right? I dont know about you, but if I were in his place I would not place my fate in his hands, hoping he would only beat me up...

[Wells]

You do not have the right to "whoop" the but of anyone who is following you.

Welcome to the wonder of Stand Your Ground.

Turning people who are afraid of everyone into people everyone should be afraid of.

[Tinykong]

Welcome to the wonder of Stand Your Ground.

Turning people who are afraid of everyone into people everyone should be afraid of.

Welcome to the world of lunacy, where if someone is beating you up, you have to either let them kill you, or hope they stop themselves, because defending yourself opens you up to hate crime allegations.

[Wells]

Your understanding of law leaves something to be desired.

[Zoranon]

Your understanding of law leaves something to be desired.

Ok then, what would someone who is beeing beaten by someone stronger be able to do in world according to Wells? Hope that the other guy stops before he is dead/disabled?

[Wells]

Depends on who initiated violence. No one has ever said you can't defend yourself.

[Zoranon]

Depends on who initiated violence. No one has ever said you can't defend yourself.

In that case you are protesting against SYG laws because?

[Wells]

Because they give people too broad of powers to initiate legally sanctioned violence.

[stopbeingdumb]

Sad sad day. Charges were only brought because of minority pressure. I thought he was guilty at first. But after hearing the UNEDITED 911 call, witnesses' statements, and video proof of head trauma, i felt maybe he was innocent. Then the african community started there BS, well because everything done to them is racist, but it's never the other way around. Special treatment for "special" people.

[Tinykong]

Because they give people too broad of powers to initiate legally sanctioned violence.

Seems to me like your understanding of the law is whats lacking here. The legal requirements are quite clear, and don't need to be reviewed or changed. What don't you understand about the foricble felony requirement?

[Zoranon]

Because they give people too broad of powers to initiate legally sanctioned violence.

In what world is shooting someone who is beating you up initiating violence?

[Wells]

Seems to me like your understanding of the law is whats lacking here. The legal requirements are quite clear, and don't need to be reviewed or changed. What don't you understand about the foricble felony requirement?

Of course the legal requirements to initiate violence are clear under the law. What I'm saying is they're far too broad. Feeling threatened sans actually attempts at violence is a terrible metric for getting to use violence.

[Dacien]

Sad sad day. Charges were only brought because of minority pressure. I thought he was guilty at first. But after hearing the UNEDITED 911 call, witnesses' statements, and video proof of head trauma, i felt maybe he was innocent. Then the african community started there BS, well because everything done to them is racist, but it's never the other way around. Special treatment for "special" people.

It's not just the black community. I'm white and I think it's outrageous that you can instigate a confrontation with someone (against the instructions of the police dispatcher), then a fight ensues and you get to shoot the other guy dead.

Zimmerman needs to get charged with something, whatever it is.

[Zoranon]

All that matter is who struck the first blow and in the absence of evidence that is was Zimmerman, he will be acquitted, for good or bad.

[Borzo]

The point is, according to florida law, you CAN initiate violence, and then shoot them in self-defence. I think that's the problem Wells has... the person who initiates should NOT have the right to lethal self-defence.

[Paranoid Android]

In what world is shooting someone who is beating you up initiating violence?

Because NOBODY knows who started the fight. I guess you take Zimmerman's word because he is the only live witness? Again Zimmerman had a) no evidence, no training to think Martin had done nothing wrong. b) Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin. Two things here. 1) Do not know why Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and once he did you could actually say his right to carry and use a weapon is in question. 2) Again all speculation because Martin is dead but if you were followed by a person who did not identify himself or no markings (all police marking or even rent-a-cop) you are going to stop for that person or maybe not decide to attack him before he attacks you (we still do not know who attacked whom).

I still can't believe everyone seems to think its okay for a person to shoot an unarmed person. Only way possible if Zimmerman happened to be minding his own business completely could you say that it is self-defence. Zimmerman followed/pursued Martin and got out of his vehicle. I can't believe people do not see this as a wrong against Zimmerman.

[Tinykong]

Of course the legal requirements to initiate violence are clear under the law. What I'm saying is they're far too broad. Feeling threatened sans actually attempts at violence is a terrible metric for getting to use violence.

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013

How is this broad?

[Dacien]

Regardless, this'll be a really hard case to prosecute, and I'm hearing murmurs of Rodney King-style riots.

[Zoranon]

Because NOBODY knows who started the fight. I guess you take Zimmerman's word because he is the only live witness? Again Zimmerman had a) no evidence, no training to think Martin had done nothing wrong. b) Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin. Two things here. 1) Do not know why Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and once he did you could actually say his right to carry and use a weapon is in question. 2) Again all speculation because Martin is dead but if you were followed by a person who did not identify himself or no markings (all police marking or even rent-a-cop) you are going to stop for that person or maybe not decide to attack him before he attacks you (we still do not know who attacked whom).

I still can't believe everyone seems to think its okay for a person to shoot an unarmed person. Only way possible if Zimmerman happened to be minding his own business completely could you say that it is self-defence. Zimmerman followed/pursued Martin and got out of his vehicle. I can't believe people do not see this as a wrong against Zimmerman.

I actually hold that against him, but the facts still remain the same, you need to prove that Zimmerman attacked first to convict him.

And yes I do not have any problem with responding with deadly force to attack with fists, should the attacker be stronger than me, once again I am not going to hope he will stop before I am disabled/dead.

[Beazy]

The point is, according to florida law, you CAN initiate violence, and then shoot them in self-defence. I think that's the problem Wells has... the person who initiates should NOT have the right to lethal self-defence.

So if you walking down the street and see a guy with pink shoes on, and say 'man those shoes are gay', then the guy with pink shoes pulls a knife out, you have to sit there and take a blade to the lower intestines?

---------- Post added 2012-04-11 at 02:59 PM ----------

Regardless, this'll be a really hard case to prosecute, and I'm hearing murmurs of Rodney King-style riots.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/250...aff-apologizes

I have a feeling that the RK Riots are going to look like a Sunday morning church service.