Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Roose]

There is a bit more to it then that, the force used must also be proportional to the perceived danger. Meaning that he would have to convince the jury that the teenager was a threat to his life.

For example: If I slap someone, that does not give them the go ahead to shoot me. (While claiming self defense)

Well, look at the law. It is worded to be very vague as far as exactly what is the limit of force. It is all about perception. A slap could be perceived as threatening under certain circumstances. Not a good idea to slap anyone because it is assault.

WRONG

he has a responsibility to not ENTER INTO CONFLICT KNOWINGLY

he entered into a conflict knowingly. Further he instigated the conflict. that makes him unable to claim self defense. he does not have a responsibility to flee from a conflict he DOES have a responsibility to not initiate the conflict

You are now talking out of your ass. Pure speculation. No proof. Do not get angry at me for pointing out the law.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

[micho]

Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people.

why do the idiots even have access to guns ?

[McSpriest]

I think it's on the record that he said that he actually drove and pulled up in front of the kid. He then got out of the car.

Then there's a bit of a gap in the evidence.

Then they had a scuffle and rolled around on the ground a bit. Next thing you know: the kid is shot dead.

Since the shooter claims to have approached the victim and driven up to him, I would consider him the instigator... especially since he is on phone record as identifying the situation as threatening before making his approach.

YES 1000% yes. exactly.

[Deleted]

Also, what a stupid dumb fuck question what the fuck, i hope they don't allow guns to you then! LoL

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 04:53 PM ----------

why do the idiots even have access to guns ?

Also, what a stupid dumb fuck question what the fuck, i hope they don't allow guns to you then! LoL

[Crashdummy]

also (unfortunately) wrong

not in florida... their self defense laws are... loose.

perceived harm in a conflict is grounds for any self defense

granted he still has a responsibility to not initiate the conflict. he did initiate the conflict hence no self defense

Accoding to the text cited, he must credit that he perceived to be "in danger of death or great bodily harm"

So no, not every perceived harm allows you to use lethal weapons in public, not even in florida.

[Purlina]

I can come up to you and question you all I want. What makes you think that I need some kind of approval to do so?

Now, if you tell me to leave you alone and I persist on following you/questioning you - it turns into harassment. But that's not what you keep going back to.

With that said, if he was asked to identify himself in a gated community, why would someone who has nothing to hide try to avoid answering who he is/where he's going?

How do you know he didn't identify himself?

The claim that we don't know all the facts works both ways...

[McSpriest]

Well, look at the law. It is worded to be very vague as far as exactly what is the limit of force. It is all about perception. A slap could be perceived as threatening under certain circumstances. Not a good idea to slap anyone because it is assault.



You are now talking out of your ass. Pure speculation. No proof. Do not get angry at me for pointing out the law.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

I only studied law what do i know right?

Imminent by definition requires that you are in a conflict or cannot avoid entering a conflict. zimmerman was NOT in a conflict

you sir are wrong. you can't instigate a conflict and claim self defense. by definition that is NOT allowed.

YES any force a person INITIATES on you can be grounds for self defense in Florida. HOWEVER they must be the instigator NOT YOU. if YOU instigate the conflict YOU can't claim self defense. PERIOD. (or rather you can try to claim it and then have it denied in a court of law)

[Roose]

I only studied law what do i know right?

Imminent by definition requires that you are in a conflict or cannot avoid entering a conflict. zimmerman was NOT in a conflict

you sir are wrong. you can't instigate a conflict and claim self defense. by definition that is NOT allowed.

I do not care what you studied. You are presuming and/or making up facts. We do not have all the info yet you presume you do...

[Crashdummy]

I can come up to you and question you all I want. What makes you think that I need some kind of approval to do so?

Now, if you tell me to leave you alone and I persist on following you/questioning you - it turns into harassment. But that's not what you keep going back to.

With that said, if he was asked to identify himself in a gated community, why would someone who has nothing to hide try to avoid answering who he is/where he's going?

I would NEVER identify myself and give my identity to a guy i know nothing about and is not a police officer. I want to be safe too, and giving your identity to everyone is not a good way to keep your own security in a good shape.

The information about your identity could be used to make a false phone call to your relatives saying you have kidnapped me and asking for money to set me free for example.

The point is, you have no right to ask anyone identity in the first place. That's a police job.

[aceborn]

What is with the freaking subtitles on that show?

But really low education+guns spells for disaster.

And there is America for you!

<Infracted> No need to make inciteful jabs toward any country.

[Porcell]

I can assure you, if i go out at night and kill someone here, even if that guys has a gun, i get arrested. I will then have the chance to defebnd myself in a court of law, but first i get arrested.

Oh, you mean like the shooter did in this case:

"When the police arrived, according to an incident report released yesterday, Zimmerman was found standing over the body, with his gun in his waistband, complaining that he yelled for help, but no one came out to help him. The back of his shirt was wet, with grass clippings on it, suggesting he was knocked down at one point. He was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.

Police cuffed him, took him to police headquarters, where he was interrogated and then released. He claimed to have acted in self defense."

Also, from the same article:

"Before the officer arrived, the department got at least six 911 calls from residents bordering the walkway where the confrontation occurred, reporting two men fighting. On at least one of the calls, the fight and the fatal gunshot can be heard in the background, according to the police chief."

So the fighting was energetic enough that at least six people called police, and on at least one of the calls the shot was heard.

So everyone who is depicting "White guy walked up and shot black guy in the chest" is mistaken. Due to the six 911 calls, I would envision the physical altercation to be both 1) extremely aggressive and loud, enough to draw attention from nearby residents and 2) of a sufficient duration that multiple parties had enough time to assess the situation, get to a phone, and make a phonecall. The fight was also aggressive enough that the eventual shooter was injured in the nose and back of the head, and that he had been yelling for assistance during the fight.

The question mark in the timeline is what happened when Zimmerman stopped to question the victim.

"But about a minute later [after his 911 call], Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going."

[McSpriest]

I do not care what you studied. You are presuming and/or making up facts. We do not have all the info yet you presume you do...

I AM NOT MAKING UP FACTS
i'm stating that you CAN NOT claim self defense if you initiate the conflict.
the fact that he placed a 9-1-1 call PRIOR to the conflict is evidence enough in a court of law of him initiating the conflict
HENCE, no self defense

---------- Post added 2012-03-13 at 12:04 PM ----------

Oh, you mean like the shooter did in this case:

"When the police arrived, according to an incident report released yesterday, Zimmerman was found standing over the body, with his gun in his waistband, complaining that he yelled for help, but no one came out to help him. The back of his shirt was wet, with grass clippings on it, suggesting he was knocked down at one point. He was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.

Police cuffed him, took him to police headquarters, where he was interrogated and then released. He claimed to have acted in self defense."

Also, from the same article:

"Before the officer arrived, the department got at least six 911 calls from residents bordering the walkway where the confrontation occurred, reporting two men fighting. On at least one of the calls, the fight and the fatal gunshot can be heard in the background, according to the police chief."

So the fighting was energetic enough that at least six people called police, and on at least one of the calls the shot was heard.

So everyone who is depicting "White guy walked up and shot black guy in the chest" is mistaken. Due to the six 911 calls, I would envision the physical altercation to be both 1) extremely aggressive and loud, enough to draw attention from nearby residents and 2) of a sufficient duration that multiple parties had enough time to assess the situation, get to a phone, and make a phonecall. The fight was also aggressive enough that the eventual shooter was injured in the nose and back of the head, and that he had been yelling for assistance during the fight.

The question mark in the timeline is what happened when Zimmerman stopped to question the victim.

"But about a minute later [after his 911 call], Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going."

the fact that zimmerman stopped martin (victim) to question him in the first place is evidence for initiating the conflict

[Jaxi]

"But about a minute later [after his 911 call], Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going."

I'll be interested in following this story as more information comes to light. It is still a bit early so the people jumping to conclusions can relax, but just from what I've read thus far it sounds like the man might have instigated the tussle. I don't see why he took it upon himself to confront the kid, and even if they were in a fight there is always the possibility (not saying I know for a fact, just throwing out ideas) that Zimmerman swung the first blow. Maybe he was attempting to wrestle the kid down, and the kid thought it was assault? I don't know, but there are just too many unanswered questions and not enough information as of yet released by the cops to make an accurate judgement about what happened.

[Borzo]

The question mark in the timeline is what happened when Zimmerman stopped to question the victim.

"But about a minute later [after his 911 call], Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going."

I teach my kids to not talk to strangers, and to run away from them when confronted by strange creepy looking men at night. You never know... they may have guns and try to kill you!

It's possible Zimmerman felt his life was threatened after the altercation began. Though I find it hard to believe that getting punched in the face is a good enough reason to use lethal force on an unarmed person. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

That said... he knew there was a threat before he approached the kid. This is on record. He believed the threat to be sufficient to warrant police intervention. He then - against police direction - pulled up to the kid while in his car, apparently confronted him, and chased him. I assume he eventually caught up to him, and then they started a scuffle/fight. The little kid was apparently too much for him, and in response, he shot him.

I really can't imagine how all this could possible play out in Zimmerman's favor.

[Failhance]

How horrifying... a child is gunned down and murdered by the very people that were supposed to protect him....

My condolences for the loss to the family, I hope the attacker is punished to the full extent of the law.

Just another reason why the general public shouldn't be allowed the use of firearms.... leave that responsibility for authorities.

[Roose]

I AM NOT MAKING UP FACTS
i'm stating that you CAN NOT claim self defense if you initiate the conflict.
the fact that he placed a 9-1-1 call PRIOR to the conflict is evidence enough in a court of law of him initiating the conflict
HENCE, no self defense[COLOR="red"]

the fact that zimmerman stopped martin (victim) to question him in the first place is evidence for initiating the conflict

Did they teach you that caps lock was an effective tool in law school too?

You keep saying that Zimmerman instigated it because he called 911, but you have no clue exactly what happened. You are just making assumptions. Can you prove anywhere that calling 911 and getting into an altercation afterwards means that you are automatically the instigator? Surely you must be going on some sort of precedent.

[Purlina]

So everyone who is depicting "White guy walked up and shot black guy in the chest" is mistaken.

That's not what I was depicting. My opinion is the Zimmerman placed the 911 call while stalking the teenager. After the 911 call he continued to pursue the teenager and eventually initiated a confrontation.

After a while a struggle broke out and Zimmerman eventually shot the teenager.

In my eyes the Zimmerman picked a fight and knew there was a risk beforehand. Why else did he place the 911 call? Instead of waiting for the proper authorities, Zimmerman knowlingly engaged in a dangerous confrontation...

If Zimmerman suspected that the teenager was up to no good, then it would be logical for him to deduce that a confrontation could end up in a fight...

[Crashdummy]

Oh, you mean like the shooter did in this case:

"When the police arrived, according to an incident report released yesterday, Zimmerman was found standing over the body, with his gun in his waistband, complaining that he yelled for help, but no one came out to help him. The back of his shirt was wet, with grass clippings on it, suggesting he was knocked down at one point. He was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.

Police cuffed him, took him to police headquarters, where he was interrogated and then released. He claimed to have acted in self defense."

Also, from the same article:

"Before the officer arrived, the department got at least six 911 calls from residents bordering the walkway where the confrontation occurred, reporting two men fighting. On at least one of the calls, the fight and the fatal gunshot can be heard in the background, according to the police chief."

So the fighting was energetic enough that at least six people called police, and on at least one of the calls the shot was heard.

So everyone who is depicting "White guy walked up and shot black guy in the chest" is mistaken. Due to the six 911 calls, I would envision the physical altercation to be both 1) extremely aggressive and loud, enough to draw attention from nearby residents and 2) of a sufficient duration that multiple parties had enough time to assess the situation, get to a phone, and make a phonecall. The fight was also aggressive enough that the eventual shooter was injured in the nose and back of the head, and that he had been yelling for assistance during the fight.

The question mark in the timeline is what happened when Zimmerman stopped to question the victim.

"But about a minute later [after his 911 call], Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going."

No, not like what happened in this case.

I would have been ARRESTED (not taking to heartquarters for interrogation) and then i would have to wait trial or pay a bill to be realesed while waitingg my trial.

This guy was not arrested, he got taken fo interrogation and released.

The six calls are irrelevant. And no, its not mistaken, a White guy confronted a black guys that was doing nothing more than walking and the black guy ended dead. The white guy initiated the cconfrontation, the white guy was the ONLY one armed and the black guy ended dead.

Also, civilians have NO RIGHT to question ANYONE in public places unless the person ACCEPTS to be questioned.

[Roose]

In my eyes the Zimmerman picked a fight and knew there was a risk beforehand. Why else did he place the 911 call? Instead of waiting for the proper authorities, Zimmerman knowlingly engaged in a dangerous confrontation...

The million dollar question here is what happened in the time between that call and them fighting in the grass.

There is a possibility that Zimmerman stopped to try and talk to Martin and Martin took offense and took action. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman while he was in his car then it is not Zimmerman who instigated. That is a possibility that has not been talked about.

[Borzo]

Did they teach you that caps lock was an effective tool in law school too?

You keep saying that Zimmerman instigated it because he called 911, but you have no clue exactly what happened. You are just making assumptions. Can you prove anywhere that calling 911 and getting into an altercation afterwards means that you are automatically the instigator? Surely you must be going on some sort of precedent.

They DO teach caps lock in law school. If you've read any legal documents, you'd know this :P

What you are suggesting is that the kid attacked Zimmerman after the call to police (in which the police explicitly told Zimmerman to stay back). This could be possible, but is highly unlikely. I believe Zimmerman was in his car at the time, while the kid was on the sidewalk. Zimmerman told police that he drove up to and in front of the kid. He then got out of his car. Then there was a pursuit. Then there was a fight - that ended up with the kid getting shot to death.

All existing reports suggest that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Unless he changes his story and says that the kid attacked him while he was still in his car... I'm not really sure where this will go....