imaloon1 posted:

---

Does it make any difference that he antagonized the kid? Followed him and "harassed" him?



Just curious. I know the 911 operator was telling him to stop following the kid so...

---

imaloon1 posted:

---

Does it make any difference that he antagonized the kid? Followed him and "harassed" him?



Just curious. I know the 911 operator was telling him to stop following the kid so...

---

poetkiosk posted:

---

I think that's the real flaw in this law. You only get one side of the story.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

The HOA sets the rules for this community. Zimmerman is basically their guard. He followed a new kid in the area. If that kid turned on him...

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

The HOA sets the rules for this community. Zimmerman is basically their guard. He followed a new kid in the area. If that kid turned on him...

---

We know from eye witnesses that Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him. We don't know Zimmerman's response, but we do know the results. Also, the neighborhood watch has filed multiple complaints about Zimmer's overzealousness with previous incidents in the neighborhood. Finally, in the end, we also have witness who reported that Martin was running away and screaming for help.

How is it self-defense if the victim is running away and screaming for help? This murder, plain and simple.

I'm telling you, even if we believe Martin assaulted Zimmerman, he pulled out his gun. If this happened, and Martin was running away, you don't chase him down and shoot him.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

I think you can pretty much throw out all the eyewitness testimony. The fact that there are such huge discrepancies in it tells me that that either the whole town is high or they're lying. I mean it's not unusual for one person to recall seeing a red car and someone else remembers it being a blue car, but when one person says it's a red car and someone else says it was a motherfucking pteradactyl, someone's not on the level.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Excuse me, but you know that eye witness testimonies usually make or break most court convictions, right?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

According to the police report, it did. In fact, the responding officer told the witness that he heard Zimmerman was screaming for help. The witness stated, "No, it was that kid."

That's around the time the police tried to cover their missteps. That's according to one witness. The other witness, the girlfriend who Martin was talking to over the phone, told his girlfriend, "There's some guy following me around." He then says to Zimmerman, "What do you want?"

The line goes dead after this. Luckily, the girlfriend saved this recording. You can find all this online.

Regardless, Zimmerman should've been arrested and held for trial. It's completely ridiculous this has yet to happen given that a murder took place.

---

Florida law prohibits arresting a suspect who claims self defense, unless it has probable cause to show the force used was unlawful, and awards damages, repayment of lost income, court costs, attorneys fees if an arrest is made, and the suspect is later found immune to prosecution due to the self-defense statute.

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

This is true, if self-defense applies. In order for self-defense to apply, you must have a reasonable belief that your life is in immediate danger and that deadly force requires you to use said force. We know, that Zimmerman is over 100-pounds heavier than Martin.

Unless Martin was a ninja, which seems unlikely given the results, getting punched in the face by a 140-pound doesn't require someone over 240-pounds to pull a gun and shoot.

We also know that the only 'weapons' Martin had was a drink and candy while Zimmerman had a gun. Finally, we know that Zimmerman, not Martin, followed the teenager against recommendations from the dispatcher, and placed himself in said situation.

It's silly to even argue self-defense in this case. Was there any chance that Martin was going to kill Zimmerman? It's a given that that was never going to happen.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Uh if he was really on the ground getting repeatedly punched in the face you are going to have a hard time telling people he wasn't justified in shooting the kid. Assuming the kid started the physical fight.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Uh if he was really on the ground getting repeatedly punched in the face you are going to have a hard time telling people he wasn't justified in shooting the kid. Assuming the kid started the physical fight.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It doesn't really matter. If the kid started the physical fight and was sitting on top of the guy punching him in the face the guy can't be blamed for shooting him. The guy is obviously a racist scumbag idiot but that doesn't mean he can't defend himself, even if he did bait the guy into attacking him.

If you are on the ground getting punched in the face repeatedly that qualifies as the risk of serious bodily injury or death in my book.

---

Trevor Dooley's attorney portrayed him Wednesday as a 69-year-old man with fused discs in his neck who feared for his life when set upon by his 41-year-old neighbor, six inches taller and 70 pounds heavier.

Dooley is protected by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, his attorney argued, firing in self-defense when the most mundane of neighbor disputes turned violent.
.
.
.
Arthur, now 15, said he was visiting friends in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. He took his skateboard to the park and asked permission to practice trick moves from James, who was shooting hoops with his daughter. The only others in the park were a couple playing tennis.

But the boy then heard a voice from across the street. It was Dooley, outside his garage, shouting that he should get off the court, that there was a no-skateboarding sign. The boy stopped.

He heard James call out to Dooley, "Show me the sign."

Michael Scott Whitt, practicing tennis serves nearby with his wife, Michelle, stopped to watch.

They testified that Dooley briefly went into his garage, then started across the street with a dark object sticking out of his waistband. They said James threw his hands up and said, "Oh, come on."

Dooley and James argued over letting the boy skate until Dooley lifted his shirt and said, "F--- you," the Whitts testified.

They said Dooley turned and started home, but James caught up with him. "Mr. James said, 'Don't flash a weapon,' something like that," Michelle Whitt testified.

Then, she said, Dooley pulled out the gun and James grabbed his hand. The men struggled, they fell to the ground, and James ended up on his knees as Dooley lay on his side. They still wrestled for the gun.

The gun fired.

reesescups posted:

---

What situation did Zimmerman put himself into? Wasn't he a guard? Isn't he suppose to put himself into situations?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Even so, I find it unlikely that a 140-pound teenager could beat a 240-pound man to death with his bare fists.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Doesn't matter. He probably used a racial slur and that caused the kid to flip out and start attacking him. Doesn't matter. You dont' give up a self defense claim just because you were a racist douchebag and called someone a name first.

The important thing is who started the physical fight and whether the kid was really sitting on top of him punching him in the face repeatedly. In which case Zimmerman is a huge pussy in addition to being a huge douche. But not a murderer.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

reesescups posted:

---

What situation did Zimmerman put himself into? Wasn't he a guard? Isn't he suppose to put himself into situations?

---

No. He's not a guard.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Correct. We also know that his own neighborhood complained to the police about him. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain or some nonsense like that.

Smells vigilante gone wrong to me.

---

ineenia posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Doesn't matter. He probably used a racial slur and that caused the kid to flip out and start attacking him. Doesn't matter. You dont' give up a self defense claim just because you were a racist douchebag and called someone a name first.

The important thing is who started the physical fight and whether the kid was really sitting on top of him punching him in the face repeatedly. In which case Zimmerman is a huge pussy in addition to being a huge douche. But not a murderer.

---

They have been saying on the News under Fl law that if you start or incite a fight you can not use self defense , as a defense in court.

---

Allstarslacker posted:

---

The kid looked pretty athletic, and I'll go out on a limb and guess he was probably more familiar with physical confrontations than the want to be knight in shining armor.

I have no trouble believing he was beating that guy's ass.

At 17 you might be a boy mentally, but you're a man physically.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

No. He's not a guard. He is a volunteer in an unofficial organization who disregarded instructions from the dispatcher to not follow martin but to wait for the police. He very definitely is NOT supposed to put himself in situations.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

reesescups posted:

---

What situation did Zimmerman put himself into? Wasn't he a guard? Isn't he suppose to put himself into situations?

---

No. He's not a guard.

---

Ah - thought I heard that he was.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

reesescups posted:

---

Ah - thought I heard that he was.

---

Also, keep in mind, even if he was neighborhood watch, Florida Law prohibits you from carrying a firearm as a watch-person nor do you engage potential criminals.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Also, keep in mind, even if he was neighborhood watch, Florida Law prohibits you from carrying a firearm as a watch-person nor do you engage potential criminals.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Correct. We also know that his own neighborhood complained to the police about him. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain or some nonsense like that.

Smells vigilante gone wrong to me.

---

The February 2012 HOA newsletter requested that crime victims "call our captain, George Zimmerman" after calling the police.[13] Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the Sanford Police Department, told the Sentinel in a recent interview that Zimmerman was chosen as a watch coordinator by his neighbors.[45]



Do you consistently just make stuff up?

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Also, keep in mind, even if he was neighborhood watch, Florida Law prohibits you from carrying a firearm as a watch-person nor do you engage potential criminals.

---

Wrong again.


Sanford police chief Bill Lee stated, "Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred."[46]



Oh and I'll add that I currently have a CWP from the state of Florida and he was absolutely within his right to have it with him.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php

Ask me again.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Also, keep in mind, even if he was neighborhood watch, Florida Law prohibits you from carrying a firearm as a watch-person nor do you engage potential criminals.

---

Wrong again.


Sanford police chief Bill Lee stated, "Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred."[46]



Oh and I'll add that I currently have a CWP from the state of Florida and he was absolutely within his right to have it with him.

---

As a watch-person. You lack reading comprehension.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

And you realize that means . . . self-appointed, right?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

And you realize that means . . . self-appointed, right?

---

The February 2012 HOA newsletter requested that crime victims "call our captain, George Zimmerman" after calling the police.[13] Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the Sanford Police Department, told the Sentinel in a recent interview that Zimmerman was chosen as a watch coordinator by his neighbors.[45]

Some residents of his gated townhouse community declared that Zimmerman was known for being strict and that he went door to door asking them to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders", while others regarded him as normal, helpful and passionate about neighborhood security, having supposedly thwarted a previous burglary attempt.[32] The community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year, with 402 calls made to the police."[32] According to the Miami Herald, Zimmerman had placed 46 of those calls since the beginning of 2011, "to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents; nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious".[32] Sanford police chief Bill Lee stated, "Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred."[46]

SirGarth posted:

---

i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesn't allow you to start a fight with someone and shoot them when you're losing.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

Show me where it says it is illegal to carry his weapon as neighborhood watch.



I won't hold my breath.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

Show me where it says it is illegal to carry his weapon as neighborhood watch.



I won't hold my breath.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

Show me where it says it is illegal to carry his weapon as neighborhood watch.



I won't hold my breath.

---

He was breaking the rules of Neighborhood Watch. Those rules are there for a reason...namely, that it is a VERY BAD idea for a civilian with a gun to inject himself into any kind of situation.

If he had followed the rules of Neighbor Watch, Martin would be alive. If he had listened to the police dispatcher, Martin would be alive. Martin was a 17 year old kid walking home from the store.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

There's no doubt Zimmerman is a racist douchebag idiot who went around following black people because they were black.

But that's sorta neither here nor there when it comes to whether it was self defense.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

There's no doubt Zimmerman is a racist douchebag idiot who went around following black people because they were black.

But that's sorta neither here nor there when it comes to whether it was self defense.

---

If Martin felt threatened by a guy with a gun who gets out of an SUV to follow him, doesn't Stand Your Ground apply to any actions he might take?

---

reesescups posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

[quote=Ardenwolfe]Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

Show me where it says it is illegal to carry his weapon as neighborhood watch.



I won't hold my breath.

---

He was breaking the rules of Neighborhood Watch. Those rules are there for a reason...namely, that it is a VERY BAD idea for a civilian with a gun to inject himself into any kind of situation.

If he had followed the rules of Neighbor Watch, Martin would be alive. If he had listened to the police dispatcher, Martin would be alive. Martin was a 17 year old kid walking home from the store.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Yes, we get that you are hung up on whether what Zimmerman was doing was illegal or just monumentally stupid and dangerous.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you really this dense? If can't have it both ways. If you're saying he's neighborhood watch, they are not allowed to carry firearms. If you're saying he can carry a weapon, as a citizen, then he's a vigilante and not part of the watch program.

Choose.

---

Show me where it says it is illegal to carry his weapon as neighborhood watch.



I won't hold my breath.

---

He was breaking the rules of Neighborhood Watch. Those rules are there for a reason...namely, that it is a VERY BAD idea for a civilian with a gun to inject himself into any kind of situation.

If he had followed the rules of Neighbor Watch, Martin would be alive. If he had listened to the police dispatcher, Martin would be alive. Martin was a 17 year old kid walking home from the store.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Any more questions, smart guy?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

My God. You're in your own realm of stupid. I provide the manual and says exactly what you're arguing against. Jesus, this is like trying to reason with a bowl of Jell-O.

Have at it, Hoss. I'm done with your idiotic trolling.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

My God. You're in your own realm of stupid. I provide the manual and says exactly what you're arguing against. Jesus, this is like trying to reason with a bowl of Jell-O.

Have at it, Hoss. I'm done with your idiotic trolling.

---

Ok Chief.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

My God. You're in your own realm of stupid. I provide the manual that states exactly what you're arguing against. Jesus, this is like trying to reason with a bowl of Jell-O.

Have at it, Hoss. I'm done with your idiotic trolling.

---

ineenia posted:

---

Are you guys really saying that if a guy with a gun is chasing you ,you run away and he chases after you ,you don't have every reason t fear for your life and use physical force to defend yourself?

If you shoot someone who is lawfully defending himself from yourself,it isn't self defense.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Seriously Ardenwolfe you are taking the rules of some Neighborhood Watch organization that's not involved as the law.

Do you wanna keep digging that hole deeper or quit while you're ahead?

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

The only idiot here is you.


Recommendations from retired police chiefs and organizations that mandate rules for their members are great, but they ARE NOT THE LAW IN FLORIDA.


Can you not grasp that simple concept? He did not break any laws by carrying his weapon with him. It's a simple fact that cannot be refuted. The police said it themselves and I know by my own experience with having a Florida concealed weapons permit.


Go back to ACF, you fit right in.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

ineenia posted:

---

Are you guys really saying that if a guy with a gun is chasing you ,you run away and he chases after you ,you don't have every reason t fear for your life and use physical force to defend yourself?

If you shoot someone who is lawfully defending himself from yourself,it isn't self defense.

---

But again, the evidence at that time, the police did not have probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. Florida law states that the police can not arrest you if you claim self defense and there is no probable cause to rule otherwise.


We don't know all the facts, let the justice system do it's job.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Choose or shut up.

---

ineenia posted:

---

They can arrest and hold people without charges for I think three days.

---

Rhapsedy posted:

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Seriously Ardenwolfe you are taking the rules of some Neighborhood Watch organization that's not involved as the law.

Do you wanna keep digging that hole deeper or quit while you're ahead?

---

How can you say that the neighborhood watch is not involved?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

You need to choose whether you believe he was Neighborhood Watch or a private citizen with a legal firearm. He cannot be a private citizen and neighborhood watch because the Neighborhood Watch rules state he cannot carry a firearm. If he's a private citizen with a firearm, he acted as a vigilante.

Now, pick your poison.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

You need to choose whether you believe he was Neighborhood Watch or a private citizen with a legal firearm. He cannot be a private citizen and neighborhood watch because the Neighborhood Watch rules state he cannot carry a firearm. If he's a private citizen with a firearm, he acted as a vigilante.

Now, pick your poison.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

You need to choose whether you believe he was Neighborhood Watch or a private citizen with a legal firearm. He cannot be a private citizen and neighborhood watch because the Neighborhood Watch rules state he cannot carry a firearm. If he's a private citizen with a firearm, he acted as a vigilante.

Now, pick your poison.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

ineenia posted:

---

They can arrest and hold people without charges for I think three days.

---

With probable cause, which I would assume they didn't have otherwise they would have. According to Florida law if they were to arrest him and it were to be found out that he was immune from prosecution than they are opening themselves up for civil litigation.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Again, you lack reading comprehension.

---

ineenia posted:

---

you're just babbling now because you don't want to be wrong,but you are wrong.In serious crimes they can hold people just for evidence collection.Which is a big part of the problem,the police didn't treat it seriously or even look at it as if a crime may have been committed...which is their job.

---

Sansfear posted:

---

The rules of the Neighborhood Watch do not override the rules of Florida. If he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch, maybe they will kick him out for violating their bylaws, but it still has no bearing on whether or not he broke the law.

A lot of businesses have rules against employees carrying weapons. There was a story recently (probably several of them) where a pizza delivery guy had been robbed and decided to carry a gun with him for protection even though it was against his company's policies.

Someone tried to rob him and he shot them in self-defense. And while the company fired him for having a gun, he wasn't charged with any crime by the police.

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

I'm just glad white people get a pass on this one, let the minorities duke it out we can pop a cold one and watch the race war.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

But we know, from the organization disavowing him, that's not the case.

---

SirGarth posted:

---

i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesn't allow you to start a fight with someone and shoot them when you're losing.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

It is also coming out now that there were a rash of break ins (confirmed by police) in the days just before the shooting right in the area of the shooting. While Zimmerman still should have kept his distance he was well with in his rights to keep an eye on someone that doesn't belong in the neighborhood in light of the recent break ins...that is what a neighborhood watch does.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Even if Zimmerman was acting as a civilian, he claimed self defense and the police did not have probable cause to arrest him on scene.

WHICH IS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW.


Simple. Effing. Concept.


Now run along Rainman.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

It is also coming out now that there were a rash of break ins (confirmed by police) in the days just before the shooting right in the area of the shooting. While Zimmerman still should have kept his distance he was well with in his rights to keep an eye on someone that doesn't belong in the neighborhood in light of the recent break ins...that is what a neighborhood watch does.

The witness who described Zimmerman lying on the ground crying for help before the shooting is a 13 year old from the neighborhood.

It is also not helping that one of Zimmerman's friends who is now doing interviews for everyone that will have him is black and says categorically that the guy doesn't have a racist bone in his body. I am sure he will be called an Uncle Tom any day now.

The entire situation is tragic and involves some poor choices on both parties but he isn't going to jail.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

But we know, from the organization disavowing him, that's not the case.

---

Are you like - full on retard or just like one of those semi functional retards?

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

I also can not imagine they authorized him to carry a gun, but I also do not see how that matters in this case.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

I also can not imagine they authorized him to carry a gun, but I also do not see how that matters in this case.

---

Well . . . the state and national HOA recommends he not carry a weapon for this exact reason. The other way it matters is because a 17-year old is dead. If Zimmerman didn't have the gun, the victim wouldn't be dead. It's hypothetical to argue that Martin could have beat Zimmerman to death with his fists, but it's not hypothetical to say that Zimmerman's bullet could have killed Martin.

Because that's what happened.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

How does what a 911 operator says have any weight on what someone does on private property that you are watching for others?

---

Koneg posted:

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

How does what a 911 operator says have any weight on what someone does on private property that you are watching for others?

---

It goes to the issue of what a "reasonable and prudent" person might decide to do given the same set of circumstances Zimmerman was in.

If a reasonable and prudent person, which a 911 operator certainly qualifies as, is telling you that what you're doing is a Bad Idea and you continue to do it anyway then trying to claim self-defense after that is going to be exceedingly difficult.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

There's no doubt Zimmerman is a racist douchebag idiot who went around following black people because they were black.

But that's sorta neither here nor there when it comes to whether it was self defense.

---

If Martin felt threatened by a guy with a gun who gets out of an SUV to follow him, doesn't Stand Your Ground apply to any actions he might take?

---

Of course not. You have to be in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. Some guy following you doesn't fit the bill.

If he was waving around his gun it'd be different. But I haven't seen anything saying he did anything with his gun until they started wrestling on the ground.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Wow. Really? Please reread my previous post. And you're Vault staff? That's a damn shame.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

But, I thought under this Florida law, if you felt threatened, you could defend yourself with deadly force. If I had been Martin, I would have felt threatened if some guy with a gun got out of his SUV and started following me.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

there is clearly some evidence that the guy was afraid. Whether or not he instigated the encounter, the length of the encounter, ensuing encounters and the violent content of each will all play into whether or not he should be acquitted. And the state will need some pretty damning testimony, to get by what we have already heard from witnesses.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

He was emboldened before the confrontation, but clearly afraid during and after. Getting your ass whupped tends to have that effect.... or so I've heard.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

So you go on vacation and leave your kids home, or brother, wife, niece, or friend in your place to take care of it. They see someone outside and go out to check, like they think you'd want them to do. Being scared, or bold, or pissed, they grab a gun. They get jumped. Are they murderers if they fire on the guy while they get beat on? Being dumb and getting to close to a perp isn't criminal on your land.

Zimmerman was authorized to follow people by everyone living in that community, including Martin's father, by proxy when they elected that HOA. Doesn't matter that they gave the job to an idiot except in a Civil suit I'd think.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

While I see your point, it's moot given that his own actions precipitated the entire scenario that ended with Martin's death.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

But, I thought under this Florida law, if you felt threatened, you could defend yourself with deadly force. If I had been Martin, I would have felt threatened if some guy with a gun got out of his SUV and started following me.

---

threatened with imminent death or serious bodily injury.

some guy following you and being racist towards you =\= being threatened with imminent death or bodily injury.

some guy following you with a gun out waving it around being racist towards you probably = being threatend with imminent death or bodily injury.

although if some guy is waving a gun around at you you have to be grade-A retarded to charge him and try to punch him out.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

No it isn't. What matters for purposes of self-defense is who instigated the violence, not who started the problem in some broader sense.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

http://www.trayvon.tk/

---

reesescups posted:

---

Ardenoobe - why are you still here? Thought you were leaving?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

My God. You're in your own realm of stupid. I provide the manual that states exactly what you're arguing against. Jesus, this is like trying to reason with a bowl of Jell-O.

Have at it, Hoss. I'm done with your idiotic trolling.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

Yea, because 17 year olds who partake in candy never commit crimes. Are you serious?

There was a rash of recent break ins around this neighborhood recently and he was not a regular resident. The neighborhood watch representative decided to try and keep an eye on him...nothing illegal or otherwise unusual in such a situation considering the recent break ins. The dispatchers advice was for Zimmermans safety and carries no weight what so ever. Zimmerman could have ended up just as dead if that was the real break in suspect.

---

"My brother said someone got shot behind our house," McLendon's older sister told a 911 dispatcher. "I heard something and then my brother ran into the house," she said.

"Is your brother there?" the dispatcher asks.

"He's next to me," she says.

"Okay, can you give him the phone?"

Austin comes on the line: "I saw a man laying on the ground that needed help, that was screaming and then I was going to go over there to try and help him, but my dog got off the leash, so I went and got my dog, and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped."

The dispatcher asks: "Did you see the person get shot? Did you know the person that was shot, or did you see the person that had the gun?"

"No, I just heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped," Austin replied.

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 (the section dealing with Home Protection)

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, did this anonymous mystery witness call 911? If not, why not? I've listened to a few of the 911 tapes but didn't come across that one. It also looks as though he didn't see who started the fight, so, I don't know how you can say not guilty. Might not end up being enough evidence for a conviction, but, I don't see how this adds a whole lot of info we didn't already have. It doesn't matter who was winning the fight. It matters who started the fight. And, even then, the Flkorida law is...

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 (the section dealing with Home Protection)

Martin is being followed, at night, by a guy, first in an SUV, then on foot. The guy is armed. If I was Martin in that situation, I'd certainly be worried about the imminent use of unlawful force".

Zimmerman was stalking, with a gun, a 17 year old kid. If that kid thought he was in danger, and, from his phone call, it certainly seemed as though he did, he has the right to defend himself. he tried walking fast...that didn't work. He tried hiding, that didn't work.

---

Grymlo posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, did this anonymous mystery witness call 911? If not, why not? I've listened to a few of the 911 tapes but didn't come across that one. It also looks as though he didn't see who started the fight, so, I don't know how you can say not guilty. Might not end up being enough evidence for a conviction, but, I don't see how this adds a whole lot of info we didn't already have. It doesn't matter who was winning the fight. It matters who started the fight. And, even then, the Flkorida law is...

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 (the section dealing with Home Protection)

Martin is being followed, at night, by a guy, first in an SUV, then on foot. The guy is armed. If I was Martin in that situation, I'd certainly be worried about the imminent use of unlawful force".

Zimmerman was stalking, with a gun, a 17 year old kid. If that kid thought he was in danger, and, from his phone call, it certainly seemed as though he did, he has the right to defend himself. he tried walking fast...that didn't work. He tried hiding, that didn't work.

---

I doubt Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun so try saying everything you just did without using the word gun and there really isnt much of an inmiment death threat.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

Trayvon's family is racing around now deleting all social media accounts and had their lawyer seal his school records. Unfortunately for them Google cache has most of it including drug dealing, self photos of him using gang symbols and him talking about punching a school bus driver just days before his death. The school bus driver incident is now being suggested as the reason he was suspended for 10 days from school and facing expulsion.

None of that information warrants he be shot but certainly does change this image that is being pushed down everyone's throat. He was only 17 but his most recent photos show he had the body of a full grown adult at 6'3 yet the media keeps on using older pictures of him.

Just remember, you weren't there, I wasn't there so we have no clue what happened. On the scene witnesses *at the time of the shooting* mostly back up Zimmerman's version of events according to the police report and from statements made by the special prosecutor reviewing the case. A grand jury will most certainly get to review all of it as well.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

It is also coming out now that there were a rash of break ins (confirmed by police) in the days just before the shooting right in the area of the shooting. While Zimmerman still should have kept his distance he was well with in his rights to keep an eye on someone that doesn't belong in the neighborhood in light of the recent break ins...that is what a neighborhood watch does.

---

Are you suggesting that all Zimmerman did was "keep an eye on him?" He called the cops, the dispatcher told him plainly not to follow the kid, and he did it anyway.

---

Durkall posted:

---

Let me see if I have this correctly, in Florida I can follow someone even though the police told me not to. I can confront/harass them because I think they look suspicious and then get into an altercation, which I initiated by my previous actions. If I start to lose the altercation I then have a right to use deadly force for the win. I wish I knew about this law last time I was at Disney and Goofy got a little aggressive with the hugging action.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Durkall posted:

---

Let me see if I have this correctly, in Florida I can follow someone even though the police told me not to. I can confront/harass them because I think they look suspicious and then get into an altercation, which I initiated by my previous actions. If I start to lose the altercation I then have a right to use deadly force for the win. I wish I knew about this law last time I was at Disney and Goofy got a little aggressive with the hugging action.

---

That's the part that sticks with me. I think he loses a self defense plea for initiating the entire encounter.

---

4f71c55be4b00809b7 posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

It is also coming out now that there were a rash of break ins (confirmed by police) in the days just before the shooting right in the area of the shooting. While Zimmerman still should have kept his distance he was well with in his rights to keep an eye on someone that doesn't belong in the neighborhood in light of the recent break ins...that is what a neighborhood watch does.

---

Are you suggesting that all Zimmerman did was "keep an eye on him?" He called the cops, the dispatcher told him plainly not to follow the kid, and he did it anyway.

---

OPERATOR: Are you following him?
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah.
OPERATOR: OK. We don't need you to do that.
ZIMMERMAN: OK.

What?? did you not hear the tape or read the transcripts?

OPERATOR: OK. We don't need you to do that.
ZIMMERMAN: OK.

What about him saying OK do you not understand?

---

4f71c55be4b00809b7 posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

It is also coming out now that there were a rash of break ins (confirmed by police) in the days just before the shooting right in the area of the shooting. While Zimmerman still should have kept his distance he was well with in his rights to keep an eye on someone that doesn't belong in the neighborhood in light of the recent break ins...that is what a neighborhood watch does.

---

Are you suggesting that all Zimmerman did was "keep an eye on him?" He called the cops, the dispatcher told him plainly not to follow the kid, and he did it anyway.

---

OPERATOR: Are you following him?
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah.
OPERATOR: OK. We don't need you to do that.
ZIMMERMAN: OK.

What?? did you not hear the tape or read the transcripts?

OPERATOR: OK. We don't need you to do that.
ZIMMERMAN: OK.

What about him saying OK do you not understand?

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I understand him saying "Ok." I don't understand him continuing to follow the kid after saying "ok." Ok?

---

Vydor posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I understand him saying "Ok." I don't understand him continuing to follow the kid after saying "ok." Ok?

---

Ash, what leads you to believe he did not stop following the kid. From the transcripts I've read, after he told the dispatcher OK, there was no more talk about Travyon or that Zimmerman continued to follow him. It appeared to me, after that Zimmerman and the dispatcher started discussing a place to meet up with the police. I may have missed something though.

Here is the transcript I read.

http://www.examiner.com/node/44935596

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

Trayvon's family is racing around now deleting all social media accounts and had their lawyer seal his school records. Unfortunately for them Google cache has most of it including drug dealing, self photos of him using gang symbols and him talking about punching a school bus driver just days before his death. The school bus driver incident is now being suggested as the reason he was suspended for 10 days from school and facing expulsion.

None of that information warrants he be shot but certainly does change this image that is being pushed down everyone's throat. He was only 17 but his most recent photos show he had the body of a full grown adult at 6'3 yet the media keeps on using older pictures of him.

Just remember, you weren't there, I wasn't there so we have no clue what happened. On the scene witnesses *at the time of the shooting* mostly back up Zimmerman's version of events according to the police report and from statements made by the special prosecutor reviewing the case. A grand jury will most certainly get to review all of it as well.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I understand him saying "Ok." I don't understand him continuing to follow the kid after saying "ok." Ok?

---

Ash, what leads you to believe he did not stop following the kid. From the transcripts I've read, after he told the dispatcher OK, there was no more talk about Travyon or that Zimmerman continued to follow him. It appeared to me, after that Zimmerman and the dispatcher started discussing a place to meet up with the police. I may have missed something though.

Here is the transcript I read.

http://www.examiner.com/node/44935596

---

Umm no that's not what I got at all. Martin started running away and george was clearly still following him in his truck. Based on that call alone it sounds like Martin was afraid of this guy sitting there staring at him and ran away, and Martin did not stay at the mailboxes even to meet the police. He told the police to call him to find out where he was. You stupid or something?

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

That's because you don't want it to be true. It's never been in doubt that he followed after being told to stop. AS far as I know Zimmerman admitted it and the GF's phone record confirms it.

---