Black Kid Shot in Gated Neighboorhood

[Stoked]

The fact that all this media attention and rallies have not resulted in an arrest may indicate something. I would believe that this much public outcry would have gotten the case a review at least. That he has still not been arrested may indicate that while the guy may be a scumbag he didn't commit any crimes.

 

[Gameface]

The fact that all this media attention and rallies have not resulted in an arrest may indicate something. I would believe that this much public outcry would have gotten the case a review at least. That he has still not been arrested may indicate that while the guy may be a scumbag he didn't commit any crimes.

The thing is, I think you arrest the guy based on the circumstances and then let him defend himself in court. We do know for a fact he killed someone. Let him prove he did it in self defense.

 

[Stoked]

The thing is, I think you arrest the guy based on the circumstances and then let him defend himself in court. We do know for a fact he killed someone. Let him prove he did it in self defense.

I personally agree but the fact that he has not been arrested clearly shows there is more to the story then we are getting.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Salty - you can't have it both ways. Either you look at BOTH of their histories, or look at neither. Zimmerman's record is clean, if you bother to actually look at it. He was accused and arrested, but never convicted. On the flip side, the kid has a history of serious drug offenses. Both would and could be brought up to show why one person did something or the other, but they can both be taken out because at this point, I don't think that either of them have relevance.

There are a number of things wrong with this though.

1: The cops checked the kid's background, they did not check the shooter's.
2: Serious drug offenses? Wrong. He had a bag that had marijuana residue and a pipe. That is not a serious drug offense, lol.
3: He could have been the biggest pot smoker in the history of the world, and it would not mean he started the fight with Zimmerman or gave him a reason to shoot. It's totally not relevant.
4: Zimmerman's past history of violence DOES mean he may have instigated the fight. It's absolutely relevant.
5: He may not have been convicted of assault on a police officer, but his girlfriend was given a restraining order against him.

 

[cowhide]

Liberal logic. No facts, just name calling.



Good thing he didn't do that otherwise he might be dead. Oh wait...


Some of you are such media controlled tools. You see the pictures of this kid at age 13 with a smile on his face, that's the media softing everyone up so they can try and make a story out of this and get them to think how they want them to think. "Oh he wasn't doing anything, just walking home with skittles, what a cute little innocent kid." Wonder what he was suspended from school for? My kids never got suspended from school, and they are all adults now.

The bottom line is that if in fact this was a racially motived shooting it just contributes to the fact that multiculturalism is a failure.

Another victim neo-con complaining about how the world is? Having little compassion and zero understanding of the real world. Would your opinion change if it was a black kid who shot a white boy? Reading your post, I think it would change your view because your post is filled with racially bias assumptions because the kid was black. I don't know why it matters at all if the kid was black, chinese, white etc, the kid was unarmed and there was no reason to shoot him. The matter was made worse by how the incompetent police handled the situation. If there is a failure of multiculturalism just look in the mirror. People like yourself who rationalization away racial crimes as some media conspiracy are at the heart of the problems we have in our society.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

There are a number of things wrong with this though.

1: The cops checked the kid's background, they did not check the shooter's.
2: Serious drug offenses? Wrong. He had a bag that had marijuana residue and a pipe. That is not a serious drug offense, lol.
3: He could have been the biggest pot smoker in the history of the world, and it would not mean he started the fight with Zimmerman or gave him a reason to shoot. It's totally not relevant.
4: Zimmerman's past history of violence DOES mean he may have instigated the fight. It's absolutely relevant.
5: He may not have been convicted of assault on a police officer, but his girlfriend was given a restraining order against him.

You forget many poster's attitude towards weed.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Let's get a few things clear, folks.

Zimmerman can follow people through his quardrant. He can even base his decision to follow on age, race, religion and sexual preference if that's what he wants to do. He can ask people what they're doing or why they are there. He can call 9-11 and report them. He can even call them nasty, even racist, things. He can do all of that and still retain his right to defend his life with his firearm if he is attacked. Even if, EVEN IF, he was attacked because the kid felt harassed.

So to condemn him legally you have to prove that he was not attacked. Period. He may be an overzealous NW captain, a racist, a woman beating jerk, whatever. None of that forces him to surrender his right to protect himself. So you have to prove he wasn't protecting himself. And I think that is going to be hard to do.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure you are not authorized to just blow the brains out of anyone who attacks you unless your life is in danger.

So the situation then becomes, was Zimmerman's life in danger? It does not appear that it was. The kid was smaller, unarmed, and Zimmerman had a car anyway.

The real legal question is, if you attack someone, they defend themself, you lose the fight, are you then legally authorized to shoot them dead? All signs point to Zimmerman starting the fight. Even if nobody can prove that he threw the first punch, the fact is he was the one following the kid, he was the one that got out of his car and confronted the kid, and we know the kid ran at some point so Zimmerman chased him. These may not be punches, but they are certainly acts of aggression.

 

[PearlWatson]

stalked, followed, chased, corned, and confronted him.

Awesome hyperbole, exaggeration, and embellishment!

 

[SaltyDawg]

Awesome hyperbole, exaggeration, and embellishment!

Not at all. Those are the facts.

 

[Gameface]

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure you are not authorized to just blow the brains out of anyone who attacks you unless your life is in danger.

So the situation then becomes, was Zimmerman's life in danger? It does not appear that it was. The kid was smaller, unarmed, and Zimmerman had a car anyway.

The real legal question is, if you attack someone, they defend themself, you lose the fight, are you then legally authorized to shoot them dead? All signs point to Zimmerman starting the fight. Even if nobody can prove that he threw the first punch, the fact is he was the one following the kid, he was the one that got out of his car and confronted the kid, and we know the kid ran at some point so Zimmerman chased him. These may not be punches, but they are certainly acts of aggression.

At what point does Zimmerman forfiet his right to defend himself? He's in the neighborhood watch. He is following someone he thinks is up to no good (we can question why he though that, but it doesn't change the fact that he personally believed the kid was up to no good). If the kid starts to run it only reinforces Zimmerman's belief that he's up to no good. So what does Zimmerman do? He chases after the kid so he can see where he goes or what he does (maybe he thinks the kid is going to ditch stolen goods or drugs and wants to see where he tosses them). The kid runs into a dead end, Zimmerman is there behind him. The kid might be scared, he might be angry at Zimmerman, he might be confused. It's certainly sad being that there is no reason to believe the kid did anything wrong. However, if at this point the kid attacks Zimmerman before Zimmerman gets physical with him, or overtly threatens him, how can you deny Zimmerman the right to defend himself. He doesn't know if the kid can take him in a fight. Weight is a good way to match up pro fighters, it is pretty much irrelevant in this type of confrontation. The kid might have a knife, he might pick up a rock or a stick or a broken bottle. If aqll you know is that he's attacking you then your life is in danger and you have the right to defend yourself. Even racist ******** who harass people have a right to defend themselves.

This is a sad situation, but again, to convict (not judge from afar, that's fair game) you need to prove he was not acting in self defense. It's going to be difficult to do.

 

[SaltyDawg]

At what point does Zimmerman forfiet his right to defend himself? He's in the neighborhood watch. He is following someone he thinks is up to no good (we can question why he though that, but it doesn't change the fact that he personally believed the kid was up to no good). If the kid starts to run it only reinforces Zimmerman's belief that he's up to no good. So what does Zimmerman do? He chases after the kid so he can see where he goes or what he does (maybe he thinks the kid is going to ditch stolen goods or drugs and wants to see where he tosses them). The kid runs into a dead end, Zimmerman is there behind him. The kid might be scared, he might be angry at Zimmerman, he might be confused. It's certainly sad being that there is no reason to believe the kid did anything wrong. However, if at this point the kid attacks Zimmerman before Zimmerman gets physical with him, or overtly threatens him, how can you deny Zimmerman the right to defend himself. He doesn't know if the kid can take him in a fight. Weight is a good way to match up pro fighters, it is pretty much irrelevant in this type of confrontation. The kid might have a knife, he might pick up a rock or a stick or a broken bottle. If aqll you know is that he's attacking you then your life is in danger and you have the right to defend yourself. Even racist ******** who harass people have a right to defend themselves.

This is a sad situation, but again, to convict (not judge from afar, that's fair game) you need to prove he was not acting in self defense. It's going to be difficult to do.

And again, I disagree with most of that. Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, sure. But defending yourself with deadly force, you have to believe your life is in danger.

I'm pretty sure thinking someone might pull out a knife is not enough grounds to shoot them dead. If they actually pull out a knife, that's one thing. But just shooting someone because you suspect they might, that's totally different.

And I also think Zimmerman stalking him, chasing him, and confronting him is probably illegal. He does not have a right to terrorize any kid in the neighborhood just because he doesn't like the way they look.

Yes, Zimmerman has a right to be a racist prick or whatever. But the kid also has rights that need to be protected. Zimmerman was harassing the kid. That is illegal. And if the kid felt threatened, he had the right to defend himself.

Zimmerman calling himself the neighborhood watch doesn't give him any legal authority he's not a cop. And for him to take someone's life, his life had to have been in danger.

With him being the one who could have got in his car and left, and the kid being unarmed, it's pretty safe to assume his life wasn't in danger.

Plus, at least one of the witnesses said it was the kid screaming for help when the shot was fired (the same witness who was on the phone with 911 and you can hear the screams and the shot in the call recording).

 

[PearlWatson]

And I also think Zimmerman stalking him, chasing him, and confronting him is probably illegal. He does not have a right to terrorize any kid in the neighborhood just because he doesn't like the way they look.

Please don't leave out the "fact" that he followed him.

It is followed, stalked, and chased.

I'm liking how you added the "fact" that he terrorized him this time around.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Please don't leave out the "fact" that he followed him.

It is followed, stalked, and chased.

I'm liking how you added the "fact" that he terrorized him this time around.

If you follow, stalk, and chase someone, you don't consider that terrorizing them? I'm guessing you would if it was your daughter being followed, chased, stalked, etc. Especially if she was just on her way back to your house after buying some skittles and an iced tea at the corner store.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I just had a nightmare that I was reading the Pitbulls thread.
Whew, I'm glad it's not true.

 

[Gameface]

If you follow, stalk, and chase someone, you don't consider that terrorizing them? I'm guessing you would if it was your daughter being followed, chased, stalked, etc. Especially if she was just on her way back to your house after buying some skittles and an iced tea at the corner store.

If the person was peering into windows and checking car doors would it be okay then?

 

[SaltyDawg]

If the person was peering into windows and checking car doors would it be okay then?

It still wouldn't be okay to shoot him. Even the cops wouldn't shoot someone for looking in a window or checking a car door.

 

[PearlWatson]

If you follow, stalk, and chase someone, you don't consider that terrorizing them? I'm guessing you would if it was your daughter being followed, chased, stalked, etc. Especially if she was just on her way back to your house after buying some skittles and an iced tea at the corner store.

You are right.
Follow+stalk+chase+corner+confront=terrorize. If you leave any of the first 3 synonyms out then it isn't terrorism.
Anybody who buys skittles is an angel in disguise.

 

[PearlWatson]

I just had a nightmare that I was reading the Pitbulls thread.
Whew, I'm glad it's not true.

I'm sure Zimmerman had his ears clipped!

 

[SaltyDawg]

You are right.
Follow+stalk+chase+corner+confront=terrorize. If you leave any of the first 3 synonyms out then it isn't terrorism.
Anybody who buys skittles is an angel in disguise.

Right, they're all synonyms. Following someone is absolutely the same as chasing them. And it definitely wouldn't be terrorism if he had just corned and confronted the kid. Right. </sarcasm>

 

[Scat]

It still wouldn't be okay to shoot him. Even the cops wouldn't shoot someone for looking in a window or checking a car door.

Do you think the cop would shoot if they were punched in the face and found themselves on the ground with their head being banged against the cement?