Trying to find links to Houston cases, can’t remember story names. Linking other incidences too, they show an interesting variety of self defense law applications and judgements in some cases.
Black man shoots home invasion suspect in head. No charges filed:
None of these cases are exactly like another of course, but there certainly are details to consider in each case, including Zimmerman.
In the cases of pre-meditation and a car owner chasing a suspect with the single intent of shooting, it would seem odd to many, judging by comments in the discussion at hand, that charges weren’t filed immediatly and no arrest was made.
Point being, there is more to self defense law and behind the scene detail than most would assume to know. These are Texas cases of course, but it’s reasonable to assume Florida would be similar.
We don’t know what exactly transpired with Zimmerman and Martin. We do know a struggle took place, it is legal to defend oneself with deadly force against assault and the strongest evidence points to Martin attacking Zimmerman who acted in self defense.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Thats right. That’s what a lot of people are forgetting. Neighborhood watchmen are supposed to WATCH! Their presence is supposed to deter criminal activity because someone is “watching.” If it was their job to apprehend and investigate goings on what would make them different from normal cops?[/quote]
Yet his concealed carry license grants state rights above and beyond a neighborhood watch.[/quote]
Source. [/quote]
Yes please, I don’t think carrying a concealed weapons permit allows you to take the law into your own hands… I’m not saying thats what your saying…Im saying lets work the parameters of these laws out[/quote]
See Dr. Matt’s response.
Putting the decision to kill Trayvon on Zimmerman’s neighborhood watch status is a red herring. As he was under attack, he was exercising rights granted through concealed carry law, not neighborhood watch captain, dudly do right bullshit conjecture as we’ve been discussing.[/quote]
What? The right to defend oneself has nothing to do with having a permit to carry a gun. The only rights a permit to carry gives is the right to carry. It gives you no more or less rights when it comes to self-defense than someone who is unarmed or who picks up a hammer or knife. It also does not give him the right to confront people.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Thats right. That’s what a lot of people are forgetting. Neighborhood watchmen are supposed to WATCH! Their presence is supposed to deter criminal activity because someone is “watching.” If it was their job to apprehend and investigate goings on what would make them different from normal cops?[/quote]
Yet his concealed carry license grants state rights above and beyond a neighborhood watch.[/quote]
Source. [/quote]
Yes please, I don’t think carrying a concealed weapons permit allows you to take the law into your own hands… I’m not saying thats what your saying…Im saying lets work the parameters of these laws out[/quote]
See Dr. Matt’s response.
Putting the decision to kill Trayvon on Zimmerman’s neighborhood watch status is a red herring. As he was under attack, he was exercising rights granted through concealed carry law, not neighborhood watch captain, dudly do right bullshit conjecture as we’ve been discussing.[/quote]
What? The right to defend oneself has nothing to do with having a permit to carry a gun. The only rights a permit to carry gives is the right to carry. It gives you no more or less rights when it comes to self-defense than someone who is unarmed or who picks up a hammer or knife. It also does not give him the right to confront people. [/quote]
It gives him the right to have a concealed gun in public which he could then use when under attack.
“Confronting” someone and asking questions is not illegal.
Let’s not go full retard and lose all sight of rational thinking.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal. [/quote]
And we are back to conjecture.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal. [/quote]
And we are back to conjecture.[/quote]
No, it is illegal. Whether or not it applies here is not the point. The point is that following someone is not always legal.
HoustonGuy, you know your written laws and we commend you for that. But you are forgetting the fact that, (and I know this has been said a hundred times already) one kid lost his life because he was racially profiled. He was going about his business like any kid would be walking back from the store. The (sad)human element of this, ie. death of a child seems to be lost on many of you guys.
Like the English guy said, things are different in America, and as a person who grew up in a different country, I agree. The laws are twisted so that corrupt motherfuckers can get off w/o a scratch and killing an UNARMED 14 year old kid can even be deemed “justifiable” in a court of law.
Think about the family of this kid and what they’re going through right now. Again, it bears repeating that Zimmerman had no business even confronting this kid, with a gun no less.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal. [/quote]
And we are back to conjecture.[/quote]
No, it is illegal. Whether or not it applies here is not the point. The point is that following someone is not always legal. [/quote]
Zimmerman’s situation does not point to menace. Evidence shows he followed what he deemed a suspicious character (not illegal), asked details (not illegal) and got attacked (illegal). You may call adding information to jump conclusions and form assumptions what ever you’d like.
As discussed, following someone is not illegal, neither is asking a question. Attacking most certainly is. Lets keep the circular reasoning and broken record conjecture to a minimum.
[/quote]
Not necessarily true. There is something known as menacing, and it is illegal. [/quote]
FS 784.011 - Assault
(1) An â??assaultâ?? is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
This is the Florida law which defines assault. The argument could be made that by following Trayvon, there could have been a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. If the evidence winds up agreeing with Zimmerman’s story, however, the fact that he was no longer following Trayvon and had lost sight of the kid would mean that the threat had passed and Trayvon would no longer have had a real reason to confront Zimmerman and assault him, which means no murder/manslaughter charges. By confronting Zimmerman, he would have willingly placed himself in harms way. If Zimmerman did run him down (I find this unlikely since Zimmerman looks like Jabba the Hut’s younger brother and Trayvon appears to be in good shape.) then it doesn’t really matter who started the fight since Trayvon would have been well within his rights to respond to the threat that Zimmerman represented and Zimmerman will face at the very least manslaughter charges. I think, though, that there is at least enough evidence to make a case against Zimmerman for assault no matter what. I know that if some stranger is following me, I am going to assume he means to harm me in some way.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
HoustonGuy, you know your written laws and we commend you for that. But you are forgetting the fact that, (and I know this has been said a hundred times already) one kid lost his life because he was racially profiled. He was going about his business like any kid would be walking back from the store. The (sad)human element of this, ie. death of a child seems to be lost on many of you guys.
Like the English guy said, things are different in America, and as a person who grew up in a different country, I agree. The laws are twisted so that corrupt motherfuckers can get off w/o a scratch and killing an UNARMED 14 year old kid can even be deemed “justifiable” in a court of law.
Think about the family of this kid and what they’re going through right now. Again, it bears repeating that Zimmerman had no business even confronting this kid, with a gun no less.
Self-defense? Child, please.[/quote]
You are completely ignoring blacks who have come forward denouncing racist allegations in favor of sensationalistic group think.
Foreign law means diddly squat.
Trayvon was 17. Mere months from legal adult classification. I don’t know about you but at 17 I was bigger, stronger, more athletic and a bigger physical threat than most adult males in the world will ever be.
A child? Bitch, puu-lease.
Get your facts straight and catch up to be relevant.
Fuck, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
Police confirmed Zimmerman had a wound on the back of his head and a broken nose.
Martin wasn’t a resident of Sanford, he was staying at his fathers fiance’s house.
Martin was suspended for possessing a bag of shake at school.
Witness’s have stated seeing martin on top of Zimmerman.
Police and the D.A. initially cleared him, if there was a reasonable chance charges could have been brought up, they would have been. Its not like its there job to determine if a crime has been committed or anything.
The only thing Zimmerman is guilty of is being a dumb ass, and taking neighborhood hall monitor too seriously.
Looks like Trayvon was suspected of past burglaries:
[i]"Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.
Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry,
…
" Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.
Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.
