Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

Off Topic
221

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

Is there another story with police confirmed reports of what happened?

In the original story those are statements from a family spokesperson and attorney. I have a hard time believing anything that ins’t police confirmed. Nothing in the original story said that the police told him to back off, a spokesperson from the family was simply talking about 911 protocol not specific to this instance.

I don’t take a position either way without the facts, which weren’t there in the original story.

This guy is already guilty in the court of public opinion anyway.

222

The police have already stated there is evidence to support a self-defense
 defense.

Grass clippings on his back and blood on the back of his head, plus the bloody nose.

Also, some witness testimony was stated to support it
 or, at least, to support that there was a fight, which gives both the forensics and his account some credibility. They have yet to release the 911 tapes so as not to bias any accounts of the event until the detectives complete their interviews.

Obviously, a police report likely won’t be available until that time, as well. So, until then, we won’t know the complete details of what happened. At least, what happened according to Zimmerman.

You can find these with Google easily enough if you use the news section; I’ve read several articles so I couldn’t think of a specific reference even if I was gonna hunt it down.

223

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m angry no follow-up on this has come out yet
[/quote]

Just because charges haven’t been filed at this time it doesn’t mean they won’t be. People are jumping to far too many conclusions and reading way too much into the little bit of information that has come out.

There is a process to the legal system in this country that has to be followed and sometimes it takes time. The moment the police arrest the shooter and read him the Miranda warning there are certain rights that come into play. Such as the right to a speedy trial. Which means they have a limited amount of time to get him into court. If they have not completed their investigation sufficiently to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction the defense could get the case thrown out due to insufficient evidence.

Once they Mirandize him it changes their ability to question the shooter who at this time is also the primary witness. Post Miranda he has the right to remain silent. Which means he doesn’t have to retell his version of events and give the police the chance to pick out inconsistencies with the previous version.

The police have to be careful what they say about the incident lest they be accused by the defense of prejudicing the jury pool. It’s possibly why they haven’t released the recording of the 911 call so it can be played on every news station in the country.

Because the shooter is a criminal justice student this is one of those cases where it is probably going to be very difficult to get a conviction. ie Drew Peterson. It took a long time to finally charge him because he knew how to make things difficult for investigators.
[/quote]

I was going to say something along these lines (that hopefully the police are doing their due diligence by investigation before charging), but you said it much better than I could.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets charged with something lesser if there isn’t enough evidence to go with murder or manslaughter. With the publicity this is getting, I’m sure there will be political pressure on the DA to go after this guy with anything and everything they can (which is unfortunate if it was indeed justified). [/quote]

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

It sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the law. The 911 operator saying don’t follow him may not be the same as an order from the police. There may not be much if any law making that a lawful command that had to be obeyed.

I can see how following the kid would be a provocative, assholish thing to do, but that does not make it an assault. Without an assault by the watchman you can’t say the kid was acting in self defense. If he responded to being followed by getting physical he becomes the assailant even though it is perfectly understandable why he is responding like that. So the watchman claiming self defense may technically be accurate. Even though it was his actions that caused the chain of events.

The DA probably is going to have to go through a lot of research studying prior case law in order to figure out exactly what criminal charges he can press. Another reason for the delay in charges being filed. It won’t surprise me if this results in no criminal charges but the watchman loses a civil suit.

224

Someone got killed in a gated community for walking home. I do not expect to see “no criminal charges”. This seems to be too popular now for that.

225

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

Is there another story with police confirmed reports of what happened?

In the original story those are statements from a family spokesperson and attorney. I have a hard time believing anything that ins’t police confirmed. Nothing in the original story said that the police told him to back off, a spokesperson from the family was simply talking about 911 protocol not specific to this instance.

I don’t take a position either way without the facts, which weren’t there in the original story.

This guy is already guilty in the court of public opinion anyway.[/quote]

Do not forget this guy had charges dropped for assaulting an officer. There might some history there that might need to be uncovered.

226

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m angry no follow-up on this has come out yet
[/quote]

Just because charges haven’t been filed at this time it doesn’t mean they won’t be. People are jumping to far too many conclusions and reading way too much into the little bit of information that has come out.

There is a process to the legal system in this country that has to be followed and sometimes it takes time. The moment the police arrest the shooter and read him the Miranda warning there are certain rights that come into play. Such as the right to a speedy trial. Which means they have a limited amount of time to get him into court. If they have not completed their investigation sufficiently to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction the defense could get the case thrown out due to insufficient evidence.

Once they Mirandize him it changes their ability to question the shooter who at this time is also the primary witness. Post Miranda he has the right to remain silent. Which means he doesn’t have to retell his version of events and give the police the chance to pick out inconsistencies with the previous version.

The police have to be careful what they say about the incident lest they be accused by the defense of prejudicing the jury pool. It’s possibly why they haven’t released the recording of the 911 call so it can be played on every news station in the country.

Because the shooter is a criminal justice student this is one of those cases where it is probably going to be very difficult to get a conviction. ie Drew Peterson. It took a long time to finally charge him because he knew how to make things difficult for investigators.
[/quote]

I was going to say something along these lines (that hopefully the police are doing their due diligence by investigation before charging), but you said it much better than I could.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets charged with something lesser if there isn’t enough evidence to go with murder or manslaughter. With the publicity this is getting, I’m sure there will be political pressure on the DA to go after this guy with anything and everything they can (which is unfortunate if it was indeed justified). [/quote]

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

It sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the law. The 911 operator saying don’t follow him may not be the same as an order from the police. There may not be much if any law making that a lawful command that had to be obeyed.

I can see how following the kid would be a provocative, assholish thing to do, but that does not make it an assault. Without an assault by the watchman you can’t say the kid was acting in self defense. If he responded to being followed by getting physical he becomes the assailant even though it is perfectly understandable why he is responding like that. So the watchman claiming self defense may technically be accurate. Even though it was his actions that caused the chain of events.

The DA probably is going to have to go through a lot of research studying prior case law in order to figure out exactly what criminal charges he can press. Another reason for the delay in charges being filed. It won’t surprise me if this results in no criminal charges but the watchman loses a civil suit.[/quote]

I do understand that someone is allowed to defend themself from a perceived threat. The shooter following the kid can clearly been seen as a threat. The kid hitting the shooter is the kid acting in self defense. How then does the shooter claim self defense? How both parties in an altercation claim self defense?

I know we do not know precisely what went down between them but I have a hard time swallowing a self defense claim by the aggressor in the situation.

I thought if you pick a fight and get your ass kicked that is your own damn fault.

227

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone got killed in a gated community for walking home. I do not expect to see “no criminal charges”. This seems to be too popular now for that.[/quote]

I’m not sure. I mean he may be charged but unless someone seen something that has not been reported what do you really have.

Even if the guy approached the kid no one knows what was said but the 2 and one is Dead.

Also if the kid has any signs of a struggle ( the kid not the law student watch captain) then self defense is definitely on the table.

I wonder if they took the guy to the ER to see if his wounds where caused by an actual fight or self inflicted. If not then that is another piece of the case gone forever.

I’m betting the guy walks.

228

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Someone got killed in a gated community for walking home. I do not expect to see “no criminal charges”. This seems to be too popular now for that.[/quote]

I know it’s got a lot of attention. But they still have to meet certain criteria in order to press criminal charges. The handful of seconds in which the altercation started and it ended in the kid getting shot is what is going to determine what charges arise.

I know the kid was only 17 and he looks real baby faced in his picture. In the video of his Mom and Dad with the cops they both look like they are tall. He may not have been a small kid and in the night not looked as young as he was. He might have been winning a fight in which he threw the first punch.

Self defense law can be tricky. That is why my karate teachers always said the first thing to do in a fight is run away.

229

I took karate also. I also know law enforcement is well aware of the eyes on them at this point. It is going to be hard to explain how a night watch guard can claim self defense when he instigated the confrontation and was NOT a uniformed police officer.

230

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m angry no follow-up on this has come out yet
[/quote]

Just because charges haven’t been filed at this time it doesn’t mean they won’t be. People are jumping to far too many conclusions and reading way too much into the little bit of information that has come out.

There is a process to the legal system in this country that has to be followed and sometimes it takes time. The moment the police arrest the shooter and read him the Miranda warning there are certain rights that come into play. Such as the right to a speedy trial. Which means they have a limited amount of time to get him into court. If they have not completed their investigation sufficiently to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction the defense could get the case thrown out due to insufficient evidence.

Once they Mirandize him it changes their ability to question the shooter who at this time is also the primary witness. Post Miranda he has the right to remain silent. Which means he doesn’t have to retell his version of events and give the police the chance to pick out inconsistencies with the previous version.

The police have to be careful what they say about the incident lest they be accused by the defense of prejudicing the jury pool. It’s possibly why they haven’t released the recording of the 911 call so it can be played on every news station in the country.

Because the shooter is a criminal justice student this is one of those cases where it is probably going to be very difficult to get a conviction. ie Drew Peterson. It took a long time to finally charge him because he knew how to make things difficult for investigators.
[/quote]

I was going to say something along these lines (that hopefully the police are doing their due diligence by investigation before charging), but you said it much better than I could.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets charged with something lesser if there isn’t enough evidence to go with murder or manslaughter. With the publicity this is getting, I’m sure there will be political pressure on the DA to go after this guy with anything and everything they can (which is unfortunate if it was indeed justified). [/quote]

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

It sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the law. The 911 operator saying don’t follow him may not be the same as an order from the police. There may not be much if any law making that a lawful command that had to be obeyed.

I can see how following the kid would be a provocative, assholish thing to do, but that does not make it an assault. Without an assault by the watchman you can’t say the kid was acting in self defense. If he responded to being followed by getting physical he becomes the assailant even though it is perfectly understandable why he is responding like that. So the watchman claiming self defense may technically be accurate. Even though it was his actions that caused the chain of events.

The DA probably is going to have to go through a lot of research studying prior case law in order to figure out exactly what criminal charges he can press. Another reason for the delay in charges being filed. It won’t surprise me if this results in no criminal charges but the watchman loses a civil suit.[/quote]

I do understand that someone is allowed to defend themself from a perceived threat. The shooter following the kid can clearly been seen as a threat. The kid hitting the shooter is the kid acting in self defense. How then does the shooter claim self defense? How both parties in an altercation claim self defense?

I know we do not know precisely what went down between them but I have a hard time swallowing a self defense claim by the aggressor in the situation.

I thought if you pick a fight and get your ass kicked that is your own damn fault.[/quote]

You are getting it wrong. In self defense you are allowed to respond in proportion to the perceived level of threat. If someone if following you, you are within your rights to run away. The legal term for that is retreat. If you stop, turn around, go back to confront them you have changed the legalities of the situation because you are not in retreat and those changes in legality are not in your favor.

231

Ok to anyone talking Self Defense.

Once again you only have the word of the shooter to go on.

We don’t even know if the kid knew he was being stalked by this guy. The neighborhood watch guy just has to say. " I seen the kid looking thru a window of someone I knew. I walked up to ask him what he was doing and the kid turned, jumped on me an next thing I know I was in the fight of my life
enter gun
bang
dead kid.

Once again no reports if the kid had any wounds on his hands or face to show struggle so all we hear about is the gun shot and the blood and the shooters grassy wet back.

232

lol, why am I not surprised?

The first article is just a sensationalist piece of shit tugging away at armchair activists and white guilt.
Even though they admit that the police won’t hold Zimmerman and has info they won’t release to the public, they choose to villify him.

Of course, that’s what sells. A racism fueled armed militant white guy.

And wow, colour me surprised, after a few days we get details about the white devil being assaulted and the kid who was shot having a previous history of criminal charges.

233

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m angry no follow-up on this has come out yet
[/quote]

Just because charges haven’t been filed at this time it doesn’t mean they won’t be. People are jumping to far too many conclusions and reading way too much into the little bit of information that has come out.

There is a process to the legal system in this country that has to be followed and sometimes it takes time. The moment the police arrest the shooter and read him the Miranda warning there are certain rights that come into play. Such as the right to a speedy trial. Which means they have a limited amount of time to get him into court. If they have not completed their investigation sufficiently to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction the defense could get the case thrown out due to insufficient evidence.

Once they Mirandize him it changes their ability to question the shooter who at this time is also the primary witness. Post Miranda he has the right to remain silent. Which means he doesn’t have to retell his version of events and give the police the chance to pick out inconsistencies with the previous version.

The police have to be careful what they say about the incident lest they be accused by the defense of prejudicing the jury pool. It’s possibly why they haven’t released the recording of the 911 call so it can be played on every news station in the country.

Because the shooter is a criminal justice student this is one of those cases where it is probably going to be very difficult to get a conviction. ie Drew Peterson. It took a long time to finally charge him because he knew how to make things difficult for investigators.
[/quote]

I was going to say something along these lines (that hopefully the police are doing their due diligence by investigation before charging), but you said it much better than I could.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets charged with something lesser if there isn’t enough evidence to go with murder or manslaughter. With the publicity this is getting, I’m sure there will be political pressure on the DA to go after this guy with anything and everything they can (which is unfortunate if it was indeed justified). [/quote]

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

It sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the law. The 911 operator saying don’t follow him may not be the same as an order from the police. There may not be much if any law making that a lawful command that had to be obeyed.

I can see how following the kid would be a provocative, assholish thing to do, but that does not make it an assault. Without an assault by the watchman you can’t say the kid was acting in self defense. If he responded to being followed by getting physical he becomes the assailant even though it is perfectly understandable why he is responding like that. So the watchman claiming self defense may technically be accurate. Even though it was his actions that caused the chain of events.

The DA probably is going to have to go through a lot of research studying prior case law in order to figure out exactly what criminal charges he can press. Another reason for the delay in charges being filed. It won’t surprise me if this results in no criminal charges but the watchman loses a civil suit.[/quote]

I do understand that someone is allowed to defend themself from a perceived threat. The shooter following the kid can clearly been seen as a threat. The kid hitting the shooter is the kid acting in self defense. How then does the shooter claim self defense? How both parties in an altercation claim self defense?

I know we do not know precisely what went down between them but I have a hard time swallowing a self defense claim by the aggressor in the situation.

I thought if you pick a fight and get your ass kicked that is your own damn fault.[/quote]

You are getting it wrong. In self defense you are allowed to respond in proportion to the perceived level of threat. If someone if following you, you are within your rights to run away. The legal term for that is retreat. If you stop, turn around, go back to confront them you have changed the legalities of the situation because you are not in retreat and those changes in legality are not in your favor.

[/quote]

Okay. The kid was unarmed, the shooter pulls his gun. How does self defense work there then? Serious question, not trying to be an ass.

234

Oh and just for the record I did not go to law school like the shooter did and if I shot an unarmed kid and wanted to look like it was a fight I would fuck myself up a bit also. And if no one takes me to the hospital to prove it wasn’t from a fight it’s just the police report against a Dead kid

235

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I took karate also. I also know law enforcement is well aware of the eyes on them at this point. It is going to be hard to explain how a night watch guard can claim self defense when he instigated the confrontation and was NOT a uniformed police officer.[/quote]

Oh he does have some explaining to do. But lets not forget that he is a criminal justice major, so he probably has a good enough understanding of self defense law to know the right things to say and do to cover his ass.

236

Shucks no one wants to talk to ol BDSlift
 Oh well

237

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m angry no follow-up on this has come out yet
[/quote]

Just because charges haven’t been filed at this time it doesn’t mean they won’t be. People are jumping to far too many conclusions and reading way too much into the little bit of information that has come out.

There is a process to the legal system in this country that has to be followed and sometimes it takes time. The moment the police arrest the shooter and read him the Miranda warning there are certain rights that come into play. Such as the right to a speedy trial. Which means they have a limited amount of time to get him into court. If they have not completed their investigation sufficiently to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction the defense could get the case thrown out due to insufficient evidence.

Once they Mirandize him it changes their ability to question the shooter who at this time is also the primary witness. Post Miranda he has the right to remain silent. Which means he doesn’t have to retell his version of events and give the police the chance to pick out inconsistencies with the previous version.

The police have to be careful what they say about the incident lest they be accused by the defense of prejudicing the jury pool. It’s possibly why they haven’t released the recording of the 911 call so it can be played on every news station in the country.

Because the shooter is a criminal justice student this is one of those cases where it is probably going to be very difficult to get a conviction. ie Drew Peterson. It took a long time to finally charge him because he knew how to make things difficult for investigators.
[/quote]

I was going to say something along these lines (that hopefully the police are doing their due diligence by investigation before charging), but you said it much better than I could.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets charged with something lesser if there isn’t enough evidence to go with murder or manslaughter. With the publicity this is getting, I’m sure there will be political pressure on the DA to go after this guy with anything and everything they can (which is unfortunate if it was indeed justified). [/quote]

The shot cannot be justified because the shooter pursued the kid after the cops told him not to. The shooter put himself in that position. He was not in an altercation until he put himself in that position. The kid was in his right to defend himself from what probably looked like a guy following him home - which is a dangerous situation the shooter caused.

It is really hard to argue self-defense when the whole scenario was caused by the shooter AFTER the cops told him to back off.[/quote]

It sounds like you don’t have any understanding of the law. The 911 operator saying don’t follow him may not be the same as an order from the police. There may not be much if any law making that a lawful command that had to be obeyed.

I can see how following the kid would be a provocative, assholish thing to do, but that does not make it an assault. Without an assault by the watchman you can’t say the kid was acting in self defense. If he responded to being followed by getting physical he becomes the assailant even though it is perfectly understandable why he is responding like that. So the watchman claiming self defense may technically be accurate. Even though it was his actions that caused the chain of events.

The DA probably is going to have to go through a lot of research studying prior case law in order to figure out exactly what criminal charges he can press. Another reason for the delay in charges being filed. It won’t surprise me if this results in no criminal charges but the watchman loses a civil suit.[/quote]

I do understand that someone is allowed to defend themself from a perceived threat. The shooter following the kid can clearly been seen as a threat. The kid hitting the shooter is the kid acting in self defense. How then does the shooter claim self defense? How both parties in an altercation claim self defense?

I know we do not know precisely what went down between them but I have a hard time swallowing a self defense claim by the aggressor in the situation.

I thought if you pick a fight and get your ass kicked that is your own damn fault.[/quote]

You are getting it wrong. In self defense you are allowed to respond in proportion to the perceived level of threat. If someone if following you, you are within your rights to run away. The legal term for that is retreat. If you stop, turn around, go back to confront them you have changed the legalities of the situation because you are not in retreat and those changes in legality are not in your favor.

[/quote]

Okay. The kid was unarmed, the shooter pulls his gun. How does self defense work there then? Serious question, not trying to be an ass.[/quote]

Factors such as who made the first assault or the first battery. All the kid had to do is lose his cool and start shoving the guy for that to be an assault by the kid. Now that’s not enough to justify shooting him but the watchman could respond to that and legally be in self defense.

From there if pushing turned into a tussle that he was losing he could say something like, it was dark, I didn’t know this man, he was bigger than me, he became physically aggressive after I identified myself as the neighborhood watch, I was losing the fight, the kid noticed my gun as we were wrestling, I was afraid I was going to lose retention of my weapon, so I shot.

238

Ok. I see. There just seems to be a lot of stink to this.

Anybody got money on the gun recoiled, hit the shooter in the nose and then he fell on his back?

239

[quote]BDSLift wrote:
Shucks no one wants to talk to ol BDSlift
 Oh well[/quote]

Well, I have been following you for awhile in my car and


Dude, just because I called the cops on you and 


Now that is just rude


Ow! Take that punk not old enough to vote


240

[quote]want2getlean wrote:
lol, why am I not surprised?

The first article is just a sensationalist piece of shit tugging away at armchair activists and white guilt.
Even though they admit that the police won’t hold Zimmerman and has info they won’t release to the public, they choose to villify him.

Of course, that’s what sells. A racism fueled armed militant white guy.

And wow, colour me surprised, after a few days we get details about the white devil being assaulted and the kid who was shot having a previous history of criminal charges.[/quote]

The kid doesn’t have a record, the watch captain has an assaulting an officer charge that was dropped.