African-American teenager shot by neighborhood watch (UPDATE: Shooter now charged)

[Blodaksen]

Originally Posted by Det. Brees

Repeatedly Ive said what evidence I want to see. To reitterate again in know way am I defending the shooter.

I want to know:

1.Why he thought the kid was suspicious. Had he seen the kid do something or was he just walking down the street.
2. Who started the confrontation. Did the shooter exit car and approach the kid or did the kid approach the car. Just for example. Ive heard two different accounts of who approached who.
3. Why he thought deadly force was necessary. How did the shooter receive the wounds. That would deteremine if deadly force was needed in the situation.

Again not saying this is the situation, But people are to hung up on the fact the "dispatcher" told the shooter to not follow the suspect. If a person is observed committing a crime, again not saying this is the case" its not illegal to follow the suspect.

One more time. This person was not a commissioned police officer, or charged with enforcing any law. Hell, he wasn't even a security guard. Being a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain gives him ZERO authority to approach someone in any capacity, suspicious or not. The only way he could justify his actions are delineated in the Florida statutes on gun ownership and self-defense. NONE of his actions met the test. The most damning fact is that he was the instigator, by virtue of his approaching the teen. As far as the law is concerned, that kid had as much right as that Zimmerman to claim self-defense and punch the idiot in the mouth.

Therefore, because he does not have any standing in law enforcement, and because he was the aggressor, and he shot an UNARMED teen, he is the only one who needs to prove anything, specifically exactly how his commission of a homicide was justified. Because that is what this is, a homicide. All the other issues are aggravating or mitigating circumstances that will determine the severity of the charge, which is not the job of the cops.


Police are enforcers of the law, they don't get to pick and choose how to interpret them. That is the job of the District Attorneys.

[Blodaksen]

I'm tired of arguing. It is pointless to debate the issue further. It's obvious you won't see it any other way than yours, and I believe your position is indefensible. Agree to disagree and move on.

[insidejob]

He should have at the very least been arrested and charged with assault and battery. The DA can then amend the chargers to murder. Or, if the investigation turns up that he shouldn't be charged, they can drop the charges.

People get arrested for a lot less every day. The investigation doesn't have to stop just because they arrest him.

How's the search for opium in eastern Alabama and Western Georgia going, Det. Brees?

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

One more time. This person was not a commissioned police officer, or charged with enforcing any law. Hell, he wasn't even a security guard. Being a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain gives him ZERO authority to approach someone in any capacity, suspicious or not. The only way he could justify his actions are delineated in the Florida statutes on gun ownership and self-defense. NONE of his actions met the test. The most damning fact is that he was the instigator, by virtue of his approaching the teen. As far as the law is concerned, that kid had as much right as that Zimmerman to claim self-defense and punch the idiot in the mouth.

Therefore, because he does not have any standing in law enforcement, and because he was the aggressor, and he shot an UNARMED teen, he is the only one who needs to prove anything, specifically exactly how his commission of a homicide was justified. Because that is what this is, a homicide. All the other issues are aggravating or mitigating circumstances that will determine the severity of the charge, which is not the job of the cops.

Police are enforcers of the law, they don't get to pick and choose how to interpret them. That is the job of the District Attorneys.

Actually you could not be more wrong. Every citizen has the right/authority to stop , detain and bring charges against someone they see committing a Crime. In some instance a witness can be held criminally and civilly liable if they don't act.

[insidejob]

Originally Posted by Det. Brees

Actually you could not be more wrong. Every citizen has the right/authority to stop , detain and bring charges against someone they see committing a Crime. In some instance as witness can be held criminally and civilly liable if they don't act.

And a kid with skittles and a can of tea has the right to sock him in the face for trying to detain him for walking down the street without getting shot. He called 911. It was over for him...until he killed a kid.

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by insidejob

He should have at the very least been arrested and charged with assault and battery. The DA can then amend the chargers to murder. Or, if the investigation turns up that he shouldn't be charged, they can drop the charges.

People get arrested for a lot less every day. The investigation doesn't have to stop just because they arrest him.

How's the search for opium in eastern Alabama and Western Georgia going, Det. Brees?

Very well. Every day cases are made on opium based products.

[TulsaSaint]

Originally Posted by Det. Brees

Actually you could not be more wrong. Every citizen has the right/authority to stop , detain and bring charges against someone they see committing a Crime. In some instance as witness can be held criminally and civilly liable if they don't act.

And what crime did Zimmerman see the kid committing? (Other than being black in a gated community, of course.)

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

And what crime did Zimmerman see the kid committing? (Other than being black in a gated community, of course.)

I didn't say Zimmerman saw the kid commit a crime. If you re-read my post you'll see that was in reference to a statement about citizens not having the authority to stop, detain, or even follow suspects. I didn't say anything about the kid committing a crime.

That's why we have to wait for the investigation to be completed.

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by insidejob

And a kid with skittles and a can of tea has the right to sock him in the face for trying to detain him for walking down the street without getting shot. He called 911. It was over for him...until he killed a kid.

I agree with you 100%

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

I'm tired of arguing. It is pointless to debate the issue further. It's obvious you won't see it any other way than yours, and I believe your position is indefensible. Agree to disagree and move on.

Because my position is for due process, and building a strong case to get a conviction and you think my position is indefensible, you must be against those things

[krushing]

You do have a right to stop and question a suspicious person in your neighborhood, especially a gated neighborhood. You might not have a right to an answer, but you have the right to question him.
However, you had better be careful doing it even with a gun in your pocket, because if the person you question calls you and your mother everything in the book, you don't have a right to shoot them unless they threaten you and or your family with deadly force.

[Semper]

Originally Posted by Det. Brees

Actually you could not be more wrong. Every citizen has the right/authority to stop , detain and bring charges against someone they see committing a Crime. In some instance as witness can be held criminally and civilly liable if they don't act.

Careful here man, you don't want the facts to get in the way with all the other stuff.

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

Therefore, because he does not have any standing in law enforcement, and because he was the aggressor, and he shot an UNARMED teen, he is the only one who needs to prove anything.

So the Da's and the police dont have to prove anything!

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

Because that is what this is, a homicide..

Yes because a homicide is any un-natural death. Murder is a homicide, but homicide is not always murder. You are correct, this is a homicide but until there is a trial and conviction it may not be a murder.

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

All the other issues are aggravating or mitigating circumstances that will determine the severity of the charge, which is not the job of the cops...

Actually it is determined by the police. depending on the way the system is set up. Here in Ga. the police make the charge not the DA. However the DA has the authority to change the charge.

Originally Posted by Blodaksen

Police are enforcers of the law, they don't get to pick and choose how to interpret them. That is the job of the District Attorneys.

Correct, police don't pick and choose how to interpret the law. We interpret the law. Then we gather the evidence, complete the investigation, make the arrest and present those facts to the judge and jury.

[Det. Brees]

Originally Posted by krushing

You do have a right to stop and question a suspicious person in your neighborhood, especially a gated neighborhood. You might not have a right to an answer, but you have the right to question him.
However, you had better be careful doing it even with a gun in your pocket, because if the person you question calls you and your mother everything in the book, you don't have a right to shoot them unless they threaten you and or your family with deadly force.

In some states you have the right to defend your property with the use of deadly force. Also , in some states you have the right to defend the property of another with the use of deadly force.


http://www.georgiainjurylawblog.com/...n-georgia.html

ABC News recently reported on an incident in Pasadena, Texas last week and captured on a 911 tape where zealous gun owner, Joe Horn, noticed his neighbor’s home was being burglarized. Relying on the Texas “Stand Your Ground” law, the neighbor ran next door, shot and killed the two burglars despite pleas for patience from the 911 operator.

In 2006, the Georgia legislature with Senate Bill 396 enacted a “Stand Your Ground” law similar to the one in Texas. O.C.G.A. sections 16-3-2 and 51-11-1 provide that a person has the right to meet force with force, including deadly force, in defense of one’s self, one’s home or other property. These laws provide immunity from both prosecution and civil tort actions. Sixteen other states have enacted similar legislation, expanding the legal boundaries of self-defense that previously required a duty to retreat.

For example, if a homeowner is confronted by a burglary in progress at one’s home, the homeowner could shoot to kill, and would be free from prosecution or a wrongful death action brought by the burglar’s family. Interestingly, Georgia case law already provided that one with a reasonable fear of danger to his or her life could use lethal force to protect their home or property. The new statute goes a bit either, allowing one to use lethal force even outside the home to protect any property. Further, by providing immunity, the shooter has no burden to establish self-defense

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by Maverick68

Why does it matter about the skin color of those involved?
There were a ton of hate crimes committed this summer where the perps were black and the victims white, but I didn't see the outrage from the media or from this message board.
If indeed the dude shot the kid for no good reason, then string his *** up, but make no mistake: a hundred black kids will pull the trigger on a hundred innocent black kids and not a flip will be given....
This is just red meat for the race-hustlers to keep us divide and we get ENOUGH of that divisive crap coming from Washington.

I could be wrong, but it may have something to do with the nationalized oppression of various colored people for the majority of our country's history, long-term racial violence against blacks, and a system of institutionalized racism and abuse of power by white authorities that continues in some ways even to the present, and the fact that none of that has happened in the reverse, at least not on nearly such a massive scale with the cooperation of authority figures.

But perhaps I'm overanalyzing, and white people get a bad rap in this country while everyone ignores the prolific hate crimes going on against whites every day.

For now, I'm going to go with the "you don't know what the hell you're talking about" angle, at least until I'm presented with a unbelievably large pile of historical evidence similar to the one that already exists and currently supports my hypothesis