[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How much more obvious do you need it to be ?

Pursuit of a stranger and confrontation with a weapon is NEVER something non-law-enforcement should do, no matter if being told or not.
The fact that he WAS told and he still did what he was not commissioned to do makes his case even weaker.

If it was this simple and obvious, he'd have been charged.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it was this simple and obvious, he'd have been charged.

OMFG.

Are you seriously that naive ?

-t

[subego]

Apparently so. Do you have an argument?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

loiter - to stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.

He was 30 seconds from the house, but didn't make it there despite many minutes passing. Sounds like waiting around without apparent purpose.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Calling 911 is calling a law enforcement agency. The person on the other end may not be a police officer, but is nonetheless an agent of the law, especially when it comes to giving instructions over the phone as to what to do/not to do.

... involve himself in a situation he wasn't properly trained, and more importantly, authorized, to be involved in. He was under no danger while in his vehicle; He did not stand his ground.

Funny no one who is familiar with the law has discussed charging Zimmerman with "disregarding a 911 operator's instructions"...

You do not need authorization from anyone to approach someone in your neighborhood.

Stand your ground makes no difference at all (yes, they're a libertarian organization... listen to the reasoning) with regard to the Martin/Zimmerman incident. The discussion should focus on traditional self defense.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can't start a conflict when it isn't required to stand your ground, have it turn out poorly, and then decide that you are going to kill the other person involved because they are acting in self defense against you and not have some degree of criminal responsibility. I haven't seen a logical argument otherwise.

You need to differentiate between the approach (non-physical) and contact (actual menacing/punching). Self defense is all about the latter.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Apparently so. Do you have an argument?

Law enforcement is not infallible.

New concept to you ?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Law enforcement is not infallible.

New concept to you ?

Not at all. For instance it seems like they bungled all kinds of things on this case.

Likewise, prosecutors (who are not law enforcement BTW), tend to screw a lot of things too.

However, as I feel I've said a billion times already, prosecutors do like to win. If the case is as simple as you claim, there are very few prosecutors who would fail to press charges, especially after this level of public outrage.

[mduell]

Man, 78, recounts assault by 6 youths in E. Toledo - Toledo Blade

Six juveniles -- the youngest 11, and the oldest 17 -- nearly boxed in Dallas Watts, a 78-year-old man from East Toledo. One pointed at Mr. Watts and said, "take him down," the victim recounted in an interview Monday. Mr. Watts, carrying home two small bags of pork rinds to dole out as treats to his three dachshunds, looked at the youth and said, "Why you picking on me?" Mr. Watts recalled. "Remember Trayvon. Why you picking on me?" The boy, again, allegedly told his friends to "take him down."

Mr. Watts said one of the boys delivered a single blow to the back of his head during the incident Saturday, knocking the victim to the ground. One boy, he said, put his foot on the back of the victim's neck, with another shouting, "Kill him." While Mr. Watts was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report.

Perhaps this is how the Martin/Zimmerman incident went? Zimmerman said something provocative, like Watts did when he invoked Martin's name, and Martin responded with physical violence? Unlike Watts, Zimmerman had a gun.

[turtle777]

What kind of bullshit speculation is this ?

Seriously, this is f$&cked up.

-t

[mduell]

100% speculation.

[Wiskedjak]

Since we're speculating wildly, maybe it was Martin who said something offensive and it was Zimmerman who responded with physical violence? We can speculate all day long until a proper investigation has been completed.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's what I'm saying.

If a cop, in pursuit of their normal duty, says "don't follow that person", you're breaking the law by following this person.

If a dispatcher does the same, you are not breaking the law by following that person.

Saying someone is "in law enforcement" implies the former.

Would depend if there is a law about disobeying a officer. I don't think following a person after a officer tells you not to is actually breaking the law unless there is a actual law saying you can't follow people. Otherwise cops could order you to do anything including personal sexual favors and disobeying would be breaking the law.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Dispatchers are civilians.
The sky is blue.

The truth of both statements are equally relevant to ignoring advice to wait for the people trained to identify and deal with potentially dangerous situations.

Depends where. In Calgary or Alberta they might be. But with 62 major jurisdictions, 2 national jurisdictions and countless city, regional, county jurisdictions your assumption is just that. Cook County in Illinois the dispatchers are full police officers which rotate from the phone to the field. So not every jurisdiction is limited to just civilians.

Working in Downtown Vancouver for a few years on graveyard shifts more then a few times my 911 calls got routed to a officer directly who was responding, cant always assume whos on the other end of the line.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You need to differentiate between the approach (non-physical) and contact (actual menacing/punching). Self defense is all about the latter.

No, it's not.

If the manner you are "approaching" someone is threatening, and would cause someone to believe you are going to do them harm, or if the manner suggests you are trying to act to apprehend and subdue them, then it's reasonable for the person to be approached to feel threatened and defend themselves.

If I "approach" a woman I don't know in my neighborhood, get close to her, and tell her I want to rape her - does she not get to defend herself physically until I actually start the rape process? If she then starts to do physical harm to the person who wished to rape her, does he then get to pull out a knife and slit her throat because he feared for his life, and have no culpability in the matter?

You really are reaching here.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Depends where. In Calgary or Alberta they might be. But with 62 major jurisdictions, 2 national jurisdictions and countless city, regional, county jurisdictions your assumption is just that. Cook County in Illinois the dispatchers are full police officers which rotate from the phone to the field. So not every jurisdiction is limited to just civilians.

Working in Downtown Vancouver for a few years on graveyard shifts more then a few times my 911 calls got routed to a officer directly who was responding, cant always assume whos on the other end of the line.

Sure. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter *who* told him not to aggravate a non-threatening situation to the point where he felt his life was in danger.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Would depend if there is a law about disobeying a officer.

There is, but these damn meds blow out my memory, so I can't remember the term.

It's the charge a cop arrests you under when they can't come up with a real reason. You go to jail for the evening, and then they let you go.

[subego]

Disorderly conduct.

Sheesh. It's like Flowers for Algernon up in here.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

There is, but these damn meds blow out my memory, so I can't remember the term.

It's the charge a cop arrests you under when they can't come up with a real reason. You go to jail for the evening, and then they let you go.

Wow. You've obviously never heard of unlawful arrest, or lawsuits, have you? A cop has to have a reason to charge you for disorderly conduct; they can't just order you to go with them because they want you to. They have to be able to prove their charge against you in a court of law, and just ordering you to go with them to jail doesn't cut it. I'm curious; how old are you, and in what region of the country do you live?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Wow. You've obviously never heard of unlawful arrest, or lawsuits, have you? A cop has to have a reason to charge you for disorderly conduct; they can't just order you to go with them because they want you to. They have to be able to prove their charge against you in a court of law, and just ordering you to go with them to jail doesn't cut it. I'm curious; how old are you, and in what region of the country do you live?

Cops get away with unlawfully beating the living shit out of people. Getting away with an unlawful arrest is nothing.

To sate your curiosity, I'm 40, and live in Chicago.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Cops get away with unlawfully beating the living shit out of people. Getting away with an unlawful arrest is nothing.

To sate your curiosity, I'm 40, and live in Chicago.

Not ours, more then a few cops in the last few years have faced a wide range of charges from assault to murder while on the job.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Not ours, more then a few cops in the last few years have faced a wide range of charges from assault to murder while on the job.

Pffft. Cops get away with murder in Canada all the time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mduell 

He was 30 seconds from the house, but didn't make it there despite many minutes passing. Sounds like waiting around without apparent purpose.

You mean, kinda like a guy finishing up a phone call with his girlfriend prior to going back to watch a football game with his father?

[The Final Dakar]

Christ, once again we're going down the "he was asking for it" road. If he was loitering then he posed no immediate threat.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Not ours, more then a few cops in the last few years have faced a wide range of charges from assault to murder while on the job.

There are cops who face charges here, as well as cops who don't.

I'd find it hard to believe it's any different I'm Canada.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Wow. You've obviously never heard of unlawful arrest, or lawsuits, have you? A cop has to have a reason to charge you for disorderly conduct; they can't just order you to go with them because they want you to. They have to be able to prove their charge against you in a court of law, and just ordering you to go with them to jail doesn't cut it. I'm curious; how old are you, and in what region of the country do you live?

This simply isn't true. Cops hold people overnight and let them go in the morning without charges every single day. And it is almost impossible to successfully sue them for unlawful arrest and detention when this happens.

Did you not read about the case that lead to the Supreme Court ruling on strip searches? That guy was arrested on a voided warrant (he had the legal proof on him), was held overnight, strip searched twice, and then let go, no charges. And of course, no promise that this would never happen again. And no penalties for the arresting cops or their division for unnecessarily arresting and jailing a man with no standing warrant against him. There are no penalties against cops that cut corners like this. The man even had the proof of the voided warrant on his person because this keeps happening to him. But that's just not good enough, as cops won't care unless they are held accountable, and they almost never are.

[mduell]

Ok, I'm done trolling.

I have no idea what happened; I'll leave it to the cops, special prosecutor, and grand jury (rumored) to sort it out.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Ok, I'm done trolling.

I have no idea what happened; I'll leave it to the cops, special prosecutor, and grand jury (rumored) the FBI to sort it out.

FTFY.

Prosecutor won't use grand jury in Trayvon Martin shooting case - CNN.com

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm Canada.

Rule violation. You are not the country you live in... or not.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Ok, I'm done trolling.

Is this a trick? Do I fearfully wait for the other shoe to drop?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Rule violation. You are not the country you live in... or not.

Soory.

[Athens]

His website is just horrible... He needs a web developer first before a legal defense team.

[OAW]

It would appear that Mr. Zimmerman's legal team is bailing ....

In a hastily convened news conference, George Zimmerman's legal team said today they would no longer represent the man who fatally shot unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman's lawyers said they are withdrawing from the case because they have lost contact with Zimmerman, who is refusing to answer their calls, texts and emails.

George Zimmerman's Legal Team Calls It Quits - ABC News

EDIT: I imagine Mr. Zimmerman is under intense pressure and stress. Per his former attorneys Zimmerman has contacted Sean Hannity "off the record" ... and then made the absolutely brain-dead decision to contact the Special Prosecutor on his own. Fortunately the Special Prosecutor refused to speak to him without counsel. He's certainly not doing himself any favors with any of this.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

mduell! Are you on Zimmerman's legal team?

[Snow-i]

And this is why I am in favor of lax gun laws. People would not be so brazen to rob, beat and still should they know that a person could defend themselves.

Truly just awful. This guy didn't even have a chance to defend himself or run away.

Crowd Beats, Strips & Robs Tourist On St. Patrick’s Day; Incident Caught On Camera � CBS Baltimore

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And this is why I am in favor of lax gun laws. People would not be so brazen to rob, beat and still should they know that a person could defend themselves.

Truly just awful. This guy didn't even have a chance to defend himself or run away.

Crowd Beats, Strips & Robs Tourist On St. Patrick’s Day; Incident Caught On Camera � CBS Baltimore

That was a truly terrible chain of events. In addition to Aggravated Assault and Robbery charges those idiots should also be charged with Aggravated Stupidity for posting evidence of themselves in the commission of a crime online. Having said that, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the notion that this situation would have been better if he was armed. My reasoning is this ....

1. The man in the green shirt looked real wobbly when he walked up to the guy who punched him before the altercation began. Given that it was on St. Patrick's Day it's not a stretch to think the guy had been drinking. Perhaps heavily.

2. Given #1 ... it's probably not a good idea for him to be armed. He's more liable to shoot himself or someone other than who's attacking him.

Firearms + Metro areas + Alcohol = Not a good idea

OAW

[Athens]

Oh they would shoot first and rob later.... What kind of defense chance do you have if you are already dead before you know what happened.....

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And this is why I am in favor of lax gun laws. People would not be so brazen to rob, beat and still should they know that a person could defend themselves.

Truly just awful. This guy didn't even have a chance to defend himself or run away.

Crowd Beats, Strips & Robs Tourist On St. Patrick’s Day; Incident Caught On Camera � CBS Baltimore

Maybe they should start selling guns in vending machines at the airport so all tourist can buy a gun when they arrive.

You know, because that's the first thing tourists buy when they arrive.

[OAW]

A special prosecutor promised "new information regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation" within 72 hours, prompting speculation that the alleged shooter, George Zimmerman, could be charged soon.

The announcement that the prosecutor, State Attorney Angela Corey, would soon hold a news conference came just hours after Zimmerman's lawyers said they would no longer represent him.

Special Prosecutor Plans Announcement as George Zimmerman Lawyers Quit - ABC News

This guy should most definitely be charged with manslaughter at a minimum. If he beats it well then fine. That's just the way it goes. But there's no reason why he shouldn't face charges when an unarmed kid is dead. Period.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

"New information." Just you watch: it will be stuff we've known since the beginning.

Apparently, Zimmerman posted two photos on his website, one of which is a black cultural centre with a wall vandalized with a spray-painted "Long Live Zimmerman."

If he doesn't want to be labelled as a racist, he needs to stop doing stupid things like that.

[Athens]

The dude is on the run and in hiding. Its suspected his lawyers couldn't locate him which is why they dropped defending him.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

That was a truly terrible chain of events. In addition to Aggravated Assault and Robbery charges those idiots should also be charged with Aggravated Stupidity for posting evidence of themselves in the commission of a crime online. Having said that, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the notion that this situation would have been better if he was armed. My reasoning is this ....

1. The man in the green shirt looked real wobbly when he walked up to the guy who punched him before the altercation began. Given that it was on St. Patrick's Day it's not a stretch to think the guy had been drinking. Perhaps heavily.

2. Given #1 ... it's probably not a good idea for him to be armed. He's more liable to shoot himself or someone other than who's attacking him.

Firearms + Metro areas + Alcohol = Not a good idea

OAW

Do you think the group would be as brazen or willing to attack considering the possibility that he could be armed? The idea is deterrence, not self defense. The entire situation is far less likely to happen if the watch-stealer has any reason whatsoever not to rob that poor dude and stomp his head in the ground. I promise you thats not the first time that group acted in a similar manner - just the first time someone taped it. Thats why lax gun laws produce lower crime rates - the stakes are much higher for the offending party.

Of course, you wouldn't not want to mix guns and alcohol - but what you see in that video is a criminal mindset that is rampant in a place like baltimore. New laws and regulations aren't going to do diddly to solve the problem.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you think the group would be as brazen or willing to attack considering the possibility that he could be armed? The idea is deterrence, not self defense. The entire situation is far less likely to happen if the watch-stealer has any reason whatsoever not to rob that poor dude and stomp his head in the ground. I promise you thats not the first time that group acted in a similar manner - just the first time someone taped it. Thats why lax gun laws produce lower crime rates - the stakes are much higher for the offending party.

Honestly I don't. I get what you are saying but this is my point. I said earlier that these idiots should be brought up on charges of Aggravated Stupidity. Now why would I think that about them but at the same time believe that they would magically have the forethought required to "consider the possibility that he could be armed"? Knuckleheads simply don't think that far ahead! I'm just saying ...

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Of course, you wouldn't not want to mix guns and alcohol - but what you see in that video is a criminal mindset that is rampant in a place like baltimore. New laws and regulations aren't going to do diddly to solve the problem.

We could quibble about just how "rampant" it is .... but we are 99% in agreement on this.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Thats why lax gun laws produce lower crime rates

[The Final Dakar]

George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says - The Washington Post

lorida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Honestly I don't. I get what you are saying but this is my point. I said earlier that these idiots should be brought up on charges of Aggravated Stupidity.

Which would do nothing to deter similar acts in the future.

Now why would I think that about them but at the same time believe that they would magically have the forethought required to "consider the possibility that he could be armed"? Knuckleheads simply don't think that far ahead! I'm just saying ...

Because they've heard the stories of that other group of hoodlums that lost their lives while committing several counts of aggravated stupidity.

That, or natural selection will take care of it. I have no problem with "aggravated stupidity" carrying a death sentence should the alternative be more needless victims of "aggravated stupidity".

We could quibble about just how "rampant" it is .... but we are 99% in agreement on this.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Zimmerman is in custody and being charged with 2nd degree murder.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says - The Washington Post

My prediction is that Mr. Zimmerman will be charged with 2nd Degree Murder and the prosecution will be willing to let him cop a plea to Manslaughter or Reckless Homicide. Whatever they call it in Florida. Then again ... Mr. Zimmerman may decide to take his chances in court. We shall see at 6:00 PM ET.

OAW

[OAW]

Well it's official. 2nd Degree Murder charges. About freaking time.

Zimmerman charged with second-degree murder – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

OAW

[OldManMac]

Yes, it is about time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So... we can take credit for this right? They must have been reading this thread and being swayed by our arguments?

[mduell]

Two cynical ways to look at it:

No confidence to take it to a grand jury?

OTOH grand jury would have been an easy cop out if she had a losing case.

Ahh back to trolling.