Support NeoGAF

commedieu · Mar 9, 2012

LaserBuddha said:
Because of point A above, and because if I hypothetically approached someone and asked them a question, there could then be a physical altercation that I did not start and am not at fault for. That's a fringe possibility in this case, but it is one the existence of which cannot be denied, and which thus makes false the idea that approaching someone (JUST approaching them) makes you criminally responsible for ANYTHING that happens after. There's also the fact that disobeying what a civilian employee of the police department tells you is not a criminal act nor lends criminality to other acts. The police have enough power, so no need to change that in the future either.

You can accept this without feeling like you're betraying your opinion that he's guilty. I think he's guilty too, but I can admit that I can't say for sure.

There are moral kudos awarded for admitting that you don't know the case history 100%. Ignoring the facts you do know, because you choose to not know an irrelevant few, isn't honorable either. I can however see the facts that are present completely dwarfing the pure speculation of the teen starting the events that ended in his death. Even if that is the case, and there is a video of him curbing the shooter before he crawls to his weapon to distribute sweet floridian justice, the shooter without the benefit of a doubt, is a responsible party in the death. Even more so due to ignoring the police.

Your opinion of ignoring facts while seeking solace in the unknown is what is getting you the responses. There isn't a bandwagon, and its hardly a hate crime. The legal system will sort it out, in favor of the shooter, as it always happens in this case. Yes, there is anger around this subject that may be permeating through some responses, but the anger has a central focus of facts & experience that are being reduced by you and Kharvey.

You are asking what the girl was wearing that got raped.

Air · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
It wasn't an order. Meaning, the man could freely go against the suggestion without legal repercussion.

Unless his incompetence justified an action by the teen that would otherwise be deemed worthy of lethal self defense, no, incompetence is not relevant.

Why would he do this? The repercussion might not be 'legal' in that he could freely do what he chose. But it goes against all common sense. There is a dead kid here. Don't forget that. There is a dead kid here because this guy went and freely did what he wanted to do.

Aeonin · Mar 9, 2012

Like most on here, I have my CWP and often carry concealed. However, I personally know George. This story makes my stomach turn on many levels.

I worked with George for two years, and don't know the circumstances of every detail (nor have I spoken with George since the incident). However, George is a GREAT, GREAT person. Very nice, very calm, very respectful...just a great guy. It makes me sick to think of what George is going through, as well as, what the deceased young man's family is going through.

We all carry for many reasons, some the same, some different. I know that I am prepared to do what's needed if I ever had to...but I also hope and pray that I'm never in that situation.

The latest local story today says that there seems to be more information coming forward that supports George's side of the case, and like others have said, I have to imgine that the authorities have legitimate reasons why no charges have been pressed.

Knowing George, it's just hard to believe that he was the aggressor. .....

He saw the teen and called police. Two minutes later, 17-year-old Trayvon was on the ground, dying from a single gunshot wound. Police found Zimmerman standing nearby, a gun in his waistband and blood seeping from injuries to his nose and the back of his head...

...Both sides agree that Trayvon and Zimmerman scuffled before the shooting, and there is evidence to corroborate Zimmerman's self defense claims, the chief said.

When police arrived, an officer overheard Zimmerman complain, "'I was yelling for someone to help me but no one would help me,'" according to an incident report released Thursday. It also noted that, the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet and had grass clippings on it, as if he'd been on his back on the ground.

On one recorded 911 call, the police chief said, "You can hear the struggle and the gunshot."

I did hear from someone today that there are witness that were nearby and heard George screaming. Apparently he was getting beat pretty bad.

I'm trying to stay open minded. Don't get me wrong, I really like George...and would be a character witness for him in a heartbeat...but, laws are laws, and carrying a gun comes with GREAT responsibility. My history with George leads me to THINK that he wouldn't be one to start a confrontation. But, I can also see what dukalmigty is saying in his post. Did George play a little bit more of a cop role than he should have...maybe...maybe not. If he was...did he deserve a severe beating???

Was it a case that non-lethal methods could have been used? Maybe...maybe not. And honestly, it's something I've asked myself before. "What if someone jumps me at night and there beating the snot out of me. At what point, in the heat of the moment, when I'm getting beaten, is it right to discharge my weapon?" And keep in mind, there's a difference between what a textbook states and what would be going through your mind as you think your getting beaten to death. Do you let them hit you a few more times and risk permenant damage or death because you don't want to use deadly force...or do you use deadly force and risk being charged.

I'm sure a lot has been written on that on this forum, but we do know that George was being beaten. We do know that he was getting the worst of it. What we don't know is what caused him to take the beating. That's the million dollar question...and I'm sure what the authorities are working to determine.

One life was lost already. No matter what, George's life will change from that moment on. I just hope that his life isn't "ruined" because of this.

- Gambler99

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
What actions were taken? We don't even know how it happened!

The only person in a position to tell us more is Zimmerman since the only other participant is dead. The boy by all possible accounts was perfectly justified in perceiving a threat. He was perfectly justified in fighting off a potential attacker...an armed white man who followed him in a car, then exited said car against police advice not to engage and engaged the minor. The minor is now dead.

Derwind · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
It wasn't an order. Meaning, the man could freely go against the suggestion without legal repercussion.

What deems it not an order? Did they say please?

KHarvey16 said:
Unless his incompetence justified an action by the teen that would otherwise be deemed worthy of lethal self defense, no, incompetence is not relevant.

In this case approaching a minor while armed and confronting said minor with baseless suspicions makes his blatant incompetence relevant.

I don't see how you can get around that fact.

He had no strong suspicion that would motivate engage any individual let alone a minor at night.

He went above his authority.

Foxy Fox 39 · Mar 9, 2012

Honestly I'd wager to say KHarvey just likes to argue/debate. Doesn't matter the position he'll take it up and build a fort.

Roger Danish · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
What actions were taken? We don't even know how it happened!

I was referring to the facts that aren't in dispute, silly.

Gattsu25 · Mar 9, 2012

Did George play a little bit more of a cop role than he should have...maybe...maybe not. If he was...did he deserve a severe beating???

Yes, he did. The kid deserves to be alive today, and George deserves to be behind bars.

commedieu · Mar 9, 2012

All, Like I said earlier, don't use the word "order" replace it with direction. Or anything...Else, you will get the semantic net101-argument of hell.

Kharvey, you don't seem to be able to understand that declarations from the police don't go ignored by the general population. That it is monumental factor in this death, considering the victim wouldn't be dead if it wasn't for the shooter ignoring the direction. The same way you don't feel threatened by cars following you, other people follow what police officers request of them.

Dr. Pangloss · Mar 9, 2012

Competence doesn't matter. Ever heard of reckless homicide? He acted in a reckless fashion. Doesn't matter what he intended. Someone lost their life, and there are liabilities incurred for that. Guy better get a good lawyer.

Gattsu25 · Mar 9, 2012

commedieu said:
All, Like I said earlier, don't use the word "order" replace it with direction. You will get the semantic net-argument of hell.

Why even argue about it. The police told him not to get involved.

That is an order. Anyone arguing otherwise is playing devil's advocate or worse, is generally uninformed.

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

commedieu said:
All, Like I said earlier, don't use the word "order" replace it with direction. You will get the semantic net-argument of hell.

Kharvey, you don't seem to be able to understand that declarations from the police don't go ignored by the general population. That it is monumental factor in this death, considering the victim wouldn't be dead if it wasn't for the shooter ignoring the direction. The same way you don't feel threatened by cars following you, other people follow what police officers request of them.

Do you think they advised him not to confront because the teen could have seen it as a threat and possibly attack George? Do you think they gave that advice from a position of authority, like they perhaps knew better than George?

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Air said:
Why would he do this? The repercussion might not be 'legal' in that he could freely do what he chose. But it goes against all common sense. There is a dead kid here. Don't forget that. There is a dead kid here because this guy went and freely did what he wanted to do.

If there are no legal repercussions how can it influence how or what they charge him with?

Derwind said:
What deems it not an order? Did they say please?

The chief characterized it as a suggestion. That's all it could be given the context.

Derwind said:
In this case approaching a minor while armed and confronting said minor with baseless suspicions makes his blatant incompetence relevant.

I don't see how you can get around that fact.

He had no strong suspicion that would motivate engage any individual let alone a minor at night.

He went above his authority.

He has no authority above that of any citizen. If he approached him and asked him questions he did nothing illegal.

Log4Girlz said:
The only person in a position to tell us more is Zimmerman since the only other participant is dead. The boy by all possible accounts was perfectly justified in perceiving a threat. He was perfectly justified in fighting off a potential attacker...an armed white man who followed him in a car, then exited said car against police advice not to engage and engaged the minor. The minor is now dead.

What accounts? What specific details make it clear that he perceived a threat? You don't find it a little disingenuous to speak for the kid? You're filling in your own details here. Stop it.

DY_nasty · Mar 9, 2012

Gattsu25 said:
Yes, he did. The kid deserves to be alive today, and George deserves to be behind bars.

But he's such a great guy

Cipherr · Mar 9, 2012

LaserBuddha said:
Check the edit. You act like it's a universally accepted truth that ignoring what an employee of the police department says in itself makes you criminally liable for anything that happens afterwards. It's not. You can draft a list of reasons why he's criminally liable but that will not be one of them. And if you were paying attention, I did say that he bares responsibility for approaching after he was (probably) told not to and should be charged accordingly, but that's a separate thing from whether this is a murder or not.

That's a lot of words to just agree with me. I never said the guy should be charged with murder, we dont know enough about what happened after he approached the boy.

But we do know he was in the wrong for approaching him in the first place. That was a mistake, and something he should not have done.

Gattsu25 · Mar 9, 2012

DY_nasty said:
But he's such a great guy

I'm pretty sure that a requirement for being a great guy is to not murder people.

Still, I can see where you are coming from. I mean, it's just so hard to consider that George would do this.

Aeonin · Mar 9, 2012

(CBS NEWS) SANFORD, Fla. - There's a family inside a quiet subdivision in Sanford, Florida that is both grieving and frustrated. Their unarmed teenage son was killed here - and they can't understand why the gunman is still free when he has admitted pulling the trigger.

"He was lying in this area," Tracy Martin tells CBS News, pointing to the patch of grass where his teenage son was shot dead 10 days ago.

Trayvon "Trey" Martin, 17, lived in Miami. He loved horses, and dreamed of becoming a pilot.

The high school junior was visiting relatives last month when he was shot and killed inside this gated subdivision of town homes.

"He meant the world to me. He meant the world to his mother," says the young man's father. He and his wife were to give a news conference later Thursday to discuss the case.

Around 7:00 p.m. on February 26, Martin was walking back from a 7-Eleven a half-mile away where he had bought an iced tea and a bag of Skittles.

At 7:17 p.m., 26 year-old George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch member, called police to report a suspicious person inside the gated community. A dispatcher told Zimmerman police were on the way and to let them handle it.

Just two minutes later, six neighbors dialed 911 to report a fight - and then a gunshot.

Trey Martin, shot once in the chest, lay dead on this walkway just 70 yards from the home where he was staying. He was unarmed.

"He was up here to relax. He wasn't up here to return home in a body bag. That's the part that tears me up," says his father. "And for me not to be able to save his life is hard."

Sanford Police have questioned Zimmerman, but not charged him. He had a legal permit to carry his concealed weapon, a 9-mm handgun.

For now, he's a free man who maintains he acted in self-defense.

Zimmerman has admitted to shooting Martin, according to police.

Sanford Police chief Bill Lee confirms that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not.

Lee says no one saw how or why the fight began, and that police are trying to establish whether Zimmerman did act in self-defense.

Tracy Martin says if anyone was trying to defend himself, it was his son.

"Why would he attack this guy?" asks the father. "He don't know this guy. What was he going to do -- attack him with a pack of skittles?"

Lee says he understands Martin's frustration.

"It's their 17-year-old son. I have a 16-year-old son and I couldn't imagine experiencing what they're experiencing," Lee said.

George Zimmerman is a college student majoring in criminal justice. Neighbors and police say he has lived somewhere else since the shooting. CBS News could not reach him or find any trace of him online.

Tracy Martin wants Zimmerman to face a jury for killing Trey.

"My kid went to the morgue and this guy went home to sleep in his bed," Martin said. "There's no justice in that."

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Roger Danish said:
I was referring to the facts that aren't in dispute, silly.

And what would those be, regarding the details of how he approached the kid?

commedieu said:
All, Like I said earlier, don't use the word "order" replace it with direction. Or anything...Else, you will get the semantic net101-argument of hell.

Kharvey, you don't seem to be able to understand that declarations from the police don't go ignored by the general population. That it is monumental factor in this death, considering the victim wouldn't be dead if it wasn't for the shooter ignoring the direction. The same way you don't feel threatened by cars following you, other people follow what police officers request of them.

The suggestion had NO LEGAL authority. That is all that matters to the context inwhich it was brought up.

Roger Danish · Mar 9, 2012

Harvey, if your whole point is that the details given in a newspaper article do not contain enough admissible evidence to support a murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, then I must say, I'm proud to see one of the sharpest legal minds in the country put to such a brilliant use.

Devolution · Mar 9, 2012

We don't know that he murdered the boy but we know the kid's death is a direct result of his actions and his refusal to obey dispatch. Why the fuck this is even a discussion I have no idea.

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
What accounts? What specific details make it clear that he perceived a threat? You don't find it a little disingenuous to speak for the kid? You're filling in your own details here. Stop it.

No. Its dark, the kid was followed by all account, and someone exited said vehicle who was advised not to by police. How is this not a perceived threat? HOW? In what world does it not seem like a threat?

Where are you from Harvey, for the sake of argument. Are you from Florida? Have you ever been in Florida? Someone comes rolling up to me in a car at night I'm gonna freak out, they come out to confront me, I'm fearing for my life.

"But OH DEAR, what if George offered him some candy while they had a chat". I don't believe that is a likely scenario. What George did was threatening.

But he is a black teen though, I guess he has far less reason to feel threatened than say, Devolution.

Answer me Harvey, does Devolution have any right to feel threatened in the same scenario?

Devolution said:
We don't know that he murdered the boy but we know the kid's death is a direct result of his actions and his refusal to obey dispatch. Why the fuck this is even a discussion I have no idea.

The perfect summary.

commedieu · Mar 9, 2012

Log4Girlz said:
Do you think they advised him not to confront because the teen could have seen it as a threat and possibly attack George? Do you think they gave that advice from a position of authority, like they perhaps knew better than George?

Yes, but.. George doesn't have to listen to the police. It wasn't a notarized order from the court.

Has anyone ever heard the following:

1. I ORDER YOU TO LAY DOWN ON THE GROUND AND PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD! AS ORDERING MUST BE DONE FOR YOU TO COMPLY, IF NOT, YOU COULD FEEL FREE TO GO!!!
or..
2. GET DOWN ON THE GROUND, PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD.

Usually, since i'm not ordered, in the legal sense, I just walk away. Cops get so pissed at that.

Air · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
If there are no legal repercussions how can it influence how or what they charge him with?

Because in the end, somebody is dead. Like I said in another post, how can the officer defend his actions. How can you defend his actions? You never addressed those posts. There was a fork in the road, and the guy had a choice to not get out of the car, or get out of the car. It is because he got out of the car that we are debating this. If you can give me a logical reason for the guy to approach the kid, than that is something different. You haven't given that though, and you constantly argue that it could be self defense and ignoring the dozens of posts countering that.

Devolution said:
We don't know that he murdered the boy but we know the kid's death is a direct result of his actions and his refusal to obey dispatch. Why the fuck this is even a discussion I have no idea.

THANK YOU.

Professor Beef · Mar 9, 2012

Aeonin said:
George Zimmerman is a college student majoring in criminal justice.

The ironing is delicious.

Blackace · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
The suggestion had NO LEGAL authority. That is all that matters to the context inwhich it was brought up.

From what I understand that could be taken as failure to follow a lawful order.. if the police are called then it is a county or state "case" until it gets cleared up..

commedieu · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
And what would those be, regarding the details of how he approached the kid?

The suggestion had NO LEGAL authority. That is all that matters to the context inwhich it was brought up.

Yes, you are right. Suggestions from the police aren't legal. We are all free to ignore them.

Now, if the suggestion from the police was followed, and not ignored. The kid would be alive. Which places the responsibility for the entire chain of events, on the person who ignored the police.

Blackace · Mar 9, 2012

commedieu said:
Yes, but.. George doesn't have to listen to the police. It wasn't a notarized order from the court.

Has anyone ever heard the following:

1. I ORDER YOU TO LAY DOWN ON THE GROUND AND PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD! AS ORDERING MUST BE DONE FOR YOU TO COMPLY, IF NOT, YOU COULD FEEL FREE TO GO!!!
or..
2. GET DOWN ON THE GROUND, PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD.

Usually, since i'm not ordered, in the legal sense, I just walk away. Cops get so pissed at that.

Doesn't have to be notarized.. actually and failure to stop on a command is failure to follow a lawful order.. Police do not need the courts to sign a paper to give a lawful order..

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

commedieu said:
Yes, you are right. Suggestions from the police aren't legal. We are all free to ignore them.

Now, if the suggestion from the police was followed, and not ignored. The kid would be alive. Which places the responsibility for the entire chain of events, on the person who ignored the police.

He would be alive and would have enjoyed his fucking skittles. Fucking skittles and some iced tea. George must be some real hero in his own mind.

Derwind · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
The chief characterized it as a suggestion. That's all it could be given the context.

That suggest that the Neighbourhood Watch individual had good reason for the suggestion to go unused.

In this case there wasn't a good reason, this is complete negligence and incompetence and accelerated the situation that lead to the kids death. Period.

KHarvey16 said:
He has no authority above that of any citizen. If he approached him and asked him questions he did nothing illegal.

He impeded an individual from going about his way in the middle of the night. And given the fact that he was specifically "suggested" not to confront the individual. That death is due to his negligence.

Devolution said:
We don't know that he murdered the boy but we know the kid's death is a direct result of his actions and his refusal to obey dispatch. Why the fuck this is even a discussion I have no idea.

This.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Log4Girlz said:
No. Its dark, the kid was followed by all account, and someone exited said vehicle who was advised not to by police. How is this not a perceived threat? HOW? In what world does it not seem like a threat?

Where are you from Harvey, for the sake of argument. Are you from Florida? Have you ever been in Florida? Someone comes rolling up to me in a car at night I'm gonna freak out, they come out to confront me, I'm fearing for my life.

"But OH DEAR, what if George offered him some candy while they had a chat". I don't believe that is a likely scenario. What George did was threatening.

But he is a black teen though, I guess he has far less reason to feel threatened than say, Devolution.

Answer me Harvey, does Devolution have any right to feel threatened in the same scenario?

The perfect summary.

How many times do I have to address this red herring of "oh, but would you feel threatened?" Either accept my explanation or don't, I'm not gonna repeat it every time you repackage the same stupid question.

Air said:
Because in the end, somebody is dead. Like I said in another post, how can the officer defend his actions. How can you defend his actions? You never addressed those posts. There was a fork in the road, and the guy had a choice to not get out of the car, or get out of the car. It is because he got out of the car that we are debating this. If you can give me a logical reason for the guy to approach the kid, than that is something different. You haven't given that though, and you constantly argue that it could be self defense and ignoring the dozens of posts countering that.

That isn't how the law works. Him getting out of his car, even if it's a bad idea, DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM LEGALLY DEFENDING HIMSELF. I don't know how else to make you understand this important point. It has NO LEGAL relevance! You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but it does not have any bearing on what the police do or can do.

Blackace said:
From what I understand that could be taken as failure to follow a lawful order.. if the police are called then it is a county or state "case" until it gets cleared up..

No it cannot be.

commedieu said:
Yes, you are right. Suggestions from the police aren't legal. We are all free to ignore them.

Now, if the suggestion from the police was followed, and not ignored. The kid would be alive. Which places the responsibility for the entire chain of events, on the person who ignored the police.

Holy crap. Substantiate your position. Show us the law or statute or piece of paper stating that the operator on the non emergency line can give you lawful orders that must be obeyed.

Kinitari · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey - this doesn't involve the facts, but it's more of an appeal to your sense of reason. Do you think that a 17 year old would push a guy down and start punching him for no reason other than this man was asking him questions? Have you ever heard of someone with that sort of a temper?

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Derwind said:
That suggest that the Neighbourhood Watch individual had good reason for the suggestion to go unused.

In this case there wasn't a good reason, this is complete negligence and incompetence and accelerated the situation that lead to the kids death. Period.

He impeded an individual from going about his way in the middle of the night. And given the fact that he was specifically "suggested" not to confront the individual. That death is due to his negligence.

This.

It isn't legally relevant! I don't know what is so difficult to understand. The man was not legally obliged to follow the suggestion and a failure to do so CANNOT render his subsequent action illegal.

railGUN · Mar 9, 2012

Would this be considered self defence if Zimmerman started the confrontation? In other words, in Florida, if I picked a fight with a dude bigger than me, start getting my ass handed to me, am I justified in shooting said person because I'm loosing the fight and fear for my life?

Derwind · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
It isn't legally relevant! I don't know what is so difficult to understand. The man was not legally obliged to follow the suggestion and a failure to do so CANNOT render his subsequent action illegal.

Negligence is legally relevant.

Aeonin · Mar 9, 2012

Lynn Bumpus-Hooper, a spokeswoman for the Seminole County State Attorney's Office, said that the office has not received the case from the police, and until an arrest is made, it will not be involved.

"We have not received a case [from the Sanford PD] yet, but we will give it our full consideration when we do," Bumpus-Hooper said. She said it is not rare for several weeks to pass before the State Attorney's Office receives a homicide or murder case from the police.

-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
How many times do I have to address this red herring of "oh, but would you feel threatened?" Either accept my explanation or don't, I'm not gonna repeat it every time you repackage the same stupid question.

Your explanation is a complete load of shit. The act of following someone and then getting out of one's car to confront an individual is threatening. Its threatening to me and anyone else and could easily be argued as such in any court of law. There is no grand master list of all possible situations and scenarios that can be interpreted as threatening. This situation cannot be ruled out based on any technicality, it must be considered. It will be brought up in the court case, there is no doubt.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Kinitari said:
KHarvey - this doesn't involve the facts, but it's more of an appeal to your sense of reason. Do you think that a 17 year old would push a guy down and start punching him for no reason other than this man was asking him questions? Have you ever heard of someone with that sort of a temper?

Have you ever heard of an entire police department and community watch so racist they would ignore all facts in such an obviously illegal murder case and just hope no one noticed?

Again I have to point out I'm not arguing for one scenario over the other, I'm arguing that either scenario is merely possible! So many here are acting as if this one is in the bag and there is no way the man acted legally. It's nonsense.

Air · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
That isn't how the law works. Him getting out of his car, even if it's a bad idea, DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM LEGALLY DEFENDING HIMSELF. I don't know how else to make you understand this important point. It has NO LEGAL relevance! You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but it does not have any bearing on what the police do or can do.

But he only had to defend himself because he himself made the mistake...Like others have said, negligence, harassment, assault, etc. Pick your poison.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Derwind said:
Negligence is legally relevant.

Yep, and you also have to have evidence for it. Maybe the investigation will turn up some. I know that you won't, though.

Log4Girlz said:
Your explanation is a complete load of shit. The act of following someone and then getting out of one's car to confront an individual is threatening. Its threatening to me and anyone else and could easily be argued as such in any court of law. There is no grand master list of all possible situations and scenarios that can be interpreted as threatening. This situation cannot be ruled out based on any technicality, it must be considered. It will be brought up in the court case, there is no doubt.

It will be examined by the investigation. Your position is it can only be threatening and if that is true I do not know why you believe we need a jury or an investigation.

railGUN · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
It isn't legally relevant! I don't know what is so difficult to understand. The man was not legally obliged to follow the suggestion and a failure to do so CANNOT render his subsequent action illegal.

His not following the suggestion is not illegal, but I would guess the fact he acted against the officers suggestions is entirely relevant, and would be admissible in court.

Vermillion · Mar 9, 2012

Devolution said:
We don't know that he murdered the boy but we know the kid's death is a direct result of his actions and his refusal to obey dispatch. Why the fuck this is even a discussion I have no idea.

Because the family called for his arrest. Arrest for what? What can they legally charge him with?

Blackace · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
That isn't how the law works. Him getting out of his car, even if it's a bad idea, DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM LEGALLY DEFENDING HIMSELF. I don't know how else to make you understand this important point. It has NO LEGAL relevance! You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but it does not have any bearing on what the police do or can do.

Use of deadly force usually means you had NO other options..

Blackace · Mar 9, 2012

JokerOfSpades said:
Because the family called for his arrest. Arrest for what? What can they legally charge him with?

murder

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

railGUN said:
His not following the suggestion is not illegal, but I would guess the fact he acted against the officers suggestions is entirely relevant, and would be admissible in court.

Depending on the details. It, however, does not turn legal self defense into illegal murder or manslaughter. We understand the distinction here, right? When examining if he acted in justifiable self defense, the fact he ignored a suggestion isn't relevant. It doesn't preclude him from defending himself if he were otherwise justified in doing so.

Derwind · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Yep, and you also have to have evidence for it. Maybe the investigation will turn up some. I know that you won't, though.

And until investigations turn up something, negligence is pretty evident as part of the problem in this case.

CrazyDogg77 · Mar 9, 2012

So what was so suspicious about the kid?

Log4Girlz · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Yep, and you also have to have evidence for it. Maybe the investigation will turn up some. I know that you won't, though.

It will be examined by the investigation. Your position is it can only be threatening and if that is true I do not know why you believe we need a jury or an investigation.

An investigation is required in any case, even if there is clear video of a criminal committing some wrong doing. Following someone in a car, then getting out to confront them in the middle of the night is always threatening in the United States. There is no getting around that. If the kid had survived and was taken to court, the defense would be pretty tight if George admitted to the action of following and then confronting the child. The kid would be acquitted of any charges.

Roger Danish · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
It isn't legally relevant!

I feel bad for you because you keep getting forced into this extreme position--and it is wrong. "Legally relevant" is not the same as "legally controlling." These facts are "relevant" in that they tend to undermine a claim of self-defense. You seem to be harping on the point that we don't know all the facts--and it's a point well-taken--but GAF is responding to the facts that are available in this thread (although I admit some have probably taken things a bit further with assumptions).

Derwind · Mar 9, 2012

CrazyDogg77 said:
So what was so suspicious about the kid?

Cause he was young and black and his hat was damn low....

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

Blackace said:
Use of deadly force usually means you had NO other options..

You posted the specific requirements for use of deadly force in Florida. I explained to you a potential scenario in which the first requirement was met.

Support NeoGAF

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!

Banned

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!

Member

Member

Member

Black Canada Mafia

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads