Support NeoGAF

Bay Maximus · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Why did he approach him? I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you and others why the answer to this question is so necessary.

Unless he was threatening someone's life or limb with a bag of Skittles the answer to this is irrelevant. He is not a law enforcement officer. He is a civilian who happened to have a gun.

KHarvey16 said:
Also, you and others keep assuming that the dispatcher told him not to talk to the kid or do anything. Why? Where is this procedure detailed?

Because law enforcement will not tell a citizen to put himself in harm's way. Citizen's arrests are for emergency circumstances.

KHarvey16 said:
Why was the kid on top of the man beating him, if the eyewitness account is correct? Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing? Did the shooter threaten the boy? Did the boy feel threatened?

The answers to these questions lie the difference between getting manslaughter and homicide. Either way he belongs in jail, not on a sofa.

DY_nasty · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Why did he approach him? I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you and others why the answer to this question is so necessary.
Also, you and others keep assuming that the dispatcher told him not to talk to the kid or do anything. Why? Where is this procedure detailed?

It almost doesn't even matter why. The way I've seen you shoot down UFO believers in countless threads makes this so strange to hear coming from you... It'd have to be something ridiculously amazing, uncommon, and strange for this entire situation to get a pass. The kid would need to be mid-rape to justify this. Every dispatcher in America is going to tell a caller to get to a safe place and wait for authorities - not to Jodie Foster it up.

Why was the kid on top of the man beating him, if the eyewitness account is correct? Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing? Did the shooter threaten the boy? Did the boy feel threatened?

For all we know, the kid could've been defending himself lol

He was the one walking down the street, not the other way around. It'd be entirely different if the kid got out of his car, stepped to this guy, and started tussling for some unknown reason.

Again, this is so much less complicated than so many of you are trying to make this. My position is simple and always correct. Yours requires assumptions, mine rejects that process.

The thing is you don't even NEED to assume anything. This guy went vigilante. He already called the cops. You have to make an assumption as to why the confrontation was even necessary.

DaMan121 · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
He drew it or showed it to him? Does that make sense given the man was on his back according to the witness and the incident report citing the grass stains on his back? You also just assert what procedure is. Where is this? And again I have to ask, even if he was told to stay put and he did not, does it then remove his ability to defend himself, legally?

So could the kid hypothetically shoot him because of self defence? Or do you have to be loosing a fist fight to be allowed to shoot?

Cipherr · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
You also just assert what procedure is. Where is this? And again I have to ask, even if he was told to stay put and he did not, does it then remove his ability to defend himself, legally?

AFAIK its procedure across the entire damn country,

"If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order"

you dont get to just become a cop when you want to. And if he was told to stay put and he did not.

Then he was wrong to approach the boy.

I.E. The wrong started with the guy, and not the kid. As I said a long time ago.

Cipherr said:
Confront is where the wrong began. After that there is a bunch of stuff we cannot confirm. But of the things that happen that we know were wrong, this guy was not to confront the boy. That was wrong.

I don't even know why you are trying to argue this part right here. Go debate with the people speculating about what happened after the confrontation, but don't challenge whether the guy was wrong to approach the boy. That part is cemented.

Roger Danish · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing?

If the man was the one who initiated the exchange (and/or was the initial aggressor), it would certainly go towards vitiating a claim of "self-defense."

Lrn2 the law.

In any case, this is a determination that should be made by a jury, not Officer Fucking Krupke.

BattleMonkey · Mar 8, 2012

Big Baybee said:
Why do you assume there is more to the story than what is already presented?

I served in over 30 cases on the grand jury in Florida, did 7 self defense shooting cases. In all those self defense shootings, we were presented with so much evidence and info that the public never knew of. The media only knows so much, only so much is ever allowed to go public. Stories I watched on the news which seemed like "hes guilty", were completely reversed once we got to the grand jury board room and got all the facts, witness testimonies, expert analysis, tapes, recordings, etc.

In all cases, there is more to the story than what is presented to the general public.

DaMan121 said:
So could the kid hypothetically shoot him because of self defence? Or do you have to be loosing a fist fight to be allowed to shoot?

you have to be able to prove you held your ground and defended yourself because you felt your life was in danger. This is a slippery slope of course because often the only witness is dead in a fight if there wasn't witnesses, so who attacked who is hard to say.

Violet_0 · Mar 8, 2012

Bay Maximus said:
You don't draw your gun unless you intend to or are prepared to shoot something. They're not for show or to gain a mental edge. If you're a punk and you buy a gun you're not suddenly a badass. You're just a punk with a gun. Still cowardly and very dangerous.

my line of thinking is that, just by drawing your weapon (let's say as your final defense), the conflict should automatically resolve.

CrazyDogg77 · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
He drew it or showed it to him? Does that make sense given the man was on his back according to the witness and the incident report citing the grass stains on his back? You also just assert what procedure is. Where is this? And again I have to ask, even if he was told to stay put and he did not, does it then remove his ability to defend himself, legally?

If he was told to stay put and did not he is at fault because without him getting out of his car and approaching the guy he wouldn't have had to defend himself.

DY_nasty · Mar 8, 2012

Roger Danish said:
In any case, this is a determination that should be made by a jury, not Officer Fucking Krupke.

Preach.

Hasardeur said:
my line of thinking is that, just by drawing your weapon (let's say as your final defense), the conflict should automatically resolve.

Does not work that way at all...

BattleMonkey · Mar 8, 2012

Hasardeur said:
my line of thinking is that, just by drawing your weapon (let's say as your final defense), the conflict should automatically resolve.

It is illegal to draw a weapon for any other purpose other than to defend your life. Drawing a weapon to threaten a person is considered to be instigating a conflict and often will make the situation worse and escalate. Pull a gun on someone, they can go to the police and have you arrested for basically assaulting them. A gun in florida is only supposed to be ever visible and equipped for the purpose of defending your life. Same reason a person is not allowed to pull a weapon and fire warning shots (also because warning shots have to go somewhere, and can be dangerous to bystanders).

K.Jack · Mar 8, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Why was the kid on top of the man beating him, if the eyewitness account is correct? Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing? Did the shooter threaten the boy? Did the boy feel threatened?

Did the boy feel threatened? The man approached him with a gun. Default assumption is YES.

It's not self-defense when you escalated the situation.

Guy steps to kid with his "I'm the goddamn Neighborhood Watch captain" smugness.

Kid essentially laughs and says fuck off you're not a cop. Like most of us would.

Guy refuses to let him carry on. This right here is the point where an altercation starts. Why or exactly what happened after comes second to the fact that he should have let the kid continue walking into his home.

You can't threaten a person and then kill them when they call your hand.

Violet_0 · Mar 8, 2012

DY_nasty said:
Does not work that way at all...

but what's your opponent going to do about it? He has no weapon. Why would I need to shoot him? Because I'm afraid that he might have a weapon?

KHarvey16 · Mar 8, 2012

Cipherr said:
AFAIK its procedure across the entire damn country,

you dont get to just become a cop when you want to. And if he was told to stay put and he did not.

Then he was wrong to approach the boy.

I.E. The wrong started with the guy, and not the kid. As I said a long time ago.

Again citing the family's lawyer.

Here, for everyone, I'll go through a potential scenario just for fun.

Man sees the kid walking around and feels he's suspicious. As cited in the incident report, he calls the NON EMERGENCY number, not 911, to report this. He does so and then gets out to speak to the young man. Maybe he asks him who he is or where he's going, which is certainly not illegal and the kid is not obligated in any way to respond. Something causes the altercation to occur. Why this happened is important and, as of yet, completely unknown. If the man started to get physical the death is a crime. If the boy started to get physical, the death can easily be self defense.

Nothing in this scenario precludes the man from legally defending himself with deadly force save for a situation in which he initiates the physical confrontation.

So, what happened? I don't know and neither do you. Assuming the man started it is just that, an assumption no more defensible than assuming the kid started it.

Meus Renaissance · Mar 8, 2012

Here's what I think may have happened. The kid perhaps looked considerably older than his age. The "suspicious person" interpretation may have come from him wearing a cliche attire that trouble makers in the community wear. Here in London, we identify the hoody with suspicion because youths and gangs often wear them, so I imagine this man had similar thoughts in this regard.

So the picture is this: A young man is walking down a street and his appearance, most likely his attire or demeanour as opposed to his race, drew the claim of suspicion. The man gets out to have a word with him, asks him what he's doing. The kid doesn't appreciate this and feels offended/irritated, his path is blocked. Both sense aggression from the other. Something happens where by the man feels the need to respond in taking his gun out, hence the self defence claim.

LaserBuddha · Mar 8, 2012

Roger Danish said:
If the man was the one who initiated the exchange (and/or was the initial aggressor), it would certainly go towards vitiating a claim of "self-defense."

Lrn2 the law.

In any case, this is a determination that should be made by a jury, not Officer Fucking Krupke.

Lrn2 logic.

The man shouldn't have approached him. That is agreed upon. But him approaching the boy only matters in potential charges based on the rest of the details.

-If he pulled the gun out or started a physical altercation, then it's not self-defense and that initial contact being made is material to the charges.
-If he walked up to the boy and just said something like "Do you live here?" or similar, and the boy initiated physical contact/threats, then him approaching the boy is inconsequential to whether or not this is self-defense.

Sorry but I hate seeing people be smug when seeming to imply something as naively simplistic as "whoever approaches the other person is the aggressor".

KHarvey16 · Mar 8, 2012

K.Jack said:
Did the boy feel threatened? The man approached him with a gun.

It's not self-defense when you escalated the situation.

Guy steps to kid with his "I'm the goddamn Neighborhood Watch captain" smugness.

Kid essentially laughs and says fuck off you're not a cop. Like most of us would.

Guy refuses to let him carry on. This right here is the point where an altercation starts. Why or exactly what happened after comes second to the fact that he should have let the kid continue walking into his home.

You can't threaten a person and then kill them when they call your hand.

Where was the gun? Explain this to me and do so without making assumptions.

Korey · Mar 8, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
Here's what I think may have happened. The kid perhaps looked considerably older than his age. The "suspicious person" interpretation may have come from him wearing a cliche attire that trouble makers in the community wear. Here in London, we identify the hoody with suspicion because youths and gangs often wear them, so I imagine this man had similar thoughts in this regard.

So the picture is this: A young man is walking down a street and his appearance, most likely his attire or demeanour as opposed to his race, drew the claim of suspicion. The man gets out to have a word with him, asks him what he's doing. The kid doesn't appreciate this and feels offended/irritated, his path is blocked. Both sense aggression from the other. Something happens where by the man feels the need to respond in taking his gun out, hence the self defence claim.

Yea, no

BattleMonkey · Mar 8, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
Here's what I think may have happened. The kid perhaps looked considerably older than his age. The "suspicious person" interpretation may have come from him wearing a cliche attire that trouble makers in the community wear. Here in London, we identify the hoody with suspicion because youths and gangs often wear them, so I imagine this man had similar thoughts in this regard.

So the picture is this: A young man is walking down a street and his appearance, most likely his attire or demeanour as opposed to his race, drew the claim of suspicion. The man gets out to have a word with him, asks him what he's doing. The kid doesn't appreciate this and feels offended/irritated, his path is blocked. Both sense aggression from the other. Something happens where by the man feels the need to respond in taking his gun out, hence the self defence claim.

It sounds reasonable that this is what happened, of course it's hard to determine the full details of the confrontation and who started what. The state attorney should try to apply charges, as within Florida a self defense shooting has to go before a grand jury panel first to determine what charges, if any would be given to this man.

Police are not the ones who decide if a shooting is justified, the state attorney is the one who in the end determines if charges will be attempted

DY_nasty · Mar 8, 2012

This isn't about self-defense as much as it is vigilante bullshit. The guy never should've confronted him.

Hasardeur said:
but what's your opponent going to do about it? He has no weapon. Why would I need to shoot him? Because I'm afraid that he might have a weapon?

If you bring a gun out during a fight or tense situation, the person you're fighting won't suddenly drop to their knees and beg for their life.

Its pretty well known that brandishing weapons in general escalates situations. They don't diffuse them. Displays of force only work in certain circumstances. Mid-fight isn't one of them.

Violet_0 · Mar 8, 2012

BattleMonkey said:
It is illegal to draw a weapon for any other purpose other than to defend your life. Drawing a weapon to threaten a person is considered to be instigating a conflict and often will make the situation worse and escalate. Pull a gun on someone, they can go to the police and have you arrested for basically assaulting them. A gun in florida is only supposed to be ever visible and equipped for the purpose of defending your life. Same reason a person is not allowed to pull a weapon and fire warning shots (also because warning shots have to go somewhere, and can be dangerous to bystanders).

alright, but in this particular case, trying to stop a conflict by brandishing your weapon surely is still better than outright killing the boy.

BattleMonkey · Mar 8, 2012

Korey said:
Yea, no

His assumption is no better than anyone else in this threads. Without the full details of the investigation all one can do is speculate. There is nothing that says otherwise happened, nor is he claiming exactly whose at fault here.

LaserBuddha · Mar 8, 2012

Korey said:
Yea, no

Since you must know what happened (the only thing that could justify that response) then why don't you tell us already?

Princess Carl · Mar 8, 2012

Sounds to me like they got in a fight without the gun involved, the man tried to get help getting the kid off of him because the kid was beating his ass, and then was "forced" to use his gun in order to defend himself. The shot probably occurred between the older man's witnessing of the altercation and his second view from his window.

but thats all speculation

Cat Party · Mar 8, 2012

Pretty interesting developments based on that witness statement. A lot of people have assumed a hell of a lot and now some are trying to defend their assumptions rather than acknowledging that the new information creates some big factual disputes. If there was an altercation, then it is a very big deal whether the kid started it or not. And of course, when did the guy pull out the gun? There are lots of ways this could have gone down, and in some cases, the man could have been justified in shooting.

It's also pretty messed up how everyone goes after KHarvey for daring to suggest that the statement from the lawyer of the victim's family should not be trusted as gospel.

DY_nasty · Mar 9, 2012

BattleMonkey said:
His assumption is no better than anyone else in this threads. Without the full details of the investigation all one can do is speculate. There is nothing that says otherwise happened, nor is he claiming exactly whose at fault here.

He still took all of this into his own hands no matter the self-defense claim. How does this guy not get cuffed?

Hasardeur said:
alright, but in this particular case, stopping a conflict by brandishing your weapon surely is still better than to outright killing the boy.

How the hell are you gonna threaten someone with a gun as they're on top of you while goin ham on your face? Come on dude.

May as well say the guy should've shot him in the knee.

CrazyDogg77 · Mar 9, 2012

Hasardeur said:
alright, but in this particular case, stopping a conflict by brandishing your weapon surely is still better than outright killing the boy.

Brandishing it wouldn't have diffused the situation. Like DY has said multiple times seeing something as dangerous as a gun initiates the fight or flight response.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

IF the man approached the boy with his gun drawn this is not self defense. If anyone can offer support for claiming this is what happened, do so. Otherwise simply assuming the details to confirm to whatever your preconceptions were at the beginning of this isn't going to suddenly become convincing.

K.Jack · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
Where was the gun? Explain this to me and do so without making assumptions.

Now you're finally asking the only questions which matter, and are on the path to determining if this is a homicide.

Why did he leave his car with a gun? What was his demeanor toward the child? Aggressive, passive? When did he present it to the boy? Did the boy attack him before or after the gun was drawn? Was it out of fear? Were they struggling for the gun? Did he fire from his back?

Where is this going? No less than manslaughter. I'm not even choosing a side yet, but they better have one hell of a tale if they back his claim of self-defense.

Big Baybee · Mar 9, 2012

Cat Party said:
Pretty interesting developments based on that witness statement. A lot of people have assumed a hell of a lot and now some are trying to defend their assumptions rather than acknowledging that the new information creates some big factual disputes. If there was an altercation, then it is a very big deal whether the kid started it or not. And of course, when did the guy pull out the gun? There are lots of ways this could have gone down, and in some cases, the man could have been justified in shooting.

It's also pretty messed up how everyone goes after KHarvey for daring to suggest that the statement from the lawyer of the victim's family should not be trusted as gospel.

If this guy wasn't playing Batman, kid would not be dead and would have been at home enjoying his skittles and iced tea.

DY_nasty · Mar 9, 2012

Cat Party said:
Pretty interesting developments based on that witness statement. A lot of people have assumed a hell of a lot and now some are trying to defend their assumptions rather than acknowledging that the new information creates some big factual disputes. If there was an altercation, then it is a very big deal whether the kid started it or not. And of course, when did the guy pull out the gun? There are lots of ways this could have gone down, and in some cases, the man could have been justified in shooting.

It's also pretty messed up how everyone goes after KHarvey for daring to suggest that the statement from the lawyer of the victim's family should not be trusted as gospel.

The kid was on foot!

There wouldn't even be an altercation if Neighborhood Watch didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, ignore police AND Neighborhood Watch policies, and confront him directly by getting out of his vehicle to step to him face to face. The entire situation was created by this guy pretending to be a cop.

BattleMonkey · Mar 9, 2012

Hasardeur said:
alright, but in this particular case, stopping a conflict by brandishing your weapon surely is still better than outright killing the boy.

Perhaps it would, but also could have made things worse. Another reason why your not recommended to draw a weapon again is the whole escalation issue. A simple fight that might have ended with some cuts and bruises turns into someone dying even if the intent was not to kill. Suddenly the boy feels threatened and wants to defend himself, might fight back harder with intent to kill or attempt to go after the gun. Pulling out a gun as a means to stop a fight can backfire. It might have worked, it might not have, hence your not supposed to.

If possible the guy should have tried to escape or stop fighting the boy and let the police intervene, not shooting the kid. Course it might not have been possible for the guy or he just freaked out...

Princess Carl · Mar 9, 2012

Why are many posters assuming the gun is drawn?

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

K.Jack said:
Now you're finally asking the only questions which matter, and are on the path to determining if this is a homicide.

Why did he leave his car with a gun? When did he present it to the boy? Did the boy attack him before or after the gun was drawn? Was it out of fear? Were they struggling for the gun? Did he fire from his back?

Where is this going? No less than manslaughter. I'm not even choosing a side yet, but they better have one hell of a tale if they back his claim of self-defense.

You're the latest person to ask good questions only to immediately assume answers to support an argument.

BattleMonkey · Mar 9, 2012

DY_nasty said:
He still took all of this into his own hands no matter the self-defense claim. How does this guy not get cuffed?

Generally for self defense shootings they don't cuff a person especially if they cooperate. Police don't determine whether a shooting is justified without clear picture of the situation or a crime having been committed. Self defense shootings are tougher situations and require a state attorney to press charges, which is when an arrest will be made.

Bumblebeetuna · Mar 9, 2012

Dude must suck as a neighborhood watch captain or whatever if he doesn't even recognize someone from the goddamn neighborhood.

I bet what happened is he called the cops, they told him to back off and wait for police to arrive, dude tried to stop the kid and make him wait for cops to arrive, kid felt threatened and it escalated from there. Still a complete bitch move to pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed person in the chest, when you started the altercation.

An entire fucking month and no arrest yet? What the hell.

Princess Carl · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
You're the latest person to ask good questions only to immediately assume answers to support an argument.

Well yeah, speculation is fun.

LaserBuddha · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
IF the man approached the boy with his gun drawn this is not self defense. If anyone can offer support for claiming this is what happened, do so. Otherwise simply assuming the details to confirm to whatever your preconceptions were at the beginning of this isn't going to suddenly become convincing.

There's a humorous parallel between "He's black, he must be here to commit a crime!" and "He's white and the victim is black, it must be a racially motivated murder!".

It's fun seeing people make a racist assumption out of anger toward racist assumptions.

DY_nasty said:
The kid was on foot!

There wouldn't even be an altercation if Neighborhood Watch didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, ignore police AND Neighborhood Watch policies, and confront him directly by getting out of his vehicle to step to him face to face. The entire situation was created by this guy pretending to be a cop.

You don't know what you're talking about because you don't know what happened when they made contact with each other. For all you know, all the NW guy did was say something to the kid. Do you hold the first person to speak to the other responsible for every violent act? The NW guy deserves scorn at the least for making the decision to approach the boy, but he doesn't deserve to be assumed to be guilty any more than that poor boy did.

DaMan121 · Mar 9, 2012

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
Here's what I think may have happened. The kid perhaps looked considerably older than his age. The "suspicious person" interpretation may have come from him wearing a cliche attire that trouble makers in the community wear. Here in London, we identify the hoody with suspicion because youths and gangs often wear them, so I imagine this man had similar thoughts in this regard.

So the picture is this: A young man is walking down a street and his appearance, most likely his attire or demeanour as opposed to his race, drew the claim of suspicion. The man gets out to have a word with him, asks him what he's doing. The kid doesn't appreciate this and feels offended/irritated, his path is blocked. Both sense aggression from the other. Something happens where by the man feels the need to respond in taking his gun out, hence the self defence claim.

You forgot: "he was rapin our womens".

In what world is what you described self defence?

Dreams-Visions · Mar 9, 2012

echoshifting said:
Right in the chest, no less. That's what really gets me about this. He shot to kill. He murdered him.

You ONLY shoot to kill. That's basic gun training protocol. The question is why did he get out of the car. And why did he shoot him? Bizarre.

A CCW carrier that should never have been.

Cat Party · Mar 9, 2012

DY_nasty said:
The kid was on foot!

There wouldn't even be an altercation if Neighborhood Watch didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, ignore police AND Neighborhood Watch policies, and confront him directly by getting out of his vehicle to step to him face to face. The entire situation was created by this guy pretending to be a cop.

You have quite literally assumed every fact you posted other than that the kid was on foot. You might be right, but you're still assuming all of that.

DY_nasty · Mar 9, 2012

BattleMonkey said:
Generally for self defense shootings they don't cuff a person especially if they cooperate. Police don't determine whether a shooting is justified without clear picture of the situation or a crime having been committed. Self defense shootings are tougher situations and require a state attorney to press charges, which is when an arrest will be made.

It doesn't even get to self-defense if this guy follows every protocol put in place to keep citizens out of danger.

He should at least be arrested for being Batman. Manslaughter, Murder... all that aside, this guy should not be chilling at home.

K.Jack · Mar 9, 2012

KHarvey16 said:
You're the latest person to ask good questions only to immediately assume answers to support an argument.

I present no argument. Can we not objectively state that this man was reckless?

Recklessness which causes a life is no less than manslaughter.

CrazyDogg77 · Mar 9, 2012

DY_nasty said:
The kid was on foot!

There wouldn't even be an altercation if Neighborhood Watch didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, ignore police AND Neighborhood Watch policies, and confront him directly by getting out of his vehicle to step to him face to face. The entire situation was created by this guy pretending to be a cop.

I don't know why people keep ignoring this.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

DY_nasty said:
The kid was on foot!

There wouldn't even be an altercation if Neighborhood Watch didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, ignore police AND Neighborhood Watch policies, and confront him directly by getting out of his vehicle to step to him face to face. The entire situation was created by this guy pretending to be a cop.

You are offering details regarding the confrontation. How? You also assert again that some policy prohibits this man from approaching or speaking to the boy. Why? Also, why would his disregard for this policy, even if it does exist and the operator on the non emergency line told him, preclude him from legally defending himself if he found himself in a situation that warranted it?

Woody Invincible · Mar 9, 2012

I can't help but believe some people here are playing devil's advocate for the hell of it. That, or common sense was hung up with the coat and umbrella at the door.

60_gig_PS3 · Mar 9, 2012

Cat Party said:
Pretty interesting developments based on that witness statement. A lot of people have assumed a hell of a lot and now some are trying to defend their assumptions rather than acknowledging that the new information creates some big factual disputes.

I admit coming in here with my pitchfork raised but now I want more answers.
It's scary to think that Winning a fight with someone who's approached you with a gun means you can now legally be killed.

DaMan121 · Mar 9, 2012

CrazyDogg77 said:
I don't know why people keep ignoring this.

Because you have not read Clause 47851: apparently you can agitate someone into a fight, get your ass kicked, then shoot them.

You are offering details regarding the confrontation. How? You also assert again that some policy prohibits this man from approaching or speaking to the boy. Why?

And a response to such an approach from someone should be the same regardless of the fact this guy was a Neighbourhood Watch Captain. Whoop-te-do! The appropriate response would be: FUck off, who the fuck are you?

DY_nasty · Mar 9, 2012

LaserBuddha said:
There's a humorous parallel between "He's black, he must be here to commit a crime!" and "He's white and the victim is black, it must be a racially motivated murder!".

It's fun seeing people make a racist assumption out of anger toward racist assumptions.

The main racial assumption I've seen on the last two pages is the hilariously true one that a black kid walking in a gated community is 'fishy'.

Cat Party said:
You have quite literally assumed every fact you posted other than that the kid was on foot. You might be right, but you're still assuming all of that.

All that is from the article.

It states that he called the police.
It states that the kid was walking through his neighborhood.
It states that he got out of his car after calling the police.

Doesn't even matter what was said after that point, he was in the wrong from then on.

KHarvey16 · Mar 9, 2012

K.Jack said:
I present no argument. Can we not objectively state that this man was reckless?

Recklessness which causes a life is no less than manslaughter.

Approaching someone or asking them questions is not illegal and certainly does not preclude defending ones self. The law is clear here. If the man was justified in defending himself he is not guilty if manslaughter.

BattleMonkey · Mar 9, 2012

Bumblebeetuna said:
An entire fucking month and no arrest yet? What the hell.

It's under investigation before the state attorney makes the decision to press any charges if any. They can take as much time as needed and often will because once they decide whether to press charges, they have only a certain amount of time afterwards to get a grand jury to indict a person. They often want to have all possible evidence before hand to prevent a possible criminal to walk. It's been a month and they are still investigating, if they had arrested and attempted charges already, if they hadn't got to the Jury panel yet, the whole thing would have been tossed.

DaMan121 said:
You forgot: "he was rapin our womens".

In what world is what you described self defence?

He didn't say it was self defense. Hence why he said "the claim of self defense".

Support NeoGAF

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Banned

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Knowledge is power, guard it well

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Member

Knowledge is power, guard it well

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Knowledge is power, guard it well

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant

Member

Member

Similar threads