Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hate. What crime did he commit?
The police did not order him to do anything.
When the police tell me not to do something. I consider it an order.
Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hate. What crime did he commit?
The police did not order him to do anything.
Woooooooooooah
slow down cowboy
Define confront
When the police tell me not to do something. I consider it an order.
Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hate. What crime did he commit?
So let's assume for a minute that the captain is super racist and only called it in as suspicious because the kid is black. After calling, he follows him and gets out of his car. He approaches the boy and asks him who he is, what he's doing and where he's going. This act, in your estimation, completely nullifies the man's legal authority to defend himself in the appropriate circumstances? You believe the act of questioning or approaching legally justifies a physical altercation being initiated by the 17 year old? I don't understand this argument.
Hmmm... so apparently there is a pastebin post with all of George Michael Zimmerman's info and a link to the story and his facebook page. He has some interesting images on his page.
I think KHarvey and everyone else already agrees with this.No. But he was wrong to get out of the car in the first place.
Provided the circumstances are as they seem - i.e. racially motivated - then not only has the officer let his personal opinions get in the way of doing his job, but he furthermore broke protocol in interacting with the young man. Provided a physical altercation was then initiated by the 17 year old, it is only by a direct result of the officer's actions, which should lead to him being removed from whatever position he serves in.
After all, we would do the same for an officer who runs into a hostage situation and starts shooting at the captors, no?
No. But he was wrong to get out of the car in the first place.
Provided the circumstances are as they seem - i.e. racially motivated - then not only has the officer let his personal opinions get in the way of doing his job, but he furthermore broke protocol in interacting with the young man. Provided a physical altercation was then initiated by the 17 year old, it is only by a direct result of the officer's actions, which should lead to him being removed from whatever position he serves in.
After all, we would do the same for an officer who runs into a hostage situation and starts shooting at the captors, no?
KHarvey, your patience is admirable.
We don't know anything beyond him getting out of his car. Whether it was because of something happening, we don't know. What we do know, is that there was no precedent to get out of his car. He was advised not to get out of his car, and furthermore, what right did he have, as a neighborhood watch captain, to get out of his car and deal with the situation? None. It wasn't life threatening, from what we know. It was just him and the kid. So now what? Him in the car, kid on the sidewalk. Him-Car. Kid-Sidewalk. I'm not seeing how the kid can bust straight through his car and rip him out.So let's assume for a minute that the captain is super racist and only called it in as suspicious because the kid is black. After calling, he follows him and gets out of his car. He approaches the boy and asks him who he is, what he's doing and where he's going. This act, in your estimation, completely nullifies the man's legal authority to defend himself in the appropriate circumstances? You believe the act of questioning or approaching legally justifies a physical altercation being initiated by the 17 year old? I don't understand this argument.
Exactly. Guy should have stayed put; he didn't. He's in the wrong here.KHarvey, I don't understand why you are fighting this so hard. Chief of police came out and confirmed the story the lawyer (who you said could not be trusted) told. Neighborhood watch guy has no leg to stand on here. He racially profiled a guy. Followed him. Called the police. They told him to stop following him. Continued following him. Then got out of his car in an attempt to confront this teen who had done nothing wrong. You look silly, honestly.
Man, if only there was some way to avoid the situation. Like...staying in the fucking car and not harassing a boy for BEING BLACK.
What about my patience?
I think KHarvey and everyone else already agrees with this.
He was not an officer, right?
He's just some joe shmoe with a happy trigger finger.
You don't know for sure he did it because he was black (though there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance) but we do know that the man had no pressing reason to approach and the fact that he did, put him in the wrong.
In which case I'm certain there's a legal penalty for this.
Exactly. Guy should have stayed put; he didn't. He's in the wrong here.
We don't know anything beyond him getting out of his car. Whether it was because of something happening, we don't know. What we do know, is that there was no precedent to get out of his car. He was advised not to get out of his car, and furthermore, what right did he have, as a neighborhood watch captain, to get out of his car and deal with the situation? None. It wasn't life threatening, from what we know. It was just him and the kid. So now what? Him in the car, kid on the sidewalk. Him-Car. Kid-Sidewalk. I'm not seeing how the kid can bust straight through his car and rip him out.
I do understand all this and did see the links. I'm more just frustrated something like this could happen and the shooter can roam free. Even more frustrated people would play devil's advocate here.
I just don't belive this guy had an moral justification to shoot the kid regardless of his legal justification. Sometims the law is wrong. Just like pot crimes and the way in which crack laws are enforced.
The kid should NOT be dead. It wasn't an accident that he did die either. Just a shame.
The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.
Yeah if I were completely alone here I'd probably be less patient. Team work!
Ok, so the defense for this guy so far is that he can legally get out of the car and approach anyone. Got that.
What about the murdering part?
The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.
Kid was 70 feet away from the house man...damn. What a damn shame.
The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.
Hmmm... so apparently there is a pastebin post with all of George Michael Zimmerman's info and a link to the story and his facebook page. He has some interesting images on his page.
The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.
Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.
Ya it is a sad day that physical confrontation of any kind leads to justifiable shootings.
Care to elaborate?
So is that all the facts there are?
What was so self-defense about what he did?
Did the kid hit him in the head with a skittle? Any bruises?
So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lolThe man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.
Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.
I guess we'll just have to take the shooters word for it then ehh?
Ok, so the defense for this guy so far is that he can legally get out of the car and approach anyone. Got that.
What about the murdering part?
So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lol
i lol'd
So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lol
The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.
Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.
:/
I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the officer did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.
The incident report and the eyewitness describe a fight between the two. The 17 year old was described as being on top of the man and hitting him. Again, if the physical confrontation was started by the teen, the man's actions are self defense. If the physical altercation was initiated by the older man, it is murder(or manslaughter at the least).
The incident report and the eyewitness describe a fight between the two. The 17 year old was described as being on top of the man and hitting him. Again, if the physical confrontation was started by the teen, the man's actions are self defense. If the physical altercation was initiated by the older man, it is murder(or manslaughter at the least).
The report was cited in an article posted previously. Did you miss it?
The police felt the injuries were consistent with a situation in which lethal force was justified.
:/
I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the officer did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.