reggieandTFE
Member
I can't believe young black males have such horrible reputations. I mean, what did they ever do to deserve being watched? Bring on justice.
What the fuck is this? How are we a page later and you're still not banned?
I can't believe young black males have such horrible reputations. I mean, what did they ever do to deserve being watched? Bring on justice.
Great way to show how completely obtuse you are.
Being stalked and engaged by a total stranger is not threatening now?
Depends on the person's skin color. If it was a black person following a white man in a car, then getting out of the car to confront him said white person...it would be a huge threat and the white man would get away scott free if he shot the black man.
Stalking?
Please blow that out your ass.
When someone follows you in a car in the middle of the night, you don't find that threatening? When he gets out of the car, with (best case scenario here) something bulky around his waste or in his jacket, you don't find that threatening?
Cmon man. Believing that its threatening and it being a law have nothing to do with each other. Except that the former can become the latter if enough people fight for it.
I don't know if it's legally a threat, but you better be assured that I would consider it a fucking threat.
KHarvey16 said:Driving behind someone and then getting out to speak to them or walk over to them doesn't alone constitute a threat.[/B]
I'm asking youSo no.
Also no.
And another no!
Uh...we're dealing with the law right now. Exclusively.
And would you consider a physical response legally justifiable?
So no.
There is no master list of things which are legally threatening or non-threatening. What matters is how a court of law interprets information. Being followed by a stranger in a car, is potentially threatening. Getting out of said car and confronting a person is very threatening. Even if the boy initiated fisticuffs, he could have felt threatened and justified in his acts.
The thread is moving fast but stalking goes against Florida law:
FLORIDA
Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
So what the neighborhood watch guy did was technically an offense. There isn't any way around that.
And would you consider a physical response legally justifiable?
I'm asking you
what you feel is threatening. Please stop being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. Would you find that threatening?
It depends how it happened. Which we don't know. Considering this guy decided to play rogue cop, we have no idea what he actually said to the kid.
So basically you got "what if he's innocent!" to my "what if he's guilty :| and this dude should at least be locked up for rogueing out"
I would ask him what he was doing. If I initiated a physical altercation, I would expect to be arrested.
Precisely.
I would ask him what he was doing. If I initiated a physical altercation, I would expect to be arrested.
Based on the known facts the neighborhood watch guy sounds like a straight up murderer. That man needs to go to jail for a good 25 years.
What the fuck is this? How are we a page later and you're still not banned?
When you were 17? Charges would not stick. You could explain the circumstances in court and any case would be thrown out. The kid was a fucking minor for Christ's sake.
Hello Mr. OutofTouch
How ya been?
No it wasn't. What you bolded there isn't satisfied legally in any way whatsoever.
So what the neighborhood watch guy did was technically an offense. There isn't any way around that.
The 'little we know' is that he's already in the wrong and should be locked up for that much if nothing else.I've said multiple times that he should bear responsibility for refusing to stand down and contributing to the situation, that's true regardless of what happened next.
I'm only saying "what if he's innocent?" because there are a ton of people concluding he's a murderer based on what little we know. If anyone was concluding he was innocent I'd be saying "what if he's guilty?" too. This is the position that you and everyone else refuse to acknowledge in both KHarvey16's and my posts, and just argue against the idea of him being innocent.
You are just being willfully ignorant then.
I've said multiple times that he should bear responsibility for refusing to stand down and contributing to the situation, that's true regardless of what happened next.
I'm only saying "what if he's innocent?" because there are a ton of people concluding he's a murderer based on what little we know. If anyone was concluding he was innocent I'd be saying "what if he's guilty?" too. This is the position that you and everyone else refuse to acknowledge in both KHarvey16's and my posts, and just argue against the idea of him being innocent.
You are just being willfully ignorant then.
lol. hey devo I know you weren't calling me out. Man this thread is all kinds of fun though.
So on KHarvey's point..about the law.
Can anyone really go out, tail and kill a minor in the state of Florida, SAY it was self defense - and get away with it? Legally?
No, I can read. It says "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person." They'd need to prove malice and they'd also need to prove this happened before. Do you see evidence for this?
No it wasn't. What you bolded there isn't satisfied legally in any way whatsoever.
Because you say so?
We're talking about what you would find threatening since you've been all over the place with this DA stuff.
We'd like to ask the kid, but he's dead. So what's your opinion on being rolled up on by a car in the middle of the night after leaving a convenience store?
That's nice, however the law does not. The chief explained precisely what it was, did you see it?
We're talking about what you would find threatening since you've been all over the place with this DA stuff.
We'd like to ask the kid, but he's dead. So what's your opinion on being rolled up on by a car in the middle of the night after leaving a convenience store?
No, I can read. It says "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person." They'd need to prove malice and they'd also need to prove this happened before. Do you see evidence for this?
It was in regards to you saying that driving behind somebody and questioning them isn't a threat. It is a very real threat. Again, I don't know how you would feel if some stranger drove up to you and started questioning you. The kid had every right to feel (assumingly) threatened. I know I would have, and again, the scenario is similar to if a woman was walking around late at night and some stranger drove up to them asking them questions.
Likely not.
It was in regards to you saying that driving behind somebody and questioning them isn't a threat. It is a very real threat. Again, I don't know how you would feel if some stranger drove up to you and started questioning you. The kid had every right to feel (assumingly) threatened. I know I would have, and again, the scenario is similar to if a woman was walking around late at night and some stranger drove up to them asking them questions.
Middle of the night, a car pulls up beside you and a guy with a bulky object around his waist/in his jacket gets out of his car and walks up to you.How was it done?
Most likely the guy panicked and shot the kid. I seriously doubt the guy was thinking HOO WEEE IMMA SHOOT ME A BLACK KID!!! Either way, have fun in prison, bitch.
Do you really need an armed neighborhood watch in a gated upscale community? Sounds like someone's got a cop fantasy.
Seriously, anyone thinking it's not threatening must be living is some kind of paradise where crime doesn't exists.
That article says his back was wet and he had grass clippings on him... That's enough to straight up shoot someone in the chest?The police released him, meaning they could not pin murder on him. The report details his injuries.
The report is talked about here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...illed-sanford-police-20120308,0,1380794.story
I imagine the police are making that the focus of their ongoing investigation. They'll present their findings to the state for prosecution if it's warranted.
Oh sup. You know just calling the cops on these black kids that keep walking up my street.
Middle of the night, a car pulls up beside you and a guy with a bulky object around his waist/in his jacket gets out of his car and walks up to you.
Not threatened?
Middle of the night, a car pulls up beside you and a guy with a bulky object around his waist/in his jacket gets out of his car and walks up to you.
Not threatened?
Does this describe the incident here? According to who? Where was the gun? Can I see it? How is the man behaving?
That article says his back was wet and he had grass clippings on him... That's enough to straight up shoot someone in the chest?
Let's ask the kid.
Good. But, just to be safe approach them and ask them if they're up to no good. If they tell you to F off that means they're probably about to burglarize something.
Does this describe the incident here? According to who? Where was the gun? Can I see it? How is the man behaving?