Support NeoGAF

[DY_nasty]

I've explained to you multiple times why this is irrelevant. Unless he did something to justify, legally, a physical response it isn't a factor. If he did then the teen starting the altercation is not grounds for the use of deadly force.

Its completely relevant.

Only in your mind, or the out of touch, is someone approaching you in the middle of the night in a vehicle, then getting out of the vehicle to approach you okay.

You can't even say if the thing is threatening or not. I understand sticking to your guys about the legal matters but I'm not even asking that right now - and its clear that I'm not either, and you're either being intentionally obtuse, willfully ignorant, or a good old fashioned dick about responding to a relatively simple question. I'm not even looking for what your response would be. Just would you feel threatened or uncomfortable.

 

[commedieu]

A. It's certainly likely, but not established, that he was instructed to stay away by the dispatcher (not officer, potentially an important distinction)
B. It's likely that the shooter escalated this situation himself and bears guilt of murder. While it is unlikely the boy is the aggressor, it's a whole different thing to call it unimagineable when you know well that it could have gone that way. I'd be pretty angry in the kid's shoes and be more likely than usual to get violent.
C. Everyone agrees that he was in the wrong for approaching, but you're definitely going too far in saying that makes him entirely at fault for anything that happens. It's what happened after he approached him that could make him entirely at fault.

How hard is it for you to purposely keep missing the point that its 100% his fault for not listening to the police..?

 

[KHarvey16]

We are on a message board so from my vantage point, yes. Black kid in a gated community gets followed by an adult in a car while coming home from a convenience store. Said adult is advised NOT TO ENGAGE yet does so anyway presumably because he has a gun which gives him courage and confronts the MINOR. A fight ensues. Who initiated it? Considering all the other evidence, I think it is far more likely for Zimmerman to initiate. But who can know? The most reliable witness is dead. Nothing about this case supports Zimmerman being innocent.

None of us will be jurors on this case. Everything presented so far in the news paints a grim picture of a racially motivated crime.

You're criticizing an organization, the police, who operate within the confines of the law. To not take guilt and proof into consideration ignores this. You can feel however you like provided you recognize those feelings are ultimately insufficiently supported by the facts we have.

 

[Professor Beef]

In the end I think it's obvious some people in this thread actually venture out into the real world and aren't disconnected with reality, while some others apparently have no fucking perspective.

Ain't that the truth. This thread has also made me crave some Skittles. It's already dark though...

 

[Blackace]

What is the definition of assault in Florida? How do we know the man met this definition? If your point is he could have been committing a crime that justified a physical response from the teen, I agree, it's certainly possible. Determining this will be done in the investigation.

It really doesn't matter:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Can you think of anyway this case could fall under this?

 

[Korey]

A. It's certainly likely, but not established, that he was instructed to stay away by the dispatcher (not officer, potentially an important distinction)
B. It's likely that the shooter escalated this situation himself and bears guilt of murder. While it is unlikely the boy is the aggressor, it's a whole different thing to call it unimagineable when you know well that it could have gone that way. I'd be pretty angry in the kid's shoes.
C. Everyone agrees that he was in the wrong for approaching, but you're definitely going too far in saying that makes him entirely at fault for anything that happens. It's what happened after he approached him that could make him entirely at fault.

He's entirely at fault for like a few several thousand reasons. The gunshot doesn't exist in a vacuum, everything about what happened points to the situation being his fault. So he's not going to get away with a self defense claim.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Fuck it, I'm telling a quick personal story.

I was 18, Pittsburgh, culinary school.

I worked at a Japanese spot in Station Square, which is across a bridge then a mile walk through downtown from my dorm. I made the walk late at night every night, being a bartender. I'm a martial artist, and a generally dangerous young man (in my mind anyway), so whatever.

One night, this guy in this little red two-door was tailing me the whole way, only stopping at every corner until I got down the street a bit, at which point he would continue following. Now I'm a 6'4'' black dude in a shirt and tie. Where I'm from, the only person who's going to TAIL me is either a cop or someone who is actually after me for something I'm not offering.

If you've never been in this situation, let me tell you.... you run scenarios because there is no logical, safe reason for a person to be following you at night. Do I run? Nah, not yet. Maybe I'm tripping. Or he's a cop. So I continued on, but my level of alertness was sky high.

But I HAD TO make a decision on what I would do if this guy is a villain. I'm by myself, and I know nothing about who or what is in the car. My mind jumped to some abduction shit. So when he caught up to me, in my mind, he was either an officer or a DEAD MAN. Who else would follow me? If he gets out of the car without a badge, it's over for him. Period.

So anyway, he rolls up next to me really quickly, and I was calm. I jumped back on the curb. But instead of jumping out, he rolled down his window and said exactly, "Can I suck your cock for money?"

I flat out told him, well first NO, but second that he has no idea how close we were to fighting for our lives. Like I really gave it to this guy. He muttered a terrified "sorry" and sped off.

Okay, story time is over. I only shared that to give the perspective of someone who has been followed around by a stranger, after the sun was down. It gave me chills reading this story, because my mind went back a decade, and I can only thank God that old pervert didn't get out of his car with a gun on his waist. Because, let me be clear, we would've been fighting for that piece.

No no no... you see, what you should do is to quickly recollect any and all legal laws in the area that you resided in before you can even think of doing anything in your predicament.

If you ever gets in a situation like getting trailed by unknown strangers on the dark, you have no time to be afraid! Quickly open your "LAW DICTATES" book and see the relevant chapters and clauses to find exactly, and by exactly I mean the 'as stated' kind of exactly, what you are allowed and not allowed to do.

Gosh, I really need to bring that LAW DICTATES book everywhere I go just in case someday I have someone trailing me after the dark for no apparent reason at all.

 

[Aeonin]

You're criticizing an organization, the police, who operate within the confines of the law. To not take guilt and proof into consideration ignores this. You can feel however you like provided you recognize those feelings are ultimately insufficiently supported by the facts we have.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people in this thread feel they have very sufficient facts to justify their judgement.

And you STILL won't respond to the STALKING charge? Cmon man. Just say - nope it doesn't count, or yes it does.

 

[commedieu]

You're criticizing an organization, the police, who operate within the confines of the law. To not take guilt and proof into consideration ignores this. You can feel however you like provided you recognize those feelings are ultimately insufficiently supported by the facts we have.

The shooter wasn't operating of the confines of police direction.

You implied the former, no? If that is what happened it should change how the law views the incident.

I am stating both cases in which he would brandish a weapon. I suggested no change of law, or view on the incident. Its crystal clear that he had a weapon & shot the kid with the soda well within his rights of walking down a street where his family pays HOA dues.

 

[KHarvey16]

Its completely relevant.

Only in your mind, or the out of touch, is someone approaching you in the middle of the night in a vehicle, then getting out of the vehicle to approach you okay.

You can't even say if the thing is threatening or not. I understand sticking to your guys about the legal matters but I'm not even asking that right now - and its clear that I'm not either, and you're either being intentionally obtuse, willfully ignorant, or a good old fashioned dick about responding to a relatively simple question. I'm not even looking for what your response would be. Just would you feel threatened or uncomfortable.

Personally I would not feel threatened if a car simply pulled up and a man got out. I live in a city and I'm surrounded by people constantly. This would not necessarily make me uncomfortable. It could if circumstances were right, but that can't be related to a case in which we don't have the details.

What relevance does this have to the discussion concerning the guilt or innocence of this man? What do you believe the implications are?

 

[LaserBuddha]

The kid had a bag of skittles, and an ice tea... there is NO case for self-defense. Even if the flying starcrossed chopped him..

Depending on what other evidence might surface, there is always potentially a case for self defense when two people are fighting and there is a gun somewhere between them. They should have never been close enough to make that fight possible to begin with, though.

It's bad enough when police use profiling to harass people.. but normal person, who really has no RIGHT to harass the kid. If he felt the kid was a danger to his community call the cops and leave it at that..

He's got a screw loose and even in the wildest favorable scenario (the kid was the aggressor and wrestled for the gun) he should still at least never be allowed near a gun again and probably still be guilty of negligent homicide, as you assume a lot of personal responsibility for what could happen when you own/carry a firearm.

 

[Aeonin]

Personally I would not feel threatened if a car simply pulled up and a man got out.

Crazy since according to police reports, that ISN'T what happened. The car was tailing the teen for some ways - long enough to make a prolonged 911 call from start to finish and more.

 

[KHarvey16]

It really doesn't matter:



Can you think of anyway this case could fall under this?

An eyewitness and the incident report describes the teen as being on top of the man, beating him. The man had grass and water on his back, indicating he was lying on the ground, and he was bleeding from his face and head. If the incident occurred this way the first entry there applies.

 

[cubicle47b]

"At that point, Mr. Zimmerman was taken into custody, investigative detention if you will, and got to the station to conduct an interview with him to find out exactly what happened," Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David Zimmerman said.

Someone pointed this out on Reddit. I wonder if they're related.

 

[commedieu]

Personally I would not feel threatened if a car simply pulled up and a man got out. I live in a city and I'm surrounded by people constantly. This would not necessarily make me uncomfortable. It could if circumstances were right, but that can't be related to a case in which we don't have the details.

What relevance does this have to the discussion concerning the guilt or innocence of this man? What do you believe the implications are?

So now you can argue your own experience. Which none of us can seemingly do here.

Its illustrating the point that it could be considered threatening by the victim, who has the right to respond accordingly and defend himself if need be. This will come up during any trial, as its completely relevant to the events that led up to the gaping chest wound.

I am legally at fault for starting a fight that ends in a mans death. The type of death will then be classified. But I will still be responsible. The person responsible for the entire matter, is the person who ignored the police.

 

[Aeonin]

Someone pointed this out on Reddit. I wonder if they're related.

Oh shit! Inception shit is about to go down!

...ah who knows...would be SO FUCKING INTERESTING if it was his brother or some shit.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Crazy since according to police reports, that ISN'T what happened. The car was tailing the teen for some ways - long enough to make a prolonged 911 call from start to finish and more.

Apparently it's perfectly normal for someone to tail you in a car at night.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm pretty sure a lot of people in this thread feel they have very sufficient facts to justify their judgement.

And you STILL won't respond to the STALKING charge? Cmon man. Just say - nope it doesn't count, or yes it does.

The legal definition of stalking was posted. To show it was stalking would require evidence not presented in the articles linked in this thread.

Crazy since according to police reports, that ISN'T what happened. The car was tailing the teen for some ways - long enough to make a prolonged 911 call from start to finish and more.

How long was the call? It also was not to 911. The chief said the man wanted to keep the teen in sight.

 

[Roger Danish]

What relevance does this have to the discussion concerning the guilt or innocence of this man? What do you believe the implications are?

You don't think the question of whether or not the boy felt threatened, fearing imminent violence, has any bearing on whether the boy would have been justified in initiating a physical confrontation? (You yourself said that if it was the man who initiated the physical confrontation, his self-defense argument is likely very weak.)

 

[DY_nasty]

So now you can argue your own experience. Which none of us can seemingly do here.

Its illustrating the point that it could be considered threatening by the victim, who has the right to respond accordingly and defend himself if need be. This will come up during any trial, as its completely relevant to the events that led up to the gaping chest wound.

Saved me a post.

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

So we assume guilt.

I really don't see how wanting this guy to be arrested and tried is assuming guilt. With the facts given wanting this guy to be convicted is fine. Just because you don't have all the facts doesn't mean he should get away scotch free.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Someone pointed this out on Reddit. I wonder if they're related.

hmmm.

The dude is 26. Could be possible. (son, nephew, cousin)

 

[LaserBuddha]

How hard is it for you to purposely keep missing the point that its 100% his fault for not listening to the police..?

I haven't missed shit, I've stated several times that I disagree with that idea. Why? 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 disproves the idea that approaching someone (JUST approaching them) automatically 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 does it serve as proof that you're a criminal.

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.

 

[Air]

Apparently it's perfectly normal for someone to tail you in a car at night.

Whenever this happens to me, I tell them I only collect 100$ bills, and don't get any in my eye.

 

[Derwind]

You're criticizing an organization, the police, who operate within the confines of the law. To not take guilt and proof into consideration ignores this. You can feel however you like provided you recognize those feelings are ultimately insufficiently supported by the facts we have.

What we know:

1. 26 year old Man followed a 17 year old Minor in a cop car due to unknown suspicions
2. Man called police due to unknown suspicions.
3. Man is told not to follow or engage.
4. Man ignores orders and continues stalking the minor due to unknown suspicions.
5. Man confronts the minor due to unknown suspicions.
6. Altercations ensue.
7. Minor is found dead.
8. Suspicions ultimately found baseless, Minor had skittles and soft drink on his persons.

These are facts that we know of.

If anything he accelerated the situation by ignoring the order to sit tight and let the cops handle it.

So in what way is he completely innocent? Innocent enough to not be detained? This is dangerous levels of incompetence(the man not you).

 

[DY_nasty]

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.

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.

two things.

did you call the police beforehand saying that his person was suspicious and they did tell you to not follow them?

theres a 'fringe possibility' that the guy was a loose cannon too but fuck that noise

 

[Aeonin]

The legal definition of stalking was posted. To show it was stalking would require evidence not presented in the articles linked in this thread.

How long was the call? It also was not to 911. The chief said the man wanted to keep the teen in sight.

As Trayvon returned to the townhome, Sanford police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person....identified the caller as George Zimmerman

Going against Police orders to follow - repeated following willfully.
Tailing teen in the middle of the night and then confronting while carrying loaded gun into gated community - harassment and malice

 

[Cipherr]

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.

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.

I'm failing to see how in your hypothetical, if you call police and are explicitly told NOT to approach, yet you do it anyway, that wouldn't be you doing something wrong. This is very very easy to understand, and not even your made up fantasy scenario gets around this.

You need to remember, he called the police before he approached him.

 

[KHarvey16]

You don't think the question of whether or not the boy felt threatened, fearing imminent violence, has any bearing on whether the boy would have been justified in initiating a physical confrontation? (You yourself said that if it was the man who initiated the physical confrontation, his self-defense argument is likely very weak.)

I think his personal feelings are impossible to know and not the primary method of determining if something is a threat. The method the man used and the actions he took will be looked at by prosecutors and police and a determination will be made. What I am saying is that the act of pulling up to and approaching a teen is not inherently or necessarily a threat. The details are needed to decide that, and the investigation will do this.

I really don't see how wanting this guy to be arrested and tried is assuming guilt. With the facts given wanting this guy to be convicted is fine. Just because you don't have all the facts doesn't mean he should get away scotch free.

The investigation is being conducted right now. Once it's concluded the evidence will be presented to the state so they can prosecute(or not).

 

[Log4Girlz]

How long was the call? It also was not to 911. The chief said the man wanted to keep the teen in sight.

It was the non-emergency number. I've called 305-4-police here in Miami and they send REAL OFFICERS. So if it was a non-emergency, why follow a teen and then get out of a car against the operators advice?

 

[LaserBuddha]

theres a 'fringe possibility' that the guy was a loose cannon too but fuck that noise

Are you dense or trolling me? I've said myself he's most likely guilty, so stop being an asshole and acting like I'm downplaying the possibility.

 

[KHarvey16]

What we know:

1. 26 year old Man followed a 17 year old Minor in a cop car due to unknown suspicions
2. Man called police due to unknown suspicions.
3. Man is told not to follow or engage.

Agreed.

4. Man ignores orders and continues stalking the minor due to unknown suspicions.

Again, not an order.

5. Man confronts the minor due to unknown suspicions.
6. Altercations ensue.
7. Minor is found dead.
8. Suspicions ultimately found baseless, Minor had skittles and soft drink on his persons.

These are facts that we know of.

If anything he accelerated the situation by ignoring the order to sit tight and let the cops handle it.

So in what way is he completely innocent? Innocent enough to not be detained? This is dangerous levels of incompetence(the man not you).

But incompetence isn't illegal, and doesn't preclude acting in self defense.

 

[DY_nasty]

Are you dense or trolling me? I've said myself he's most likely guilty, so stop being an asshole and acting like I'm downplaying the possibility.

DONT CALL ME NAMES BRO

 

[Derwind]

He went above and beyond his own personal, self-appointed authority and took matters into his own hands. The situation ends with a minor dead.

There is nothing innocent about this.

Again, not an order.

It wasn't an optional exercise.

But incompetence isn't illegal, and doesn't preclude acting in self defense.

His incompetence lead to the death of that minor. Yes it is a crime.

Self-defense, which is up to debate, is not an eraser that negates his inexcusable actions leading up to the altercation.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I think his personal feelings are impossible to know and not the primary method of determining if something is a threat. The method the man used and the actions he took will be looked at by prosecutors and police and a determination will be made. What I am saying is that the act of pulling up to and approaching a teen is not inherently or necessarily a threat. The details are needed to decide that, and the investigation will do this.

We have to agree to disagree with that. Being followed and having a man exit a car to confront you is threatening. Imagine this was a young lady. She would fear being raped and be justified feeling so.

 

[Devolution]

We have to agree to disagree with that. Being followed and having a man exit a car to confront you is threatening. Imagine this was a young lady. She would fear being raped and be justified feeling so.

He's black, in the south and the guy is approaching him is white. We don't need to imagine anything.

 

[railGUN]

Just a gut feeling, but I doubt a kid, minding his business, buying candy for his brother, just starts pounding a stranger in the face for no reason. I realize this feeling is not admissible in court, so need to remind me, but logic etc.

 

[smurfx]

jeez i would murder that guy if that was my son that got killed.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I'm failing to see how in your hypothetical, if you call police and are explicitly told NOT to approach, yet you do it anyway, that wouldn't be you doing something wrong. This is very very easy to understand, and not even your made up fantasy scenario gets around this.

You need to remember, he called the police before he approached him.

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.

 

[KHarvey16]

We have to agree to disagree with that. Being followed and having a man exit a car to confront you is threatening. Imagine this was a young lady. She would fear being raped and be justified feeling so.

Regardless of the details of how it happened? In other words, in every situation in which a car comes anywhere near another person and an individual gets out, this is a threat? We, or at least I, don't know where the car was in relation to the boy, how the man acted when he got out or any number of other, seemingly important tidbits of information you've simply deemed unnecessary.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Just a gut feeling, but I doubt a kid, minding his business, buying candy for his brother, just starts pounding a stranger in the face for no reason. I realize this feeling is not admissible in court, so need to remind me, but logic etc.

This reasoning can hold sway to human jurors...let's hope it does.

Regardless of the details of how it happened? In other words, in every situation in which a car comes anywhere near another person and an individual gets out, this is a threat? We, or at least I, don't know where the car was in relation to the boy, how the man acted when he got out or any number of other, seemingly important tidbits of information you've simply deemed unnecessary.

The only person who would know the details is a dead kid, killed by a man asked by police not to engage. In every scenario here in the UNITED STATES being approached in the dark in a car, followed, and then have someone exit said vehicle to confront you for minding your own business is a threat.

 

[Roger Danish]

I think his personal feelings are impossible to know and not the primary method of determining if something is a threat. The method the man used and the actions he took will be looked at by prosecutors and police and a determination will be made.

Why do you seem to think that these are two separate things? Especially if the latter is meant to be a proxy for the former?

I think the question that dy and others were asking was: given the actions taken, how would a reasonable person in the boy's situation have responded? It is not at all an irrelevant inquiry.

 

[Zoramon089]

I'm out of this thread. KHarvey's BS is just...it's gonna make me say something that could get me banned so I'm just not going to visit this thread again

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

But incompetence isn't illegal, and doesn't preclude acting in self defense.

Its not even incompetence in this guys case, its stubbornness.

 

[Derwind]

Just a gut feeling, but I doubt a kid, minding his business, buying candy for his brother, just starts pounding a stranger in the face for no reason. I realize this feeling is not admissible in court, so need to remind me, but logic etc.

A stranger pulling up to him, impeding his ability to go about his way, carrying a gun and is not an officer of the law....

Yep, yep, no reason, yep...

 

[Air]

I can't understand what else you can argue for the guy. There wasn't even much going for him to begin with, but to have so many pages dedicated to it?

 

[Mr. Patch]

Regardless of the details of how it happened? In other words, in every situation in which a car comes anywhere near another person and an individual gets out, this is a threat? We, or at least I, don't know where the car was in relation to the boy, how the man acted when he got out or any number of other, seemingly important tidbits of information you've simply deemed unnecessary.

I think what people are saying is that any normal person would feel threatened by an unknown man in an unknown car following them around at night.

 

[KHarvey16]

It wasn't an optional exercise.

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

His incompetence lead to the death of that minor. Yes it is a crime.

Self-defense, which is up to debate, is not an eraser that negates his inexcusable actions leading up to the altercation.

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

 

[Vermillion]

:/

I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the man did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.

So, yeah...

 

[KHarvey16]

Why do you seem to think that these are two separate things? Especially if the latter is meant to be a proxy for the former?

I think the question that dy and others were asking was: given the actions taken, how would a reasonable person in the boy's situation have responded? It is not at all an irrelevant inquiry.

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

I'm out of this thread. KHarvey's BS is just...it's gonna make me say something that could get me banned so I'm just not going to visit this thread again

Go for it, I'm not scared. Stand by your convictions and discuss.