Does this describe the incident here? According to who? Where was the gun? Can I see it? How is the man behaving?
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
And since we can't do that, assume guilt. Right?
I don't think so, because he didn't follow the kid "repeatedly," for starters.
No it isn't! Did you even read what you posted? There's an AND there, which means ALL of those things need to be satisfied. It must be MALICIOUS, WILLFUL AND REPEATED. Tell me right now all of these things happened. PLEASE.
Yes, very. Edit: or the Neighborhood Watch guy could've been the one to first get physical, grabbing the kid for example.Maybe it would help us understand each other better if we wrote out the possible scenario's we are envisioning here - here's a possible scenario where the 17 year old started the physical confrontation:
26 year old man gets out of the car, and approaches the 17 year old
26: "Hey, let me talk to you"
17: "Uh, yeah?"
26: "What are you doing right now?"
17: "What am I doing right now? What the fuck is it your business what I am doing right now?"
26: "Well where are you going then?"
17: "None of your business man"
*starts to walk away, 26 year old tells him to stop, maybe moves in front of him*
17: "Get the fuck out of my way"
*pushes/shoves 26 year old, or in some way, gets physical - fight breaks out, 17 year old gets shot*
Does that sound plausible?
So if some random pulled up to you in the middle of the night you wouldn't feel threatened?
No? I don't understand your question.
And since we can't do that, assume guilt. Right?
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
Does this not satisfy?
No? I don't understand your question.
And since we can't do that, assume guilt. Right?
Again, irregardless of that, there was still no logical reason for the neighborhood watch guy to get out of his car, or follow the kid.
Why is this the question? The right one to ask is would I legally be justified in physically confronting him, and I would not. Do you understand why this is the relevant point?
I'm not even a teen and I'd be freaked the fuck out. I'd probably run and hide in someone's yard honestly.
it sounds like the guy is going to walk away.
Does this not satisfy?
Now you're being paranoid. And if you slapped a grown man getting out of a car you could get shot too! [/sarcasm]
Or maybe let a jury decide?
You could argue that if this is a racially motivated crime that, malicious and willful are covered. Repeated, admittedly may be harder. A lawyer could argue that The neighborhood watch guy saw the kid once in order to make the call. Than he had to go out of his way again to confront him. It may be a hard argument to make, but it isn't impossible. Again, irregardless of that, there was still no logical reason for the neighborhood watch guy to get out of his car, or follow the kid.
What should happen, isn't going to happen. If the guy can afford a better lawyer than the victims family, thats all there is to it. I'm not satisfied with the actions of the police, nor would anyone whose child had been killed in their gated community. You guys can argue speculative matters all day, and people can always pretend how they would react. Its just yet another example of why you have to be more careful as a black man in this world whilst shopping for candy.
It isn't a hate crime, but I know it wouldn't have happened with a white teenager.
Open and shut case.
Guy is screwed.
The only indication of a struggle in that article is a wet back, how does that justify use of deadly force?
Everything else is pointing to it. Who was this kid threatening? All indications are that he was simply walking home minding his own business...which if Zimmerman did the same, we wouldn't have a dead kid.
Wow. That is one fucked up story. So do they feel his (probably newly formed) white guilt will be enough punishment and that he shouldn't go to fucking prison for being a murdering racist dumbass?
Also I laughed hard at "innocent man."
No skittles after dark
If the evidence is there for a trial they will.
This probably wouldn't be stalking--"repeated" here is likely referring to situations where someone is being followed several times (on different occasions).\
I've actually been followed on foot by a grown man in my own neighborhood. It was a scary fucking situation.
The guy who was screwed is dead. This man will walk away free.
No skittles after dark
The man was also bleeding from the face and head. It's in the article I linked.
Who said the kid was threatening?
*puts on Harvey glasses*
Why would you possible feel fear in that situation? Did you talk to the guy? Maybe he needed directions.
Alright I'll stop now, hope that level of sarcasm doesn't get me banned. :/
you are a terrible person
Repeatedly is not satisfied in that way. Also malice dependent upon a racial motivation would require some kind of proof. Lacking a logical reason to do something does not alter its legality.
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.
Does this not satisfy?
*puts on Harvey glasses*
Why would you possible feel fear in that situation? Did you talk to the guy? Maybe he needed directions.
Alright I'll stop now, hope that level of sarcasm doesn't get me banned. :/
The question we need to be asking is, what right does this guy have to confront a teen walking by himself?
In what scenario would this be justified?
More to the point, what sort of suspicion would justify such a thing?
It isn't the sarcasm that would get you banned, but the willful misrepresentation of my argument and the need to put words in my mouth. I'm typing enough here, I don't need you to help me!
I missed that part, still doesn't justify shooting a kid in the chest.
The man was also bleeding from the face and head. It's in the article I linked.
Who said the kid was threatening?
Absolutely, the words coming out of your mouth are enough. We will see how everything turns out. I have little to no faith that justice will be done and have every right to feel that way.
His dead limp body with a hand cannon wound in the chest suggests lethal forced had to be used to put the animal down. The shooter felt he was a threat enough to brandish a weapon to begin with. Either that, or he forgot how to shake hands.
Just putting out the new word.
It'd suck to be rolled up on by a guy with a gun and a cape then getting shot in self-defense.
He brandished the weapon? When?
The potential for grievous bodily harm justifies lethal force in Florida. The witness describes, and the incident report lines up with, the 17 year old being on top of the man while hitting him. If that accurately describes the incident, under Florida law the shooting could be legal self defense.
Absolutely, the words coming out of your mouth are enough. We will see how everything turns out. I have little to no faith that justice will be done and have every right to feel that way.
I got a deer rifle and a car. I can handle dis.
If the guy hasn't even been arrested, then yeah... I'm with the rest of you guys with the belief that he'll walk with a 'hefty fine'.
He still won't even come out and say that a car riding up on you in the middle of the night is threatening.