Support NeoGAF

[Blackace]

Have you ever heard of an entire police department and community watch so racist they would ignore all facts in such an obviously illegal murder case and just hope no one noticed?

Again I have to point out I'm not arguing for one scenario over the other, I'm arguing that either scenario is merely possible! So many here are acting as if this one is in the bag and there is no way the man acted legally. It's nonsense.

For some reason I see it like this..

"Hey what are you doing!"

"GTFO"

"Hey *insert insult perhaps racial slur*" (while getting out of car)

"What did you say *insert insult perhaps racial slur*"

Maybe a shove here a shove there and then a fight... boom kid is dead...

 

[Blackace]

You posted the specific requirements for use of deadly force in Florida. I explained to you a potential scenario in which the first requirement was met.

If you started the conflict you can't kill someone because you are losing..

 

[Kinitari]

Have you ever heard of an entire police department and community watch so racist they would ignore all facts in such an obviously illegal murder case and just hope no one noticed?

Again I have to point out I'm not arguing for one scenario over the other, I'm arguing that either scenario is merely possible! So many here are acting as if this one is in the bag and there is no way the man acted legally. It's nonsense.

It's nothing to do with racism - it's a pending case, he's probably been told 'not to go anywhere', if the evidence shows he did not act in self-defence then there is a warrant out for his arrest.

The issue here is you are being so abstract, and a lot of people here are making conclusions, maybe prematurely - but based off of pretty understandable logical step process. They think to themselves, maybe not even consciously "there would be no reason for that kid to be beating on him, unless he felt confronted enough, as he doesn't know this guy from Adam".

I have a hypothetical scenario question to ask you, maybe your answer will humanize you a bit to the people arguing against you. If the kid refused to answer the guys questions (I think that's a safe assumption, maybe the guy was being a dick, maybe he was being friendly - but the kid probably didn't tell him exactly what he was doing, and no one here would blame him for that) and tried to walk away, only to be followed or blocked, and the kid then pushed said guy - which in turn resulted in the guy pushing back, then turning into a fight, then turning into the man deciding "I am going to fucking lose this fight really bad, gun time" - would you feel that the man would not be legally culpable of some crime?

 

[Riposte]

Real messed up. Feels like a way a movie would end.

 

[KHarvey16]

An investigation is required in any case, even if there is clear video of a criminal committing some wrong doing. Following someone in a car, then getting out to confront them in the middle of the night is always threatening in the United States. There is no getting around that. If the kid had survived and was taken to court, the defense would be pretty tight if George admitted to the action of following and then confronting the child. The kid would be acquitted of any charges.

I don't believe a court would agree that it is ALWAYS a threat. The details, which we don't have, matter.

 

[Formless]

Fuck everything about this.

Watched the video of the news report, kid saved his dad a couple years ago from a burning kitchen.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Cause he was young and black and his hat was damn low....

You can tell in this thread knows what it's like to be a young black man.

 

[railGUN]

You posted the specific requirements for use of deadly force in Florida. I explained to you a potential scenario in which the first requirement was met.

Another potential scenario is this guy started everything, and the kid was beating him in self defense. Based on the fact he called the cops and stated his intentions to confront the kid, and there is zero evidence to suggest the kid lured this guy out of his car for no reason to beat him up, I'd go with Zimmerman being the instigator.

 

[KHarvey16]

For some reason I see it like this..

"Hey what are you doing!"

"GTFO"

"Hey *insert insult perhaps racial slur*" (while getting out of car)

"What did you say *insert insult perhaps racial slur*"

Maybe a shove here a shove there and then a fight... boom kid is dead...

How is the investigation coming along?

If you started the conflict you can't kill someone because you are losing..

Agreed. If he started the physical altercation he should be charged with murder.

It's nothing to do with racism - it's a pending case, he's probably been told 'not to go anywhere', if the evidence shows he did not act in self-defence then there is a warrant out for his arrest.

The issue here is you are being so abstract, and a lot of people here are making conclusions, maybe prematurely - but based off of pretty understandable logical step process. They think to themselves, maybe not even consciously "there would be no reason for that kid to be beating on him, unless he felt confronted enough, as he doesn't know this guy from Adam".

I have a hypothetical scenario question to ask you, maybe your answer will humanize you a bit to the people arguing against you. If the kid refused to answer the guys questions (I think that's a safe assumption, maybe the guy was being a dick, maybe he was being friendly - but the kid probably didn't tell him exactly what he was doing, and no one here would blame him for that) and tried to walk away, only to be followed or blocked, and the kid then pushed said guy - which in turn resulted in the guy pushing back, then turning into a fight, then turning into the man deciding "I am going to fucking lose this fight really bad, gun time" - would you feel that the man would not be legally culpable of some crime?

That would be murder. The man is not the police and the teen was under no obligation to answer his questions. Impeding his progress or touching him in any way would constitute a potential crime.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I don't believe a court would agree that it is ALWAYS a threat. The details, which we don't have, matter.

We won't get more details. The only other person who witnessed the beginning of the fight is dead. George's side naturally will be biased. I believe anyone who starts a physical altercation with someone who had been following them in a car and exits said vehicle to confront them will go scott free in a court-case because they will agree it would be perceived as a threatening act.

If a lady slapped a man who was coming after her from a car that had been tailing her, do you think any court in the US would convict her of battery?

 

[Princess Carl]

It's nothing to do with racism - it's a pending case, he's probably been told 'not to go anywhere', if the evidence shows he did not act in self-defence then there is a warrant out for his arrest.

The issue here is you are being so abstract, and a lot of people here are making conclusions, maybe prematurely - but based off of pretty understandable logical step process. They think to themselves, maybe not even consciously "there would be no reason for that kid to be beating on him, unless he felt confronted enough, as he doesn't know this guy from Adam".

I have a hypothetical scenario question to ask you, maybe your answer will humanize you a bit to the people arguing against you. If the kid refused to answer the guys questions (I think that's a safe assumption, maybe the guy was being a dick, maybe he was being friendly - but the kid probably didn't tell him exactly what he was doing, and no one here would blame him for that) and tried to walk away, only to be followed or blocked, and the kid then pushed said guy - which in turn resulted in the guy pushing back, then turning into a fight, then turning into the man deciding "I am going to fucking lose this fight really bad, gun time" - would you feel that the man would not be legally culpable of some crime?

I don't no why you feel the need to come up with these intricate fake stories when the one in front of us makes perfect legal and objective sense given the details. There are plenty of people who know exactly what KHarvey is talking about and we've been trying to explain it over and over for pages. What more can you possibly need?

 

[commedieu]

Holy crap. Substantiate your position. Show us the law or statute or piece of paper stating that the operator on the non emergency line can give you lawful orders that must be obeyed.

Him ignoring the suggestion of the police operator isn't illegal, and it has never been suggested so. Its the point that you're trying to argue, which is irrelevant. Him ignoring the police leads to the death of an unarmed teenager, which is yet another factor of the laundry list of influence the shooter had on the situation. Shooting people is a crime, and during the crime investigation, its going to be one of many valid reasons to paint a picture of the shooters character and actions before the death.

I am not suggesting he face charges for ignoring the police and operators, which the general population, and those working within their constraints, don't have a tendency of doing.

 

[KHarvey16]

We won't get more details. The only other person who witnessed the beginning of the fight is dead. George's side naturally will be biased. I believe anyone who starts a physical altercation with someone who had been following them in a car and exits said vehicle to confront them will go scott free in a court-case because they will agree it would be perceived as a threatening act.

If a lady slapped a man who was coming after her from a car that had been tailing her, do you think any court in the US would convict her of battery?

I think it would depend on the details of the matter. You keep insisting we can never know and I don't know why. This wasn't in the middle of the desert and it may be the case that the police officers have investigated a thing or two during their careers.

 

[Air]

Agreed. If he started the physical altercation he should be charged with murder.

If that's the case, why is it so hard to understand that the guy most likely initiated contact because he was the one who approached? I strongly doubt the guy came up to the kid and said "hey what's up bro", and the first thing the kid responded with was a punch to the face...

 

[Princess Carl]

If that's the case, why is it so hard to understand that the guy most likely initiated contact because he was the one who approached? I strongly doubt the guy came up to the kid and said "hey what's up bro", and the first thing the kid responded with was a punch to the face...

Approaching isn't physical contact. Anything that happens before the actual physical altercation really doesn't have any bearing the fight itself, unless he had already brandished his weapon on approach.

 

[Aeonin]

The police chief said residents upset by the lack of an arrest so far should wait until the investigation is completed, as soon as next week. The State Attorney's Office will then decide whether to present it to a grand jury.


EDIT: We should bring this back up on the 15th, see if any change has been made. ....And why were the names all blacked out on the police report to begin with? How come the 911 calls haven't been released? And are the two Zimmerman's related?! ...Next week on GAF Argues Alot Of Semantic Shit.

 

[K.Jack]

I'm tired of dancing with law semantics, so how I reveal some humanity.

The dude was 26, not 56. When you're being followed by a young man, he's out to rob you or assault you. I'm sorry if things are vastly different where you're from, but young men with pistols don't jump out of cars to question you at night.

Like I said earlier, I've been there. If you say otherwise you're talking bullshit. If Zimmerman had en ounce of sense, maybe he would've thought about it from the deceased perspective, before he escalated the situation by leaving his vehicle.

But that harkens back to young black kids being treated like lesser people by authority. Yeah, fuck how he feels, I'm going to step to him and he can't do shit. Fuck yeah neighborhood cap't and shit.

The kid is dead.

 

[railGUN]

Would this be considered self defence if Zimmerman started the confrontation? In other words, in Florida, if I picked a fight with a dude bigger than me, start getting my ass handed to me, am I justified in shooting said person because I'm loosing the fight and fear for my life?

Anyone?

 

[Blackace]

How is the investigation coming along?

Pretty good...working some solid leads as we speak. But being in those types of situations before I have a decent idea how it COULD have went down..

Agreed. If he started the physical altercation he should be charged with murder.

He actually doesn't have to start the physical altercation just he had to start the fight.. Verbal abuse is one way to start the fight.. rather it is proved or not in a court of law is one thing.. but while you are talking about possibles..

 

[DY_nasty]

Approaching isn't physical contact.

There are a lot of ways to threaten someone. And a lot of ways to perceive threat.

But Mr. Zimmerman really is a great guy.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Damn, poor kid.

That's really not fair at all.

 

[Blackace]

But Mr. Zimmerman really is a great guy.

A great guy, a nice guy, packing heat punk!

 

[Verelios]

Man, hearing the dad's interview is just harsh. It also substantiates a point I had: What the fuck motive would this kid have to start wailing on the guy, had he not been obtrusive? Maybe aggressive? Who the hell knows, the only living witness is the watch man. But if you bring a gun to a fist-fight, and the person you're fighting is only equipped with two bags of skittles and a fucking bottle of JUICE, then god damn, I see no -absolutely none- reasonable cause to shoot the kid point blank in the chest.

What was he going to do? Start chucking skittles?

 

[Air]

Approaching isn't physical contact.

No, but is it too much to assume that in all likely hood he might have made physical contact. You don't have to make any huge leaps in logic here to understand that. You also have the bonus of the kid probably feeling uncomfortable that a stranger was approaching him, and had every right to defend himself from a stranger harming him. Should a woman wait for a rapist to be raping her for her to consider using pepper spray for self defense?

 

[Princess Carl]

There are a lot of ways to threaten someone. And a lot of ways to perceive threat.

But Mr. Zimmerman really is a great guy.

I'm sorry this issue is so blinding for you, because I really can't say anything else, especially when we still have an un-arrested Zimmerman.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I think it would depend on the details of the matter. You keep insisting we can never know and I don't know why. This wasn't in the middle of the desert and it may be the case that the police officers have investigated a thing or two during their careers.

The police would need to find another person who happened to see the entire altercation from the beginning. Though possible, I strongly doubt this will happen. The very best scenario is to have the young man's interpretation of what happened after a white man who tailed him came out of his car to confront him. Who started the fight? Did he react to this perceived threat and throw the first punch? Or was it George who acted first?

EVERYTHING we know so far indicated that George was instigating a confrontation. Called police about someone looking suspicious for no other reason so far than he was black, ignored advice to not engage said individual and left his car to engage this MINOR. Ignoring the operator leads me to the conclusion that George was itching to take it up a notch. The act of following, then actively engaging an individual is THREATENING. Anything the boy did, unarmed, is justified and if he had survived, and George was merely beaten, charges wouldn't stick.

No I'm not apart of the jury, no shit that if we had eye witnesses or surveillance footage of the beginning of the incident would provide a keener picture of what actually happened.

But nothing that comes forward will justify the boy killing just from the fact that he followed the young man in a threatening manner, engaged him in a threatening manner and ignored the operator.

The other option is for me simply not to form an opinion on this case or any other simply because I am not apart of the jury. Why do people become incensed at racially motivated crimes if they are not apart of some jury? If they do not get every shred of detail? Because injustices have been inflicted on black people for centuries and this fucking looks, sounds and smells like racial injustice.

 

[Blackace]

I'm sorry this issue is so blinding for you, because I really can't say anything else, especially when we still have an un-arrested Zimmerman.

a lot of murderers don't get arrested..

 

[KHarvey16]

Anyone?

Unlikely. Otherwise we get into an endless loop of justifiable homicide. If someone does something to justify you killing them, are they then justified in killing you? If justification exists for you to respond physically then I can't imagine lethal force from the other person would be warranted.

He actually doesn't have to start the physical altercation just he had to start the fight.. Verbal abuse is one way to start the fight.. rather it is proved or not in a court of law is one thing.. but while you are talking about possibles..

He would have to do something that justified a physical response from the teen.

 

[I H8 Memes]

That isn't how the law works. Him getting out of his car, even if it's a bad idea, DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM LEGALLY DEFENDING HIMSELF.

I believe it will in this situation. He had already called the police for what he considered a suspicious person that needed a police response. He then got out of his vehicle and approached a person that he thought suspicious enough that the police should be called. He moved himself towards what he considered a dangerous situation. This caused the fight and the shooting of someone who wasn't even breaking the law.


This is much different from the other case I posted where a home owner crossed the street to tell a kid to stop skateboarding where he wasn't supposed to. That guy was then approached by a man who was there playing basketball with his daughter. Argument breaks out and dad gets shot. The homeowner in that situation wasn't approaching the father at all and had only gone into the park to tell the skateboarder to leave.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Unlikely. Otherwise we get into an endless loop of justifiable homicide. If someone does something to justify you killing them, are they then justified in killing you? If justification exists for you to respond physically then I can't imagine lethal force from the other person would be warranted.



He would have to do something that justified a physical response from the teen.

Following someone in a car and leaving said vehicle to confront is more than enough to start a confrontation with a minor. You're the only one who chooses not to see that.

 

[Princess Carl]

a lot of murderers don't get arrested..

Well no shit, but this is hardly murder by any standard yet.

Do you mean get off in a trial, or just murder someone and avoid arrest?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Let's play a game!

BOY SHOT BY NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH?
OR
BALLOON BOY A HOAX?

Yep, reactions are all we need. Ever think for a second that perhaps you simply want to believe they are up to something? Let's save the pitchforks for when we actually know something. If it becomes clear they did something, by all means, go for it.

Isn't the amount of blind incompetence assumed in your view of the story as unlikely as the kid doing something? Think about how incredibly blatant the police would have to be to even attempt something like this. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you can't choose it by default because you deem some other scenario unlikely.

This thread is shaping up to be a case study on the affects of desire on judgment.

Only if evidence can be found on the offending parties undergarments. In this case it sounds like a sure thing.

But seriously, it really is interesting to see how little is required to convince someone who wants to believe something. This sort of thing has a lot of implications. And I'm all for discussing possibilities and considering alternative motivations...but some are ready to lock them up and throw away the key.

I never said I had a scenario I deemed likely. I really can't deem anything likely as we lack large chunks of information. That has been my point this whole time. The information contained in other articles and the incident report is illustrating this perfectly.

I don't have a vested interest in proving anything other than the idea that actually knowing things helps when attempting to make decisions.

You've made an assumption based on nothing.

Don't try to be reasonable. They want it to be true, so god damn it it will be.

When making the suggestion to wait for proof of guilt becomes "defending" that's probably a cue to let the thread go. Hypocrisy is a sad thing to watch.

Keep assuming. You and the rest are 0 for 1 thus far. We don't know enough.

Click the arrows next to the name to see if you're right!

 

[DY_nasty]

Fucking LOL

I'm sorry this issue is so blinding for you, because I really can't say anything else, especially when we still have an un-arrested Zimmerman.

So we assume innocence?

He's negligent if nothing else. Cross all lines by tailing and approaching the kid. Ignored police... I mean, hell, maybe he's not innocent? Just maybe? Possibly this is another one of the dozens of cases where a black kid gets shot for almost no reason other than being 'suspicious'

Spoiler

ly black

?

Sure why not?

 

[Blackace]

Well no shit, but this is hardly murder by any standard yet.

Do you mean get off in a trial, or just murder someone and avoid arrest?

both, and as I see it, it is a murder..

 

[Kinitari]

I don't no why you feel the need to come up with these intricate fake stories when the one in front of us makes perfect legal and objective sense given the details. There are plenty of people who know exactly what KHarvey is talking about and we've been trying to explain it over and over for pages. What more can you possibly need?

This... intricate fake story, as you call it - would fall in line almost exactly with what is happening in this situation. The only 'leap' I am taking here is that the man impeded the kids progress in some way - but that assumption is based off the fact that the man called the cops. The cops telling him not to do anything probably implies that they thought he -would- do something. So he made first contact, confronted the kid - most likely asked him questions about what he was doing (tell me if at any point you think I am reaching) and was met with some sort of negative response.

Now what it boils down to is - if the kid then decides to attack him out of the blue, for no reason, pinning him to the ground and all that - then killing him was a 'reasonable' response- but that's a pretty crazy idea, and a lot of people in this thread are probably thinking "Why the fuck would the kid do that?". Without the facts, which we are all running without at this point, people come to the assumption that this kid and this man were not seeing eye to eye, and a fight broke out because of it. Like most fights between random people, it probably didn't start with the kid jumping on him and wailing, but a slow build up - a push here, a shove there, some swearing and yelling then - fight.

That slow build up, in my opinion, would make that 26 year old culpable. Now in my crazy intricate fake story, where do you think I am being unreasonable?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Fucking LOL


So we assume innocence?

He's negligent if nothing else. Cross all lines by tailing and approaching the kid. Ignored police... I mean, hell, maybe he's not innocent? Just maybe? Possibly this is another one of the dozens of cases where a black kid gets shot for almost no reason other than being 'suspicious'

Spoiler

ly black

?

Sure why not?

I wonder how this discussion would change if this was a young girl in the boys position. Wouldn't she be justified in engaging a fight against a perceived threat? The act of following someone in the dark, in a car, then exiting said car is threatening. What if she was shot dead?

 

[Dude Abides]

This "investigation" will likely go nowhere since the only living person who knows precisely what happened doesn't have to say anything, and if he hasn't even been arrested, likely has little incentive to.

 

[Cipherr]

Let's play a game!

BOY SHOT BY NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH?
OR
BALLOON BOY A HOAX?

Click the arrows next to the name to see if you're right!

Oh sweet jesus you have got to be kidding. Wow Harvey.

Seriously.

 

[KHarvey16]

The police would need to find another person who happened to see the entire altercation from the beginning. Though possible, I strongly doubt this will happen. The very best scenario is to have the young man's interpretation of what happened after a white man who tailed him came out of his car to confront him. Who started the fight? Did he react to this perceived threat and throw the first punch? Or was it George who acted first?

Excellent questions!

EVERYTHING we know so far indicated that George was instigating a confrontation. Called police about someone looking suspicious for no other reason so far than he was black, ignored advice to not engage said individual and left his car to engage this MINOR. Ignoring the operator leads me to the conclusion that George was itching to take it up a notch. The act of following, then actively engaging an individual is THREATENING. Anything the boy did, unarmed, is justified and if he had survived, and George was merely beaten, charges wouldn't stick.

Again I see this as complete nonsense.

No I'm not apart of the jury, no shit that if we had eye witnesses or surveillance footage of the beginning of the incident would provide a keener picture of what actually happened.

But nothing that comes forward will justify the boy killing just from the fact that he followed the young man in a threatening manner, engaged him in a threatening manner and ignored the operator.

The other option is for me simply not to form an opinion on this case or any other simply because I am not apart of the jury. Why do people become incensed at racially motivated crimes if they are not apart of some jury? If they do not get every shred of detail? Because injustices have been inflicted on black people for centuries and this fucking looks, sounds and smells like racial injustice.

Those willing to throw around such accusations without sufficient justification risk having the charges lose their impact. You're doing the social justices you're fighting for a disservice while offering absolutely no benefit. Don't be reckless.

I believe it will in this situation. He had already called the police for what he considered a suspicious person that needed a police response. He then got out of his vehicle and approached a person that he thought suspicious enough that the police should be called. He moved himself towards what he considered a dangerous situation. This caused the fight and the shooting of someone who wasn't even breaking the law.

Suspicious doesn't mean dangerous, necessarily. This will not be the case against the man if there is one.

That line of reasoning is a bit dangerous as well. Physical violence cannot be justified by just anything, right? If he approached the teen and he was attacked, unless the teen had some legal justification for doing so the simple fact the man approached him isn't important. Again though if he approached in such a way that did justify a physical response that's a different story.

 

[akira28]

devil's advocacy hobbyist?

 

[Aeonin]

I wonder how this discussion would change if this was a young girl in the boys position. Wouldn't she be justified in engaging a fight against a perceived threat? The act of following someone in the dark, in a car, then exiting said car is threatening. What if she was shot dead?

Yup, same circumstances with white girl and there would be no doubt that he would be arrested.

But a black boy and there is no arrest. Especially since he was able to hold his own in the fight.

The more defenseless - the more chance of being killed illegally by threat.
The more defense - the more chance of being killed legally by threat.

 

[KHarvey16]

Let's play a game!

BOY SHOT BY NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH?
OR
BALLOON BOY A HOAX?




















Click the arrows next to the name to see if you're right!

Oh I'm really feeling insecure in my position now! The initiation of blatant personal attacks always heralds the arrival of desperation. Will this be allowed to remain here?

 

[Cubsfan23]

For some reason I see it like this..

"Hey what are you doing!"

"GTFO"

"Hey *insert insult perhaps racial slur*" (while getting out of car)

"What did you say *insert insult perhaps racial slur*"

Maybe a shove here a shove there and then a fight... boom kid is dead...

you forgot the part where he didn't want to share his skittles

 

[Log4Girlz]

That line of reasoning is a bit dangerous as well. Physical violence cannot be justified by just anything, right? If he approached the teen and he was attacked, unless the teen had some legal justification for doing so the simple fact the man approached him isn't important. Again though if he approached in such a way that did justify a physical response that's a different story.

He's a minor being followed by a 26 year old white man, who then exits the car to confront him. What is a black minor to think?

I wonder how this discussion would change if this was a young girl in the boys position. Wouldn't she be justified in engaging a fight against a perceived threat? The act of following someone in the dark, in a car, then exiting said car is threatening. What if she was shot dead?

What then Harvey?

 

[KHarvey16]

He's a minor being followed by a 26 year old white man, who then exits the car to confront him. What is a black minor to think?



What then Harvey?

How have I not answered all of these questions already? I don't understand what you think you're accomplishing here. I've provided you with everything you need to answer each and every one of these. The fact you see this as an argument confuses me.

 

[DY_nasty]

devil's advocacy hobbyist?

yep

Yup, same circumstances with white girl and there would be no doubt that he would be arrested.

But a black boy and there is no arrest. Especially since he was able to hold his own in the fight.

The more defenseless - the more chance of being killed illegally by threat.
The more defense - the more chance of being killed legally by threat.

And that's whats really fucked up... Stand, fight, and a wannabe cop with a gun gets to play self-defense after getting his asswhooped even though everything leading up to the event points to him being the instigator.

 

[Devolution]

Oh I'm really feeling insecure in my position now! The initiation of blatant personal attacks always heralds the arrival of desperation. Will this be allowed to remain here?

It will probably stay up as long as you're allowed to be so out of touch. Pretty sure you'd be banned for being a troll if you weren't so genuine about your disconnect with reality.

 

[Log4Girlz]

How have I not answered all of these questions already? I don't understand what you think you're accomplishing here. I've provided you with everything you need to answer each and every one of these. The fact you see this as an argument confuses me.

So Zimmerman would have a legal right to shoot a young girl dead after following her and confronting her if she decided to lash out? Wow Harvey, wow.

 

[I H8 Memes]

Suspicious doesn't mean dangerous, necessarily. This will not be the case against the man if there is one.

That line of reasoning is a bit dangerous as well. Physical violence cannot be justified by just anything, right? If he approached the teen and he was attacked, unless the teen had some legal justification for doing so the simple fact the man approached him isn't important. Again though if he approached in such a way that did justify a physical response that's a different story.

The law as it is written is bad enough, I don't think they are going to be willing to let it stretch this far. At that level somebody would be free to start a fight with anyone and as soon as the person tries to defend themselves you would be able to shoot them just for defending themselves from your actions.

 

[Vermillion]

murder

That's what I would have thought at first, but if the kid started the physical altercation then it may count as self-defense.

I'd like to know what else the eyewitness saw - at what point during the altercation did the officer pull out his gun? Was there any warning given? Etcetera.