Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
In question form so Harvey will like me:


Did the man approach him first? Gun drawn or not drawn?

Did the man instigate confrontation? Did the kid?

Who escalated the confrontation? Was there a gun involved at this point?

What caused the mans injuries?

The eyewitness saw the fight happening before the shot was fired. Were they fighting over the gun? Just fighting?

Why was the man calling for help before the shot was fired?

Was the shot fired from the ground on his back? Was he shot before then?


All questions that affect whether this is self defense or not.
 
This stuff doesn't usually affect me, but for some reason this story makes my blood boil. High school kid getting skittles for his younger brother, fuckin shot by neighborhood watch.
 
Very frustrating story to hear. I'm just an outsider, I can't even imagine the fury that family members feel in these types of situations.

I hope that justice is served to the piece of shit.

Edit : And self-defense is supposed to be last resort. I fail to see how this kid could have placed the "watchmen" in a situation where he had no other option but to shoot. You have a car, you have feet, if the kid isn't threatening someone else at that particular moment in time, than at the very least get away from him and call the actual cops if you have to. He probably didn't have any empathy for the kid, because to him, the kid wasn't "worth" discretion.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
You are offering details regarding the confrontation. How? You also assert again that some policy prohibits this man from approaching or speaking to the boy. Why? Also, why would his disregard for this policy, even if it does exist and the operator on the non emergency line told him, preclude him from legally defending himself if he found himself in a situation that warranted it?
There is a policy! LOL

No dispatcher in America is going to tell a citizen to don the cape. No aware and responsible Neighborhood Watch Captain is going to ignore the protocol of observe and report.
Approaching someone or asking them questions is not illegal and certainly does not preclude defending ones self. The law is clear here. If the man was justified in defending himself he is not guilty if manslaughter.
Neighborhood Watch isn't supposed to be approaching anyone after calling the police. That's the issue.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Nitpicking? You're completely changing the meaning of what I said! Dismissing one scenario for being unlikely only to default to another scenario that is just as unlikely isn't logically consistent.
we must be misunderstanding each other.
 
There is a policy! LOL

No dispatcher in America is going to tell a citizen to don the cape. No aware and responsible Neighborhood Watch Captain is going to ignore the protocol of observe and report.
Show it to me. And also show me the non emergency(not 911!) operator told this man to stay put. Also explain how, legally, this matters at all.
 
It doesn't even get to self-defense if this guy follows every protocol put in place to keep citizens out of danger.

He should at least be arrested for being Batman. Manslaughter, Murder... all that aside, this guy should not be chilling at home.
Thats not who it works. Again, the police do not determine these things, they can not just slap manslaughter charge on him. The state attorney is the one who does in a self defense situation. Again you and I don't know the full details, it's up the police to figure it out, present it to the state attorney, who determines whether to go for a charge.

Self defense cases are very tricky as even following procedures, to figure out whose in the right is no simple matter. Being in Florida, a grand jury panel of about 20 civilians will be deciding if the shooting was justified, and what charge will be attempted for a trial jury court case.
 
You are offering details regarding the confrontation. How? You also assert again that some policy prohibits this man from approaching or speaking to the boy. Why? Also, why would his disregard for this policy, even if it does exist and the operator on the non emergency line told him, preclude him from legally defending himself if he found himself in a situation that warranted it?
Your devils advocate routine is going a little far here. Fact is that for some reason this man decided to approach someone who he deemed suspicious after calling the police. From what we know, no one was in immediate danger so there is no reason for him to approach especially when he is armed.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
Thats not who it works. Again, the police do not determine these things, they can not just slap manslaughter charge on him. The state attorney is the one who does in a self defense situation. Again you and I don't know the full details, it's up the police to figure it out, present it to the state attorney, who determines whether to go for a charge.

Self defense cases are very tricky as even following procedures, to figure out whose in the right is no simple matter. Being in Florida, a grand jury panel of about 20 civilians will be deciding if the shooting was justified, and what charge will be attempted for a trial jury court case.
I should've been more clear in my post. I'm saying it doesn't even have to manslaughter or murder - he should still be arrested for acting like a vigilante.
 
All that is from the article.

It states that he called the police.
It states that the kid was walking through his neighborhood.
It states that he got out of his car after calling the police.

Doesn't even matter what was said after that point, he was in the wrong from then on.
Please explain to me where it shows what was said on the phone with the police. As we've already learned, he did not call 911, but called a non-emergency number. So this assumption permeating the thread that he didn't listen to the 911 dispatcher's advise (which is not legally binding on anyone anyway) is wrong or at least premature.

I agree this apparent tragedy would not have happened had there been no confrontation, but that does not answer the question of whether lethal force was justified at some point. The big question is still how the altercation started, and we do not have that info.
 
Your devils advocate routine is going a little far here. Fact is that for some reason this man decided to approach someone who he deemed suspicious after calling the police. From what we know, no one was in immediate danger so there is no reason for him to approach especially when he is armed.
But has nothing to do with whether the subsequent confrontation and altercation was murder or self defense.

He approaches and he has a gun, odds are he didn't approach with his gun out or this wouldn't be a thread.

Any number of things can happen between the approach and shot that doesn't end up with murder.
 
Your devils advocate routine is going a little far here. Fact is that for some reason this man decided to approach someone who he deemed suspicious after calling the police. From what we know, no one was in immediate danger so there is no reason for him to approach especially when he is armed.
In fact all we know is he got out of the car. Maybe he called over to the kid or maybe he approached him. Maybe he just asked him a question. In the end, what matters is who initiated the physical confrontation. Even if the man left his car and approached the boy to ask him who he was, he is not then prevented from legally defending himself if he were attacked without threatening the boy.
 
Please explain to me where it shows what was said on the phone with the police. As we've already learned, he did not call 911, but called a non-emergency number. So this assumption permeating the thread that he didn't listen to the 911 dispatcher's advise (which is not legally binding on anyone anyway) is wrong or at least premature.

I agree this apparent tragedy would not have happened had there been no confrontation, but that does not answer the question of whether lethal force was justified at some point. The big question is still how the altercation started, and we do not have that info.
How the altercation started? I think it was the kid jumping infront of the car, pulling the man out, and beating the crap out of him. Poor guy, had to shoot him!
 
Your devils advocate routine is going a little far here. Fact is that for some reason this man decided to approach someone who he deemed suspicious after calling the police. From what we know, no one was in immediate danger so there is no reason for him to approach especially when he is armed.
Just because you have an over-simplified view of reality doesn't mean that it's some "devil's advocate routine", unless that term now means waiting for facts instead of making assumptions. What matters isn't that he approached him, what matters is how he approached him, and how the situation first came to be escalated.

But if you do truly believe that anyone that confronts someone else in any way is automatically responsible for subsequent violence, I'll accept it and just laugh at you.
 
I should've been more clear in my post. I'm saying it doesn't even have to manslaughter or murder - he should still be arrested for acting like a vigilante.
That could still happen, hes being investigated. But instead of wasting time with a minor charge they are dealing with a possible murder case here. If the murder charges are not applied to him, they will potentially go after other charges on him.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
That could still happen, hes being investigated. But instead of wasting time with a minor charge they are dealing with a possible murder case here. If the murder charges are not applied to him, they will potentially go after other charges on him.
They can't do both at the same time? Since when? I've seen guys held for trespassing then eventually hit with much bigger charges while still being held.
Please explain to me where it shows what was said on the phone with the police. As we've already learned, he did not call 911, but called a non-emergency number. So this assumption permeating the thread that he didn't listen to the 911 dispatcher's advise (which is not legally binding on anyone anyway) is wrong or at least premature.

I agree this apparent tragedy would not have happened had there been no confrontation, but that does not answer the question of whether lethal force was justified at some point. The big question is still how the altercation started, and we do not have that info.
What police department in America is going to tell you to approach a guy that you feel is a threat, suspicious, or generally looking shady?

You guys keep talking about assumptions - the idea that they'd green light batman against all policies and protocols of police everywhere AND Neighborhood Watch is a huge assumption.
 
Why are people taking sides with so little information.
For all we know the teen assaulted the man and this lead to the shooting.

There is not enough information released to have a conclusive stance on the situation.
 
What police department in America is going to tell you to approach a guy that you feel is a threat, suspicious, or generally looking shady?

You guys keep talking about assumptions - the idea that they'd green light batman against all policies and protocols of police everywhere AND Neighborhood Watch is a huge assumption.
Why would he need police permission to approach the kid or speak to him? Who has stated or implied he was instructed by police to do anything?
 
I agree this apparent tragedy would not have happened had there been no confrontation, but that does not answer the question of whether lethal force was justified at some point. The big question is still how the altercation started, and we do not have that info.
Was the kid going to make fake Batman choke on his Skittles or something? Or did fake Batman just get mad that the kid wasn't stopping or maybe got physical with him? Since when it is ok to start an altercation while armed and then use lethal force?

The bottom line is this Zimmerman dude was wreckless. If you have called for help, wait in the car. It doesn't seem hard. I cannot for the life of me imagine some hypothetical scenario where the dude needed to get out of the car and confront the kid, let alone an end result of that scenario that warranted lethal force.
 
Please explain to me where it shows what was said on the phone with the police. As we've already learned, he did not call 911, but called a non-emergency number. So this assumption permeating the thread that he didn't listen to the 911 dispatcher's advise (which is not legally binding on anyone anyway) is wrong or at least premature.

I agree this apparent tragedy would not have happened had there been no confrontation, but that does not answer the question of whether lethal force was justified at some point. The big question is still how the altercation started, and we do not have that info.
The only justification I can see for the POS is if the kid had a weapon or if he made an attempt for the gun.

And none of this is fucking justified. White kid, on his way. Black kid, "suspicious activity".
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
Why would he need police permission to approach the kid or speak to him? Who has stated or implied he was instructed by police to do anything?
This shit is getting old and I feel like I'm talking to Opiate about sports or something.

Since when do police advise you to do anything that could possibly put you in danger?
 
What police department in America is going to tell you to approach a guy that you feel is a threat, suspicious, or generally looking shady?

You guys keep talking about assumptions - the idea that they'd green light batman against all policies and protocols of police everywhere AND Neighborhood Watch is a huge assumption.
You seem to think that if you call the police and they advise you to sit tight, that you are legally obligated to do so. That's not the case.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
You seem to think that if you call the police and they advise you to sit tight, that you are legally obligated to do so. That's not the case.
You are if you're neighborhood watch. And if you're going against what police advise you to do.... there's a word for that, isn't there?

Either way, this is something big enough that it means you don't get to sit at home
 
This shit is getting old and I feel like I'm talking to Opiate about sports or something.

Since when do police advise you to do anything that could possibly put you in danger?
So if you call the police you believe you are prohibited from doing anything they don't explicitly tell you to do? Your argument isn't logical. And it still doesn't preclude the man from defending himself, nor is merely approaching someone or asking them questions illegal(if that's what happened).
 
So if you call the police you believe you are prohibited from doing anything they don't explicitly tell you to do? Your argument isn't logical. And it still doesn't preclude the man from defending himself, nor is merely approaching someone or asking them questions illegal(if that's what happened).
How many times will you say the same thing?
 
So if you call the police you believe you are prohibited from doing anything they don't explicitly tell you to do? Your argument isn't logical. And it still doesn't preclude the man from defending himself, nor is merely approaching someone or asking them questions illegal(if that's what happened).
If the kid was white, would he have been questioned?
 
It is incomprehensible to think the guy who shot and killed an unarmed kid isn't arrested. Dy is right.
IF someone is on top of you beating you about the face, deadly force in the pursuit of self defense is legal provided you were not the physical aggressor or otherwise caused that person to legally act in their own defense(like drawing a gun, for instance). There are plausible scenarios in which this killing is legal.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
So if you call the police you believe you are prohibited from doing anything they don't explicitly tell you to do? Your argument isn't logical. And it still doesn't preclude the man from defending himself, nor is merely approaching someone or asking them questions illegal(if that's what happened).
If he wants to disregard what every police and emergency authority in America would put out as far as "Do not put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. Wait for the proper authorities to arrive" then that's on him. But seeing as how this guy is the captain of his Neighborhood Watch, went out of his way to confront a guy that wasn't mid-rape, he should at least be arrested for taking things into his own hands. Self defense doesn't even come into play yet. He put on a cape. I don't even see the point of being so obtuse about this.
IF someone is on top of you beating you about the face, deadly force in the pursuit of self defense is legal provided you were not the physical aggressor or otherwise caused that person to legally act in their own defense(like drawing a gun, for instance). There are plausible scenarios in which this killing is legal.
It never would've even got that far if the cape wasn't on and the guy listened to emergency personnel. That's why he should AT LEAST be in cuffs and not chilling at home. There is no way that Captain America here didn't start the confrontation. He's got to be arrested if nothing else.
 
This guy is probably going to jail if he got out of the car to confront the kid. But in Florida if someone tries to fight you or act in any way physically aggressive towards you the "stand your ground" law allows you to kill them. Even if you can get away from the confrontation you dont have to. Could be why it is taking so long for the guy to get charged.


See section 3.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
 
This guy is probably going to jail if he got out of the car to confront the kid. But in Florida if someone tries to fight you or act in any way physically aggressive towards you the "stand your ground" law allows you to kill them. Even if you can get away from the confrontation you dont have to.


See section 3.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
But Zimmerman was the one who started to confrontation, so the kid should have killed him.
 
No idea. This is not legally relevant.

What prompted the man to report him as suspicious? Remember, no assumptions.
What prompted him to get out of his car and confront him? What prompted him to take out a gun on an unarmed minor? Though there is information missing, It would require truly extraordinary circumstances to justify anything that went down that night.
 
If he wants to disregard what every police and emergency authority in America would put out as far as "Do not put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. Wait for the proper authorities to arrive" then that's on him. But seeing as how this guy is the captain of his Neighborhood Watch, went out of his way to confront a guy that wasn't mid-rape, he should at least be arrested for taking things into his own hands. Self defense doesn't even come into play yet. He put on a cape. I don't even see the point of being so obtuse about this.


It never would've even got that far if the cape wasn't on and the guy listened to emergency personnel. That's why he should AT LEAST be in cuffs and not chilling at home. There is no way that Captain America here didn't start the confrontation. He's got to be arrested if nothing else.
If he approached him and asked questions you feel he should be arrested for this? And again, you assume he was told to stay put.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.