Its 2012, it shouldn't be THAT obvious. Holy shit.
I'd suggest you and others read the thread more thoroughly. The incident report clearly demonstrates the OP lacks extremely important details and that we don't yet have the information we need.
Its 2012, it shouldn't be THAT obvious. Holy shit.
Its 2012, it shouldn't be THAT obvious. Holy shit.
Wait.... what's to investigate? Since when is Neighborhood Watch allowed to follow, confront, and shoot people?It's still under investigation.
That makes no sense. Why have gun sales increased heavily and gun violence dropped? Surely by your logic it should be through the roof.less demand for guns, less guns made, less end up in the hands of criminals, simples
Wait.... what's to investigate? Since when is Neighborhood Watch allowed to follow, confront, and shoot people?
"upscale gated black community"?
It didn't have to be said because its irrelevant to the issue.
They aren't. Which should be a hint pointing in the direction that, perhaps, that isn't the whole story(or even an accurate partial story).
That makes no sense. Why have gun sales increased heavily and gun violence dropped? Surely by your logic it should be through the roof.
when gun violence is as high as it is there the fact its dropping is hardly worth shouting from the rooftops, plus with modern policing (everywhere but florida it seems) its a lot more difficult to get away with shooting someone
Because the instrument is irrelevant to the motive and outcome.he was shot so how is it irrelevant
It didn't have to be said because its irrelevant to the issue.
Neighborhood Watch doesn't confront and stalk people. They report. Why was he following him to begin with? He can't get even get to an altercation if he stays in his car.
He just shot a guy. I'm being reasonable here. I'm not saying that the guy is guilty. I'm actually not even saying that yet. I'm wondering why he hasn't even been arrested.
There is MORE than enough out to hold this guy.
Because the instrument is irrelevant to the motive and outcome.
Well if someone's on top of you beating the shit out of you and you believe you're in danger of serious injury, you're allowed to shoot in self defense.Wait.... what's to investigate? Since when is Neighborhood Watch allowed to follow, confront, and shoot people?
Its actually not high and it is worth mentioning as it refutes your claimthe made earlier and modern policing doesn't mean anything, the time for police to arrive is not and never will be quick.when gun violence is as high as it is there the fact its dropping is hardly worth shouting from the rooftops, plus with modern policing (everywhere but florida it seems) its a lot more difficult to get away with shooting someone
GO AWAY
Yeah pretty sure gun violence in the states has been seeing a down turn for like the last 10 years or something.Its actually not high and it is worth mentioning as it refutes your claimthe made earlier and modern policing doesn't mean anything, the time for police to arrive is not and never will be quick.
i want to know what the dispatcher told the guy to do
i want to hear the tape
He just won't.
Yep, its been going downward along with accidents too.Yeah pretty sure gun violence in the states has been seeing a down turn for like the last 10 years or something.
What the fuck? There has to be more details than this that aren't being said, because the police are going to arrest someone who shoots and kills someone in cold blood for just walking on the sidewalk, immediately.
So you know he confronted him and that it was simply because he looked suspicious. How do you know this?
Is this willful ignorance? It looks like willful ignorance. I'm just sayin.Not if the police did not suspect him of murder. If when questioned and the initial investigation was conducted they are convinced the man acted in self defense, no arrest needs to be made. Why did the police come to this conclusion? Were they justified in that conclusion? Suggesting we have definitive answers to these questions is not consistent with the reality of the situation.
Well if someone's on top of you, beating the shit out of you, you probably failed at your Neighborhood Watch duties. How do you get from creating the confrontation entirely to self-defense anyways? That's hilarious.Well if someone's on top of you beating the shit out of you and you believe you're in danger of serious injury, you're allowed to shoot in self defense.
As for follow and confront yeah it doesn't seem like he should have done that.
An important question here is how did this turn physical? The witness only saw something after the fight had already started.
Exactly.You are dodging the question.
When you call 911 and report a suspicious person, you are not to approach them yourself. You wait for the police to arrive and handle that.
Period.
He was wrong to approach the boy himself after calling the police. We dont know what the hell happened after that, but we know the first thing that went wrong, was this guy did not wait for the police to arrive like he was supposed to. He went, armed, up to this guy when he should not have.
This isn't debatable.
If he wants to he can, but if he's posting here about it people can respondManos and Frankie, please make a new gun control thread and you can argue about it there.
Neighborhood Watch is like Bear Patrol.
Well if someone's on top of you beating the shit out of you and you believe you're in danger of serious injury, you're allowed to shoot in self defense.
As for follow and confront yeah it doesn't seem like he should have done that.
Neighborhood Watch doesn't confront and stalk people. They report. Why was he following him to begin with? He can't get even get to an altercation if he stays in his car.
He just shot a guy. I'm being reasonable here. I'm not saying that the guy is guilty for 1st degree murder. I'm actually not even saying that yet. I'm wondering why he hasn't even been arrested.
There is MORE than enough out to hold this guy.
One of the things on which police are focusing is the background noise in a 911 call, the chief said.
"You can hear the struggle and the gunshot," he said.
Police want to enhance the background noise to better hear what went on, he said.
Detectives should complete their investigation next week at the latest, the chief said, and will let the state attorney's office decide whether to file criminal charges.
Dude, this shit has me laughing hard as fuck.Ahahaha
He should already be arrested. I don't know how the fuck that is going over people's heads.Relax guys lol
Not if the police did not suspect him of murder. If when questioned and the initial investigation was conducted they are convinced the man acted in self defense, no arrest needs to be made. Why did the police come to this conclusion? Were they justified in that conclusion? Suggesting we have definitive answers to these questions is not consistent with the reality of the situation.
Dude, this shit has me laughing hard as fuck.
Neighborhood Watch follows a kid, gets out of the car starting a confrontation while armed, gets his asswhooped by the kid, then shoots the kid in "self-defense".
You can't make this shit up lol
If he wants to he can, but if he's posting here about it people can respond
don't forget how he called the police first, which should mean that he was told not to engage and to stay put (assuming the dispatcher followed protocol)
it may not be relevant to the motive but its the reason for the outcome
This too. I can't imagine a dispatcher hopping on the line and saying "No one is going to get there in time - Its up to you!!!"don't forget how he called the police first, which should mean that he was told not to engage and to stay put (assuming the dispatcher followed protocol)
No.... Brandishing a weapon is generally the dumbest thing you can do in any situation. All it does is escalate tension and leave you vulnerable. If you're being attacked, presenting a weapon in that way only means that you can get it taken away or have whoever you're threatening go straight into life/death thinking which leads to much more staggering consequences.I have a hard time coming up with a convincing situation in which you are forced to fire at an unarmed person. Even if you are being threatened/attacked, you draw your gun and - you don't pull the trigger.
I have a hard time coming up with a convincing situation in which you are forced to fire at an unarmed person. Even if you are being threatened/attacked, you draw your gun and - you don't pull the trigger.
Gunshot wounds are not necessarily fatal. Most people survive a single gunshot wound. 50 cent is 40% lead by volume, and he's still walking around.
if from whats been said here just drawing the gun would've been incredibly risky, if mr martin was on top of mr racist drawing the gun but not shooting could've risked mr martin taking said gun from mr racist and shooting him (not saying that woul've happened i'm talking in hypotheticals here) yet another reason guns are a bad idea
You are dodging the question.
When you call 911 and report a suspicious person, you are not to approach them yourself. You wait for the police to arrive and handle that.
Period.
He was wrong to approach the boy himself after calling the police. We dont know what the hell happened after that, but we know the first thing that went wrong, was this guy did not wait for the police to arrive like he was supposed to. He went, armed, up to this guy when he should not have.
This isn't debatable.
I have a hard time coming up with a convincing situation in which you are forced to fire at an unarmed person. Even if you are being threatened/attacked, you draw your gun and - you don't pull the trigger.
Why did he approach him? I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you and others why the answer to this question is so necessary.
Also, you and others keep assuming that the dispatcher told him not to talk to the kid or do anything. Why? Where is this procedure detailed?
Why was the kid on top of the man beating him, if the eyewitness account is correct? Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing? Did the shooter threaten the boy? Did the boy feel threatened?
Again, this is so much less complicated than so many of you are trying to make this. My position is simple and always correct. Yours requires assumptions, mine rejects that process.
Why did he approach him? I don't understand why it isn't obvious to you and others why the answer to this question is so necessary.
Also, you and others keep assuming that the dispatcher told him not to talk to the kid or do anything. Why? Where is this procedure detailed?
Why was the kid on top of the man beating him, if the eyewitness account is correct? Does confronting him justify the beating? Can he not act in self defense EVEN IF the shooter approached the boy to ask him what he was doing? Did the shooter threaten the boy? Did the boy feel threatened?
Again, this is so much less complicated than so many of you are trying to make this. My position is simple and always correct. Yours requires assumptions, mine rejects that process.
Proper procedure is to let the police handle and not send a freaking Neighborhood Watch captain to. Maybe the kid felt threatened because the guy had a gun.