Neighborhood watch captain kills black teen - doesn't get arrested

[iceberg]

that is not going to get a conviction

so it's ok for a neighborhood watch person to follow people around and shoot them in self defense.

if that precidence gets set, just...wow.

 

[vta]

The author of the Stand Your Ground law thinks Zimmerman should be arrested...

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper.

Florida's law, called "stand your ground" by supporters and "shoot first" by critics, was passed in 2005 and permits residents to use deadly force if they "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Link

For what it's worth, I do agree with the law, as being handcuffed to your civility for fear of being charged just empowers your attacker. In this case, Zimmerman doesn't really have that luxury.

 

[iceberg]

The author of the Stand Your Ground law thinks Zimmerman should be arrested...

Link

but we've been told by a certain poster that this was NOT a sign of guilt or having to be responsible for your actions...

but what does he know, he only wrote the law.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense." .

fortunately this isn't true, because if it is true, it is also true of cops.

free people can still follow other free people on public streets (thank god)

 

[Eric_Boyer]

but we've been told by a certain poster that this was NOT a sign of guilt or having to be responsible for your actions...

but what does he know, he only wrote the law.

a politician is defending his bill and you are running with it as if it settles something. :laugh2:

 

[vta]

fortunately this isn't true, because if it is true, it is also true of cops.

free people can still follow other free people on public streets (thank god)

To an extent. But I'm sure if someone were following you and you asked an officer for assistance, he can within his rights stop that person and question them. Cops are granted that authority, which is why it's illegal to impersonate an officer.

Stalking comes to mind when making the claims of having a 'right to follow'.

It's also not reasonable in this case, because he did more than simply follow the guy, but by his own admission confronted him and demanded answers. Given he's not identified as an authority figure, with a badge, marked car, etc, it's bordering on impersonating an officer.

 

[iceberg]

a politician is defending his bill and you are running with it as if it settles something. :laugh2:

ok, i did get a bit crazy on that one.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Stalking comes to mind when making the claims of having a 'right to follow'.

There are due process provisions to lose the right to follow a person on the public street (a restraining order)

 

[Romo_To_Dez]

fortunately this isn't true, because if it is true, it is also true of cops.

free people can still follow other free people on public streets (thank god)

The problem is that some people "Follow" others in intent to harm. Like a man following a woman to rape, a pedophil stalking after a child, a robber looking for a victim.

So knowing that some people stalk to harm this puts people on alert. So if someone strange is following you then how are you suppose to know whether or not they intend harm?


IMO stalking or following another person puts someone on the defensive. It could very well be that this kid thought that Zimmerman was trying to harm him in one way or the other. If someone strange was following you every where you went in a neighborhood or in public would you not be alert and wonder why they are following you?

 

[TheCount]

a grand jury ultimately decides if the case has merit, no?

Jury? He'd have to be arrested first and you've made it clear you don't even want that.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

No, a cop can arrest anyone with probable cause. We haven't even gotten to the trial, most here are just wondering why he wasn't arrested and why proper procedure wasn't followed.

You don't even want him to be arrested, much less to be judged by a jury.

woe, I admit the police did not handle this professionally.

I find it very strange he was not detained and brought back to the station. He should of been asked to provide a drug test as well.

you are confusing my role as devils advocate for something else.

 

[Romo_To_Dez]

Exactly. I've yet to read one single article, column, account, etc., that would justify the shooting of the kid.

Because Zimmerman had a bloody nose forget the fact that he may have scared Trayvon and made the kid fear for his well being and therefore fight back, because only GZ has a right to defend himself, but Trayvon couldn't have felt like he was in danger bu this strange man stalking him.

But I guess now and days a Bloody nose, busted lip, Black eye is the case for fearing for your life. So anyone can bring a gun to a fist fight and if their nose gets bloodied and they are losing the fight they can shot and kill and claim Self Defense.

So know a punch or hit means that your life is in danger and that killing someone just justified.

 

[TheCount]

woe, I admit the police did not handle this professionally.

I find it very strange he was not detained and brought back to the station. He should of been asked to provide a drug test as well.

you are confusing my role as devils advocate for something else.

I must have, and if that's what you're doing then I probably have been too critical.

 

[joseephuss]

Jury? He'd have to be arrested first and you've made it clear you don't even want that.

Is that correct? I thought they could empanel a grand jury and then make an arrest. You don't have to be arrested on the spot at the time of the incident. An arrest could be made at any time.

 

[Cythim]

There are due process provisions to lose the right to follow a person on the public street (a restraining order)

There is no "right to follow" as you are claiming, following can be considered harassment.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

There is no "right to follow" as you are claiming, following can be considered harassment.

yes, there is.

 

[Cythim]

yes, there is.

There really isn't, especially when it causes the person you are following to become alarmed. When Treyvon fled it became pursuit instead of simply following. Zimmerman encroached on Treyvon's civil liberties by following and pursuing him.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

There really isn't, especially when it causes the person you are following to become alarmed. When Treyvon fled it became pursuit instead of simply following. Zimmerman encroached on Treyvon's civil liberties by following and pursuing him.

where do police get the power to pursue?

in a free and just society, you can't transfer rights to others that you do not possess yourself. It is this concept that preserves things like citizens arrest as well.

It's sad that we are losing sight of the logic behind our laws

 

[vta]

There are due process provisions to lose the right to follow a person on the public street (a restraining order)

That sounds kind of like saying theft is not illegal because due process has not been carried out during the robbery. There exist laws against stalking because it's not legal, regardless of the process in place to enforce it after the fact.

Are you saying there is a right permitting 'following' or is there an absence of a law forbidding it?

 

[Eric_Boyer]

That sounds kind of like saying theft is not illegal because due process has not been carried out during the robbery. There exist laws against stalking because it's not legal, regardless of the process in place to enforce it after the fact.

Are you saying there is a right permitting 'following' or is there an absence of a law forbidding it?

the legal term of stalking will normally not apply to a person spending a small amount of time monitoring the activity of another in a public sphere.

generally, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. The courts may error on the side of caution however because no judge wants to find that the person they refused to issue a restraining order for gets hurt.