Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[amused]

It's not my fault that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I say.

[amused]

The NRA and gun nuts everywhere have Martin's blood on their hands. Shame on them all for spreading a culture of hate and fear.

With all due respect, that is a crock of shit.

It's an inconvenient truth, but the truth nonetheless.

Yes, it is an inconvenient truth for you that your arguments are a crock of shit. Thanks for admitting it.

It's not my fault that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I say.

[Tero]

Seth made the comment on my thread that Z had the right to confront M. I doubt very much that he did. The "gated community" did authorize Z to be some kind of watch but no salary was paid and no contract signed. I would take Z to court for trespassing on my property if he came our of the car and confronted anyone on my property, thief or not. I would expect him to call 911 and wait till they arrive. He had no training to confront anyone.

[Seth]

The NRA and gun nuts everywhere have Martin's blood on their hands. Shame on them all for spreading a culture of hate and fear.

With all due respect, that is a crock of shit.

It's an inconvenient truth, but the truth nonetheless.

Yes, it is an inconvenient truth for you that your arguments are a crock of shit. Thanks for admitting it.

It's not my fault that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I say.

It's not my fault that you are too fucking stupid to properly compose a sentence.

[Seth]

Seth made the comment on my thread that Z had the right to confront M. I doubt very much that he did.

Care to cite a statute anywhere in the US that says "Thou shalt not confront a suspicious person in your community?"

The "gated community" did authorize Z to be some kind of watch but no salary was paid and no contract signed.

Ever heard the term "verbal contract?" What makes you think that a "salary" is required to make a verbal contract valid? Besides, the First Amendment and the right of free assembly guarantee Zimmerman's right to approach and speak to any person he wishes to speak to, for any lawful purpose that he deems necessary, in any public place or other place where he is entitled to be. There is, on the other hand, NO authority whatsoever for an individual who is approached and spoken to by another to make an unprovoked physical attack on that person merely because such contact was initiated.

I would take Z to court for trespassing on my property if he came our of the car and confronted anyone on my property, thief or not.

And you'd be justified in doing so if and only if the confrontation occurred on your property.

Zimmerman was on "his" property and was acting as the agent of the homeowner's association with its permission and authority, which gives him every right to approach and question anyone he wishes within the boundaries of that property. Which is exactly what he did. Then he was attacked and faced death or serious bodily harm, so he defended himself as the law allows.

I would expect him to call 911 and wait till they arrive. He had no training to confront anyone.

What you expect and what the law allows or requires are two entirely different things. I have arrested many people trespassing on my property and held them in custody pending the arrival of the Sheriff to ticket or jail them. I have every right to do so, and to use reasonable and necessary physical force to effect that arrest.

16-3-201. Arrest by a private person
A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.

Annotations:

A private citizen may arrest for any crime committed in his presence. Schiffner v. People, 173 Colo. 123, 476 P.2d 756 (1970).

Officer outside of jurisdiction arrests with authority of private citizen. A peace officer acting outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction does not have any less authority to arrest than does a person who is a private citizen. People v. Wolf, 635 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1981).

When "in presence" requirement met. The "in presence" requirement of this section is met if the arrestor observes acts which are in themselves sufficiently indicative of a crime in the course of commission. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).

F.B.I. agent had authority as private citizen to arrest one escaping from police station in his presence. Schiffner v. People, 173 Colo. 123, 476 P.2d 756 (1970).

Hospital security guards, like any other citizens, have the power to make a citizen's arrest. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).

An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).

Applied in People v. Lott, 197 Colo. 78, 589 P.2d 945 (1979).

C.R.S. 18-1-707 (2012)

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

All of the evidence currently before us points to Zimmerman acting lawfully in every particular.

[Tero]

Verbal contract does not go very far. I'm sure there are limits to situations where injury or damage takes place. Show me the Zimmerman contract and we can talk.

It was your property. Zimmerman has limited rights in a gated community on common property.

[Seth]

Verbal contract does not go very far. I'm sure there are limits to situations where injury or damage takes place. Show me the Zimmerman contract and we can talk.

You can talk out of your ass all you like, but a verbal contract is as binding as any other, and the Association has already admitted publicly that they authorized Zimmerman to patrol the neighborhood.

That's the law.

It was your property. Zimmerman has limited rights in a gated community on common property.

So what? He was authorized to be there, authorized to patrol the common property, and didn't need any authority other than that provided by the US Constitution to approach and speak to any person he chooses to approach at any time he chooses to do so.

Martin had zero authority to attack Zimmerman merely for speaking to him.

[Tero]

from the wiki bible

According to investigators, while Zimmerman was speaking with police, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. She said that Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why.Investigators said that Martin attempted to run home, but Zimmerman followed him, because he didn't want Martin whom he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime, to get away before the police arrived.When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and told him an officer would meet him.[29] Prosecutors stated that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher's instruction and continued pursuing Martin on foot. Investigators said Zimmerman then confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.The affidavit describes witness accounts of hearing people arguing, what sounded like a struggle, and yells for help that were recorded in the 9-1-1 calls to police.

An untrained volunteer community watch person pursues a stranger who has not been observed committing a crime. What part of his contract was he carrying out? Z was trespassing on the property of neighbors, is that part of the contract? He was supposed to watch, observe and report. The community had not trained, hired or paid an armed guard. The gun was his idea.

Zimmerman house
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/04/30/s ... ighborhood
that is what he owns. He can shoot there all he likes. The street and grass is not his personally. He and Martin entered another resident's back yard. I'll add the photo in a minute. From the clubhouse by the pool, Z followed M to the circled spot. There is no road, a common concrete walk. He can stand on the concrete, when he gets on the grass, he is trespassing on a resident's yard. I don't want any volunteer watchman running around with a gun on my property. I'll deal with the other trespasser.

[Tero]

Yard is circled, club house circled. Z made the 911 call at the club house. Then he confronted.

[Tero]

Sorry it's the same photo twice, editing the post made it disappear.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Amused & Seth,

Kindly take this as a reminder that the posts below are clear personal attacks and against the rules of this site.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1334444
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 6#p1334446
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1334527

[Tero]

No responses either. Z followed M quite a distance till they got in a fist fight in the lady's yard. I would not call it stand your ground. No contract for Z's trespassing and poking around duties was presented either.

[Coito ergo sum]

No responses either. Z followed M quite a distance till they got in a fist fight in the lady's yard. I would not call it stand your ground. No contract for Z's trespassing and poking around duties was presented either.

There has been no allegation of trespassing. He was in the common areas of the townhouse complex, even by the prosecutor's allegations.

It is not a provocation for Zimmerman to follow Martin in the townhouse complex. It's perfectly lawful.

Stand your ground only arises ONCE THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE EXISTS. So, the first question that needs to be answered is whether Zimmerman had a right to self defense. If he did, then stand your ground only means that he did not have run away instead of defending himself.

Stand your ground does not have anything at all to do with Zimmerman walking after Martin. Self-defense might, if it is established that Martin was attacked by Zimmerman and not vice versa. It is NOT lawful to physically attack someone who asks you why you are in the neighborhood or follows you as you proceed through the neighborhood.

[Tero]

Z never identified himself. His act of following M was a clear threat. Arming yourself and following someone is a threat.

[Coito ergo sum]

Z never identified himself. His act of following M was a clear threat.

Under the law on what planet?

There is nothing unlawful about walking behind someone in a housing or townhouse complex, even if the person doing the following suspects the other person of nefarious purposes, asks why the other person is in the neighborhood and never identifies himself.

If, as you allege, that is a "clear threat," which justifies the person being followed to turn and attack, then you are actually extending the law orders of magnitude beyond self defense and "stand your ground." You'd be giving every guy who sees another guy walking behind him in the same direction the right to turn and attack, because to him it appears to be a "clear threat." Self defense and stand your ground doesn't even allow that.