So if the guy 100 yards in front of me, who is clearly aware of me pulls out a bag of skittles, then I can shoot him? Or do I need to go closer and see the "can of soda" in the other hand? If he is "acting weird", can I tazer him?Coito ergo sum wrote:
It is even more limited than that -- you have no legal obligation to retreat IF you have a right of self defense. If someone is following you, you do not, by virtue of stand your ground, have the right to initiate force to respond to the potential threat.
Stand your ground does not apply in a situation where you are not in reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm (ie when self-defense comes into play). In other words, you can't say "I thought that guy 100 yards behind me was following me, so I turned and shot him, just in case." That's not "stand your ground" because you weren't acting in self-defense.
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
You can, but it would be an unlawful killing.Tero wrote:So if the guy 100 yards in front of me, who is clearly aware of me pulls out a bag of skittles, then I can shoot him?Coito ergo sum wrote:
It is even more limited than that -- you have no legal obligation to retreat IF you have a right of self defense. If someone is following you, you do not, by virtue of stand your ground, have the right to initiate force to respond to the potential threat.
Stand your ground does not apply in a situation where you are not in reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm (ie when self-defense comes into play). In other words, you can't say "I thought that guy 100 yards behind me was following me, so I turned and shot him, just in case." That's not "stand your ground" because you weren't acting in self-defense.
If he attacks you, you can defend yourself. If you are in reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm, then you can use lethal force.Tero wrote: Or do I need to go closer and see the "can of soda" in the other hand? If he is "acting weird", can I tazer him?
If you taze someone for "acting weird", you are guilty of assault and battery. If he dies, probably manslaughter.
If you shoot someone because he is holding skittles or a can of soda, or both, and he dies, then you'd probably be guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.
Are these really questions that you find difficult to answer?
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
Just establishing the boundaries. So Z the idiot actually had to get close enough to M to accuse him of trespassing. While waiting for the police and while not identifying himself as someone with a verbal contract.
We can assume the contract did not include arresting, he was not paid enough for that. And he had no mall cop handcuffs.
Hey kid! I have a verbal contract! And gun! Stay still cocksucker!
We can assume the contract did not include arresting, he was not paid enough for that. And he had no mall cop handcuffs.
Hey kid! I have a verbal contract! And gun! Stay still cocksucker!
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
No. Z did not have to accuse M of trespassing. Of what relevance would an accusation of trespassing be here?Tero wrote:Just establishing the boundaries. So Z the idiot actually had to get close enough to M to accuse him of trespassing.
What relevance would Z identifying himself as "someone" with a verbal contract be? Would M have some obligation to identify himself as someone? Or, does M have a right to be there, but Z not?Tero wrote: While waiting for the police and while not identifying himself as someone with a verbal contract.
What contract are you referring to? What is this bit about "contracts?"Tero wrote:
We can assume the contract did not include arresting, he was not paid enough for that. And he had no mall cop handcuffs.
Hey kid! I have a verbal contract! And gun! Stay still cocksucker!
Z did not need any contract in order to be in the community in which he lived, whether he's watching out for crooks or masturbating in his truck.
What is it that you're trying to say here?
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
He needed this contract to be poking around people's back yards off the concrete path that M took to get away from the loony guy.
If he had s verbal contract to keep security, it did not unclude pulling out guns and shooting in ANY area that was not his personal condo. This was not a street or a shopping mall. A private area. See the photo.
He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.
If he had s verbal contract to keep security, it did not unclude pulling out guns and shooting in ANY area that was not his personal condo. This was not a street or a shopping mall. A private area. See the photo.
He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
No he did not.Tero wrote:He needed this contract to be poking around people's back yards off the concrete path that M took to get away from the loony guy.
First, he hasn't been accused of "poking around people's back yards." He is being accused of moving through the common areas.
Second, he needed no more "contract" than M needed.
He didn't need a verbal contract for any reason to do anything he was accused of doing that night.Tero wrote:
If he had s verbal contract to keep security, it did not unclude pulling out guns and shooting in ANY area that was not his personal condo.
I've looked at it. Z lived in the community. He is allowed to be on the streets and the sidewalks. The prosecutors have not alleged he was trespassing in any way.Tero wrote:
This was not a street or a shopping mall. A private area. See the photo.
You're not making any sense. He didn't have any "duties" that any citizen did not also have, and he had all the same rights and privileges that any other citizen had. He didn't need a contract to sit in his truck and watch the neighborhood. He did not need a contract to get out and ask M what he was doing there. He did not need a contract to walk around the common areas of the complex. On what basis are you claiming he did need these things?Tero wrote:
He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
If I live in a gated community, I would not want unpaid security snooping around. They would go through back yard common areas and look thru sliding door windows. If I want that, I will go to condo meeting and have them hire trained professionals.
If the condo has no money, pairs of volunteers with cell phones.
No contract? Then he overstepped.
Z had an unofficial role, job, the only reason he could confront...rather than just report..a suspicious person.
If the condo has no money, pairs of volunteers with cell phones.
No contract? Then he overstepped.
Z had an unofficial role, job, the only reason he could confront...rather than just report..a suspicious person.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
So? There are many things individual citizens want and don't want.Tero wrote:If I live in a gated community, I would not want unpaid security snooping around.
However, that doesn't mean Z wasn't perfectly lawfully sitting in his truck watching goings on.
That isn't anything Z is accused of doing. Although Z said he saw M doing something quite like that.Tero wrote: They would go through back yard common areas and look thru sliding door windows.
Well, since any person is allowed to use the public ways, walk in the common areas of townhouse complexes, and even sit in their cars playing private-eye, looking out for Black Bart with his Red Ryder BB Gun, with a compass in the stock, then surely you see that Z did not need a contract to do what he did?Tero wrote: If I want that, I will go to condo meeting and have them hire trained professionals.
If the condo has no money, pairs of volunteers with cell phones.
No contract? Then he overstepped.
If M had a right to walk through the complex, then so did Z, right? Since there is no law against a person asking another person what their business is being in a place, then there is no overstepping there either, right?
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
The court is not going to ignore Zs role. Both sides will play it. M's side will say he was not a responsible adult volunteer.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
All the facts will be presented to the jury. But, the jury cannot lawfully be told that if Zimmerman wasn't contracted to be a volunteer security guard, that Martin could attack him.Tero wrote:The court is not going to ignore Zs role. Both sides will play it. M's side will say he was not a responsible adult volunteer.
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
Your proof of this claim please... As I said before, the aerial view of the community indicates that it's a condo community not individual lots, and none of those "back yards" are independently fenced off. Therefore, it's rational to conclude that the grassy areas between the buildings through which the sidewalk runs are "common property" of the community and open for the use of any lawful resident or occupant. Therefore Zimmerman DID NOT NEED ANY CONTRACT to be where he was because he was a lawful resident.Tero wrote:He needed this contract to be poking around people's back yards off the concrete path that M took to get away from the loony guy.
How do you know what the verbal contract included? Were you privy to the negotiations? And his right to self defense as a function of state law overrides any contract, including one to the contrary that explicitly forbids someone from discharging a firearm in that community. If you are being attacked and you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate, you may use lethal force in self defense ANYWHERE you happen to be, including if you're trespassing on someone else's property. Your right to self defense outweighs all other considerations and laws.If he had s verbal contract to keep security, it did not unclude pulling out guns and shooting in ANY area that was not his personal condo. This was not a street or a shopping mall. A private area. See the photo.
Sez you. You're not only not in charge, you're actually pulling this out of your ass because you don't know what the "condo rules" are.He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
Doesn't matter what you want.Tero wrote:If I live in a gated community, I would not want unpaid security snooping around.
So can anyone who is lawfully present in that common area. Close your fucking blinds.They would go through back yard common areas and look thru sliding door windows.
Probably a good idea. Not at all relevant to this situation.If I want that, I will go to condo meeting and have them hire trained professionals.
Again, good idea, but entirely irrelevant in this case.If the condo has no money, pairs of volunteers with cell phones.
No, he did not. You just don't accept the fact that any resident is fully authorized to approach and contact any person he or she does not recognize as a lawful resident or visitor and ask them who they are and what they are doing there. That's the right of any resident of such a community.No contract? Then he overstepped.
You're simply ignorantly wrong. There is no law that says that a resident of a gated community is not permitted to approach, contact, talk to or question an unfamiliar stranger within the confines of that community. Unless you can cite a homeowner's covenant that explicitly states that residents shall not exercise their free speech rights (which would be an illegal provision anyway) or their right to keep an eye on unfamiliar persons in the community, you're just blowing shit out of your ass.Z had an unofficial role, job, the only reason he could confront...rather than just report..a suspicious person.
What you think is beyond irrelevant here. All that matters is what the law says, and it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
Is this the last thread? I think we need a new Zimmerman trial peanut gallery thread.
Once the trial starts. Looks like a jury trial coming. Forget Jodi Arias. Hang her already.
Once the trial starts. Looks like a jury trial coming. Forget Jodi Arias. Hang her already.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51685
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 8-34-20
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...
What will Zimmerman be charged with? Seems self defense is the best strategy, not involving stand your ground law.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests