Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Raisen
great discouragement for entering another person's home where their children sleep. would you really feel bad for the criminal in this situation?
do you believe citizens should be allowed to possess weapons like guns?

If a person broke into my home and just wanted to steal, I'd rather file some insurance claims than kill them. So I would feel some sympathy for a thief that was killed for stealing, as I don't believe death is a just punishment for thievery.

If they were there to harm me or my family, I don't think I'd have an with shooting them dead. But I've never been in that situation.

Originally posted by Robtard
If a person broke into my home and just wanted to steal, I'd rather file some insurance claims than kill them. So I would feel some sympathy for a thief that was killed for stealing, as I don't believe death is a just punishment for thievery.

If they were there to harm me or my family, I don't think I'd have an with shooting them dead. But I've never been in that situation.

the act of going into another person's HOME shows complete disregard for the other person and their children. how do you know this person isn't there to hurt you? you do know that more often than not, once the home invader sees you, it escalates to violence.

what are you going to do? hide under your bed and not make a sound? sit down with the guy over some tea and discuss his intentions? this soft ass pc b.s. is just too much. i'm not willing to hand my damn home and my city over to the criminals.

I know people in LAPD that have been on the job for 20 years. they have seized hundreds of weapons used in crimes. only one was registered.....

i'll continue to carry. thank you very much.

I don't buy the 1 in several hundreds, but it is pretty well known that most crimes are perpetrated with unregistered guns in the US.

Originally posted by Raisen

I know people in LAPD that have been on the job for 20 years. they have seized hundreds of weapons used in crimes. only one was registered.....

anecdotal evidence for the win

Originally posted by Raisen
great discouragement for entering another person's home where their children sleep. would you really feel bad for the criminal in this situation?
do you believe citizens should be allowed to possess weapons like guns?

In Florida this is not the case simply in your home, in fact the only time you do not have absolute legal protection from prosecution for murder is while breaking into someone's home. Lethal force is always the correct choice in Floria, no matter the context. You can (and should) shoot a man dead on the street because you personally dislike him.

Originally posted by Raisen
you do know that more often than not, once the home invader sees you, it escalates to violence.

That might have something to do with violence being part of the definition of home invasion.

Originally posted by juggerman
Which I find a little silly since according to their own witness Zimmerman was screaming for help.

I believe only one of them did. If we wanted to make a tally, I think it is like 4-4 or 4-5 in favor of the defense in terms of identifying someone screaming on the phone call. I tend to think you are over-blowing the significance of Mr. Good's testimony.

The defense has called a good number of witnesses... not just the GF, who of course the media has gone ape-shit about because she had trouble reading...

Originally posted by juggerman
She was. She said she heard Martin ask “Why are you following me for?” to which Zimmerman replied “What are you doing?” and then Martin asked the same thing again and then she heard a “THUMP” and the phone disconnected. Not that it tells who may have thrown the first punch, it tells me since Zimmerman was actively keeping his distance that it was most likely Martin that walked up to Zimmerman, not the other way around.

so, to me, all that says is there was a face-to-face confrontation and someone made it physical. We could infer it was Treyvon, but the defense has gone to pains trying to show Zimmerman is a terrible fighter (his MMA instructor classified him as soft, non-athletic and unable to throw a punch, even after a year of training), so, idk really. I'm not so into the interpretation or speculation as you are, as that is coming mostly from news organizations and lawyers.

I didn't realize they actually had it on tape, but I think my point still stands, there is actually no evidence that suggests who initiated the conflict. For someone in your position, who is actively trying to argue his innocence, this is a good thing. The presumption of innocence means the prosecution needs to prove it was Zimmerman, there being a question about it means there is still a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was doing anything other than defending himself.

Originally posted by juggerman
It was a little bit after he ended his call to 9-1-1.

ah, my mistake

Originally posted by juggerman
Yes I can agree with this. But if you’re fearful and you’re almost home why turn back and confront the man following you? It just seems like he actively tried to confront Zimmerman instead of just walking home.

actually, the description of the phone call you just gave me refutes Zimmerman's story of the confrontation. Zimmerman, and his team, characterize it as Treyvon "sneaking up" or even "jumping out of the bushes", whereas that call makes it clear they saw each other and spoke.

Originally posted by Raisen
great discouragement for entering another person's home where their children sleep. would you really feel bad for the criminal in this situation?
do you believe citizens should be allowed to possess weapons like guns?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The problem is that as I understand it the law also allows a wounded criminal to press charges if they're hurt while attempting to rob you, so legally speaking people are better off it they kill a thief even if the thief is incapacitated and no longer presents an immediate danger.

A criminal can try sue you but those cases get thrown out everywhere. It's only innocent people you should kill in Florida.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The problem is that as I understand it the law also allows a wounded criminal to press charges if they're hurt while attempting to rob you, so legally speaking people are better off it they kill a thief even if the thief is incapacitated and no longer presents an immediate danger.

to prove lethal force self-defense in Florida, you have to demonstrate:

A) you felt your life was in danger

B) a reasonable person would have felt their life was in danger

My assumption is that it is far easier to prove that when then only other witness is dead, rather than having to justify using lethal force against a robber who gets to tell their side of the story.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The problem is that as I understand it the law also allows a wounded criminal to press charges if they're hurt while attempting to rob you, so legally speaking people are better off it they kill a thief even if the thief is incapacitated and no longer presents an immediate danger.

I do understand your qualm. I don't like that ^^ either, however, people use this to justify citizens not having guns at all. maybe it works in other countries, but i'm glad i'm allowed to carry in places like L.A. I guess the social conditions change everything

Apparently closing statements were supposed to start at 10am EST today, haven't seen any of it yet 🙁

Originally posted by Oliver North
I believe only one of them did. If we wanted to make a tally, I think it is like 4-4 or 4-5 in favor of the defense in terms of identifying someone screaming on the phone call. I tend to think you are over-blowing the significance of Mr. Good's testimony.

Yes only one, that's whom i was refferring. Sorry if i didn't make that clear. The only eyewitness to the actual fight was Mr Good who heard Zimmerman calling for help. That's really enough for me since nobody else can say for sure who was on the tape.

Originally posted by Oliver North
[QUOTE=14382349]Originally posted by Oliver North
[B]The defense has called a good number of witnesses... not just the GF, who of course the media has gone ape-shit about because she had trouble reading...

The public is so f*cked up for talking about that girl like that imo

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, to me, all that says is there was a face-to-face confrontation and someone made it physical. We could infer it was Treyvon, but the defense has gone to pains trying to show Zimmerman is a terrible fighter (his MMA instructor classified him as soft, non-athletic and unable to throw a punch, even after a year of training), so, idk really. I'm not so into the interpretation or speculation as you are, as that is coming mostly from news organizations and lawyers.

I'm just going from what the witnesses have said. She claimed that Trayvon told her he was being followed but not approached which tells me that Zimmerman was not trying to have an altercation. Then she said Trayvon spoke 1st which tells me that he most likely approached Zimmerman and not the other way around. As for who hit first i honestly don't know but since it does seem like Zimmerman was trying to avoid an altercation i'm inclined to believe he wouldn't be so quick to just throw a punch here.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I didn't realize they actually had it on tape, but I think my point still stands, there is actually no evidence that suggests who initiated the conflict. For someone in your position, who is actively trying to argue his innocence, this is a good thing. The presumption of innocence means the prosecution needs to prove it was Zimmerman, there being a question about it means there is still a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was doing anything other than defending himself.

Well yes i can't say for sure who threw the first punch and i won't try to say it was surely one or the other. But the way they facts are looking to me is that it's more likely imo that Martin swung first. But honestly that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ah, my mistake

actually, the description of the phone call you just gave me refutes Zimmerman's story of the confrontation. Zimmerman, and his team, characterize it as Treyvon "sneaking up" or even "jumping out of the bushes", whereas that call makes it clear they saw each other and spoke.

Yes i agree that Zimmerman's story conflicts with her's but i'd give more credit to her's here. Things may have happened fast and he may not have recalled the quick conversation. Or maybe he recalled it later and decided to keep mum since his story was already being attacked for not remaining exactly the same. Or maybe he's just a liar. I believed she was telling the truth

Originally posted by Oliver North
Apparently closing statements were supposed to start at 10am EST today, haven't seen any of it yet 🙁

The prosecution staged a coup. The are now trying to get the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of murder in the 3rd degree(i think) by citing the incident as child abuse

Originally posted by juggerman
The prosecution staged a coup. The are now trying to get the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of murder in the 3rd degree(i think) by citing the incident as child abuse

this is so retarded. the dude didn't commit a crime. he got a little to big for his britches tho lol, but he's not a criminal. let him go then change the law. let the family sue him in civil court

Originally posted by juggerman
The prosecution staged a coup. The are now trying to get the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of murder in the 3rd degree(i think) by citing the incident as child abuse

hadn't seen that. Just watching the stuff from last night where the prosecution is trying to have certain witness testimony excluded because they had colluded with the defense team in ways they weren't allowed to, or had done independent research on the trial.

It's really weird imho... Is there really no "reckless behaviour" or "criminal negligence" charge they could go for? I can't see how those wouldn't stick...

Originally posted by Raisen
I do understand your qualm.

Let's remove guns altogether and maybe you'll understand the problem. At the pharmacy my dad used to work at there was a series of breakins a few years back. In one particularly memorable incident a homeless man who'd tried to enter through the roof fell through the roof and sprained his ankle. Luckily there was a barrel full of canes right next to where he fell, so he was able to take one and limp away with it. A security camera caught all of this. The man was allowed to keep the cane, and the store even apologized to him because he was possibly within his rights to sue them.

That's how stupid Florida law is.

It has nothing to do with guns.

If guns didn't exist, Florida laws would still be idiotic.

Understand now?

Originally posted by juggerman
The prosecution staged a coup. The are now trying to get the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of murder in the 3rd degree(i think) by citing the incident as child abuse

actually, do you have a link for that? depending on how the law is defined, it might be a really sneaky move by the prosecution...

Starts ~20 min in, worth watching if you have the time/patience. Prosecution gets some teeth:

YouTube video

Originally posted by Raisen
the act of going into another person's HOME shows complete disregard for the other person and their children. how do you know this person isn't there to hurt you? you do know that more often than not, once the home invader sees you, it escalates to violence.

what are you going to do? hide under your bed and not make a sound? sit down with the guy over some tea and discuss his intentions? this soft ass pc b.s. is just too much. i'm not willing to hand my damn home and my city over to the criminals.

I know people in LAPD that have been on the job for 20 years. they have seized hundreds of weapons used in crimes. only one was registered.....

i'll continue to carry. thank you very much.

It certainly does and I'd want them jailed/punished for stealing, not dead though. Or they run out of the house cos they were there to just steal and not rape murder kill. There's always that chance.

Don't know really, never been in a situation. If I heard a burglar breaking into my home, I'd probably first employ the tactic of yelling "I'm armed and the cops are on the way" and seeing if that scares them out of the house before charging and opening fire like a badass. In fact, there's the chance that firing upon an armed thief would make him use his weapon back, when he normally wouldn't.

And?

You do what you like, I just hope people like you don't kill anyone for the act of thievery. Remember that old idiot who not long ago pulled out his gun and started firing like some wannabe Rambo? He could have turned what would have been a robbery into a bloodbath; luckily no one died.

have yet to watch the whole thing, this should be the place where murder 3 is brought up, more generally arguments about what charges the jury will consider:

YouTube video