Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's fuckin obvious to anyone with a brain what Zimmerman was up to.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain what No Limit N!gga was up to as well.

He's a so-called "captain" of a neighbourhood watch,

Sounds pretty reasonable. Neighborhood watches are generally made up of nice people.

he's phoned in 46 reports in a month,

There were apparently a fair number of breakins and burglaries in the neighborhood. Some areas are higher crime than others.

he's going around with a gun,

Sounds like a good idea, in a higher crime area.

he's ignored the operator who told him not to follow the kid.

I'm not sure if that part is undisputed. Although, I suppose if you credit No Limit N!gga with the right to walk around the gated, private neighborhood in which he did not live, it might not be unreasonable to credit Zimmerman with the right to tread the same path. Or, perhaps, Trayvon had the right to walk on other people's property, and expect that nobody else would walk there behind him?

He told the operator the kid was black. He said these assholes always get away.
So he sees him as a black asshole.

That doesn't appear to be in the least racist, if that's what you're going for. If the guy was white and he notified the operator of that fact, would he "see him as a white asshole?" Sure. So what? Zimmerman wasn't white either.

He's a typical US gun nut,

Typical Democrat? He is a registered Democrat. Gun nuts, the lot of 'em.

just dying to shoot something or someone. He got what he wanted.

And, I suspect you conclude based the evidence that Trayvon was casing the neighborhood to burgle a house, right? After all, he had been caught with burglar's tools and a bag of women's jewelry before, and this time he was out at night in the rain, walking through a gated neighborhood between the houses. Typical American, just dying to burgle a house, right?

If you can't see that, you just ain't got a brain.

Or, perhaps, you're a self-righteous ignoramus who gathers his information on what a "typical American" is from nonsense fed to him on popular television and State regulated news sources.

[Seabass]

It's fuckin obvious to anyone with a brain what Zimmerman was up to.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain what No Limit N!gga was up to as well.

Is it? From what I've read, Trayvon was staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and had gone out to buy a snack for the NBA all star game. Am I missing something? Is there any evidence to support the claim that he was out to burgle?

[mistermack]

It's fuckin obvious to anyone with a brain what Zimmerman was up to.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain what No Limit N!gga was up to as well.

Is it? From what I've read, Trayvon was staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and had gone out to buy a snack for the NBA all star game. Am I missing something? Is there any evidence to support the claim that he was out to burgle?

Coito has trouble seeing the bleeding obvious. He only sees what he wants to see, and that's the good "captain" shooting up the bad guys, not some loony murdering a kid on a sweetie run.

I'm beginning to suspect Coito's got ambitions to make "captain" himself.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's fuckin obvious to anyone with a brain what Zimmerman was up to.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain what No Limit N!gga was up to as well.

Is it? From what I've read, Trayvon was staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and had gone out to buy a snack for the NBA all star game. Am I missing something? Is there any evidence to support the claim that he was out to burgle?

As much or more evidence as there is that Zimmerman was a "gun nut" (typical, or otherwise) who just had a hankerin' to shot him a nigger, which was my point.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's fuckin obvious to anyone with a brain what Zimmerman was up to.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain what No Limit N!gga was up to as well.

Is it? From what I've read, Trayvon was staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and had gone out to buy a snack for the NBA all star game. Am I missing something? Is there any evidence to support the claim that he was out to burgle?

Coito has trouble seeing the bleeding obvious. He only sees what he wants to see, and that's the good "captain" shooting up the bad guys, not some loony murdering a kid on a sweetie run.

I'm beginning to suspect Coito's got ambitions to make "captain" himself.

That sounds like you're describing yourself. If you aren't able to see the obvious fact that I was responding to your moronic generalization about Americans as gun nuts, and your conclusions based on your preconceived notions that Mr. Zimmerman just wanted to go out and shoot someone, then you're stupider than I thought you were.

You only see what YOU want to see, which is American gun nuts who want to run around shooting black people. You're a brainwashed fool and you couldn't be objective if you tried. You're so simple-minded that your view on any topic, and any news item, is known before you even type. I could type your views for you. They bear no relation to the facts, and are always consistent with your preconceived notions and agenda.

That must be the way "typical" enlightened Yerpeeins do things these days.

[mistermack]

I always think that actions speak louder than words.

This twat went out and killed an unarmed kid. That was his actions.
The kid bought sweets and iced tea. Actions, but slightly less drastic.

You side with the loony gun-nut if you like. It speaks volumes for your mentality.

[FBM]

Hmm. Why does everyone seem to assume that one person was innocent and the other guilty. Why can't both of them be guilty? Why couldn't both of them have fucked up at the same time?

[Seth]

I always think that actions speak louder than words.

This twat went out and killed an unarmed kid.

The "kid" wasn't unarmed, he had two arms with fists and fingers on each arm, and he wasn't a "kid" he was a strapping 17 year old youth fully capable of beating someone to death with his bare hands.

That was his actions.

And he may have been fully legally justified in doing so. We don't know all the fact yet. That's what juries and trials are for.

The kid bought sweets and iced tea.

He's not a "kid," he's a strapping 17 year old youth who may have sucker-punched the other guy from behind, knocked him down and jumped on him and began beating him with his fists, smacking they guy's head on the concrete (which can easily fracture a skull and kill someone) and told the guy he was going to die. What he bought at the store has nothing to do with his actions.

Actions, but slightly less drastic.

But not his only actions, or so it seems.

You side with the loony gun-nut if you like.

I side with the law, and the orderly administration of justice and things like the presumption of innocence and guilt being determined at trial. I also side with law-abiding individuals carrying personal firearms so that they can shoot dead teenage thugs who try to kill them when and if such a thing happens.

It speaks volumes for your mentality.

Shame on you. This is uncalled for and has been reported.

[Seth]

he's ignored the operator who told him not to follow the kid.

Here's a clue about "operators" (police dispatchers) and their authority to tell people what to do: They don't have any authority to do so, nor are citizens obliged to listen to or obey what police dispatchers tell you to do. Police dispatchers (and I was one for seven years after I retired from police work, so I know whereof I speak) sit behind a desk, answer phones and dispatch police units. They sometimes have EMD training so that they can give first aid instructions over the phone, but they don't (generally) have law enforcement training, much less expertise or remote-sensing equipment that allows them to know what the instant situation is in the field, so they have only one basis upon which to tell someone to do something: department policy, which is ALWAYS to tell the citizen to let the police handle it, regardless of the situation. They will NEVER be authorized to tell a citizen "Go ahead and do X" because that can make the department liable for what happens because doing so effectively "deputizes" the citizen and puts the dispatcher, and the department on the hook for damages.

You'll note that the stories quote the dispatcher as saying "we don't need you to do that." This is an ambiguous statement that neither authorizes the individual to do anything nor forbids him from doing anything.

And it's equally important to understand that not even a police officer can tell a citizen not to act in an emergency, a crime, or in self-defense. Citizens can simply ignore the police and do what they believe to be necessary...and face judgment of their actions in court. A cop may arrest someone for doing something they've advised them not to do, but it has to be because they committed a crime in doing so, not because they disobeyed the police.

That's why cops (and I was one for a long time) rarely tell citizens not to do something, or to do something, they usually just provide a warning of consequences if what the person intends to do is a crime. Otherwise, they will let you do what you think you need to do unless it's going to hurt someone else unlawfully. And no smart cop is going to take on the responsibility of telling a citizen who's being attacked not to defend themselves lest they become responsible for damages the same way a dispatcher would be responsible.

On exceedingly rare occasions, a police officer will officially deputize someone to assist the officer at need. This usually doesn't happen in urban areas, and is somewhat more common, though still rare, in rural areas where officers may be working alone, with backup far away. And when an officer does so, HE is responsible for both the safety of the citizen and for the ACTIONS of the citizen.

If a cop tells me "take this gun and point it at this bad guy and shoot him if he moves" and the bad guy sneezes and I shoot him, it is the officer who will be held liable for that shooting, not me. By law, I will be absolved of liability because I was following the orders of a police officer.

So, the fact that Zimmerman "disobeyed" the advice of the dispatcher is completely and utterly meaningless so far as the law is concerned.

[Ian]

That's nice. Now go explain that to his family.

And if Trayvon's strapping young fists means that he was armed, does that mean cops are free to shoot people who refuse to put down their hands when told to do so?

[Seth]

That's nice. Now go explain that to his family.

Explain what? That "the kid" was not a "kid" and was fully capable of killing someone or assaulting them in was that raised a reasonable belief that the victim was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm? I imagine they know that already.

And if Trayvon's strapping young fists means that he was armed, does that mean cops are free to shoot people who refuse to put down their hands when told to do so?

Perhaps. Depends on what the people are doing with their hands when they fail to respond to police commands. And yes, there are times when the police can shoot someone who is armed only with his hands, so can citizens.

People who like to beat the crap out of other people with their fists would do well to remember this fact. Fistfights are not harmless fun, and all too often someone gets killed or permanently seriously injured. That's why I always try to bring a gun to a fistfight...because it puts a stop to the threat usually without having to shoot anyone at all.

This may not be the case in Mr. Zimmerman's situation however. Time will tell and a jury will rule. I'm satisfied to wait till then to render my own judgment. I can see both sides of the situation and know that who deserved what depends on the precise circumstances at the time and that general conclusions cannot be drawn without very specific and detailed knowledge of exactly what happened.

[Ian]

And Poe's Law rears its head again.

[Tyrannical]

What is police procedure when approaching a suspicious person

Something like unbuttoning the clasp on their holster and keeping their hand near their holstered weapon? If Zimmerman did that I suspect no_limit_nigga would not have attempted an assault and Zimmerman would escort him back to the house he was staying at. And everyone lived happily ever after

[Warren Dew]

Hmm. Why does everyone seem to assume that one person was innocent and the other guilty. Why can't both of them be guilty? Why couldn't both of them have fucked up at the same time?

Considering one is dead and the other has been forced into hiding, I'd say it's pretty clear both of them messed up at the same time.

That said, they could both also be innocent of any crimes.

[Ian]

What is police procedure when approaching a suspicious person

Something like unbuttoning the clasp on their holster and keeping their hand near their holstered weapon? If Zimmerman did that I suspect no_limit_nigga would not have attempted an assault and Zimmerman would escort him back to the house he was staying at. And everyone lived happily ever after

If it had been a cop in uniform doing exactly that then that might've been what happened. But this was just some guy in plain clothes and a gun with no badge walking up to a teenager. I might've been scared enough to try and punch the guy's lights out if he was up close and began harassing me. Or are we assuming that Zimmerman began the encounter a good distance away and started with a polite "Excuse me... young man?"