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

[Tero]

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.

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]

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.

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?

You can, but it would be an unlawful killing.

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 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.

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 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!

[Coito ergo sum]

Just establishing the boundaries. So Z the idiot actually had to get close enough to M to accuse him of trespassing.

No. Z did not have to accuse M of trespassing. Of what relevance would an accusation of trespassing be here?

While waiting for the police and while not identifying himself as someone with a verbal contract.

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?

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!

What contract are you referring to? What is this bit about "contracts?"

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]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

No he did not.

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.

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.

He didn't need a verbal contract for any reason to do anything he was accused of doing that night.

This was not a street or a shopping mall. A private area. See the photo.

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.

He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.

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]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I live in a gated community, I would not want unpaid security snooping around.

So? There are many things individual citizens want and don't want.

However, that doesn't mean Z wasn't perfectly lawfully sitting in his truck watching goings on.

They would go through back yard common areas and look thru sliding door windows.

That isn't anything Z is accused of doing. Although Z said he saw M doing something quite like that.

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.

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?

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]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

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.

[Seth]

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.

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.

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.

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.

He overstepped his duties. Kick him out od the condo. Condos have rules.

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.

[Seth]

If I live in a gated community, I would not want unpaid security snooping around.

Doesn't matter what you want.

They would go through back yard common areas and look thru sliding door windows.

So can anyone who is lawfully present in that common area. Close your fucking blinds.

If I want that, I will go to condo meeting and have them hire trained professionals.

Probably a good idea. Not at all relevant to this situation.

If the condo has no money, pairs of volunteers with cell phones.

Again, good idea, but entirely irrelevant in this case.

No contract? Then he overstepped.

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.

Z had an unofficial role, job, the only reason he could confront...rather than just report..a suspicious person.

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.

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.

[Tero]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 0410.story

[Tero]

What will Zimmerman be charged with? Seems self defense is the best strategy, not involving stand your ground law.