Pre-Zimmerman Watchman Kills Teen, Claims SelfDefense

[Coito ergo sum]

Is it weird that this did not receive widespread attention and precipitate calls for the elimination of "stand your ground" rules?


http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_st ... -shooting/

[Tero]

Where is this Greece, and does it need bailing out?

[Coito ergo sum]

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Are their calls for New York to change its self-defense law?

[mistermack]

What's not surprising, is that the man was charged with manslaughter, without the need for a public outcry.
But that's probably because the man who did the shooting is black, and his daddy isn't a former judge.

Even though the victim wasn't an innocent kid, on the way home from buying sweets.

If Zimmerman's victim had been stealing from cars, he would never have been charged.

Of course this is manslaughter, and Zimmerman's was murder. But I suspect that both cases will have the same result.
Although the prosecution might make more of an effort this time, as the accused is black.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's not surprising, is that the man was charged with manslaughter, without the need for a public outcry.
But that's probably because the man who did the shooting is black, and his daddy isn't a former judge.

Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder, which is really the only thing that caused a lot of public outcry. Most of the public outcry was from the people that wanted him murdered by a lynch mob because he was a "white hispanic" who shot a black guy.

Why do you suppose there was no outcry about this man?

Even though the victim wasn't an innocent kid, on the way home from buying sweets.

If Zimmerman's victim had been stealing from cars, he would never have been charged.

Why not? Stealing from cars is not a death sentence, and if you see someone stealing from cars, you don't get to shoot them. Even here in the evil US.

Of course this is manslaughter, and Zimmerman's was murder.

This wasn't manslaughter either. He was charged with manslaughter, but found not guilty.

But I suspect that both cases will have the same result.

That justice prevails?
Although the prosecution might make more of an effort this time, as the accused is black.[/quote]

[mistermack]

Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder, which is really the only thing that caused a lot of public outcry. Most of the public outcry was from the people that wanted him murdered by a lynch mob because he was a "white hispanic" who shot a black guy.

Why do you suppose there was no outcry about this man?

Well, as you've just come back from Mars, I suppose it's not surprising you haven't got a clue.
The " outcry " in Zimmerman's case was because he wasn't charged.

I don't know what planet you were on.
(Oh, yes,,, Mars.).

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder, which is really the only thing that caused a lot of public outcry. Most of the public outcry was from the people that wanted him murdered by a lynch mob because he was a "white hispanic" who shot a black guy.

Why do you suppose there was no outcry about this man?

Well, as you've just come back from Mars, I suppose it's not surprising you haven't got a clue.
The " outcry " in Zimmerman's case was because he wasn't charged.

Well, there was as much outcry by his acquittal than the fact that it took political pressure from the Governor to appoint a special prosecutor and the by-passing of a Grand Jury in order to charge him. After he was acquitted in a fair trial by a jury, the lynch mob folks led by Sharpton and Jackson et al were calling for riots and "justice for Trayvon" and Zimmerman was getting threats on his life all over the place.

But, that's right, you live in some dumpy little shack in Europe, so you of course presume to know more about what goes on in the US than those of us who live here, including those of us who live within about an hour and half driving distance from where it occurred.

I don't know what planet you were on.
(Oh, yes,,, Mars.).

LOL - where is your anti-gun screeds on this thread? Where is your anti-"Stand Your Ground" screed here? Where is your argument as to why the accused here shouldn't have "profiled" this "unarmed" teen? Where are all the arguments from you about how the guy shouldn't have been armed in the first place and should have just called the police? And, he should have just taken the beating because bar fights happen all the time and people don't have to get shot over it, right? And, this was "mere property" vs. deadly force, right?

None of that here, eh?

All the outraged masses from the Zimmerman thread are gone. No need to discuss all that here, right?

Why is that?