Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"
 

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/19/...nse-or-racism/

Absolutely despicable. :nope:

Yeah, just read about this yesterday. The 911 tapes are chilling to listen. :nope:

EDIT: Think the link in the article for the tapes is missing the 2nd call?

Anywho, you can listen to it here:
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...nford-shooting

This sounds like an example of a person getting two separate roles mixed up.

First, this man was a member of a neighbourhood watch. As such his responsibility is to report stuff to the police. That is the limit of his responsibilty. His "tools" are a cell phone, flashlight, and perhaps a digital camera.

Separate from this, the guy also was authorized to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. Self defense, not law enforcement.

I think he got the roles confused. Even though Florida has a version of "castle doctrine (which I feel is poorly worded), castle doctrine does not apply to neighbourhood watches.


Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.012 states



section 776.013 refers to when you are in your house or vehicle.


It would be up to this guy to prove that he had reasonable belief that he was in danger of "imminent death" or "great bodily harm" or that there was an "imminent commission of a forcible Felony underway.

Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.031 states



I don't think a member of a neighbourhood watch has a "legal duty to protect". Additionally this guy would have to prove that deadly force was necessary to prevent "imminent commission" of a forcible felony. Section 776.08 defines a forcible Felony.

If his neighbourhood watch is like others I have been associated with (Nebraska), members were not allowed to carry weapons. Probably for this very reason. If his neighbourhood watch has a similar rule, he will lose the protection of being an agent of the neighbourhood watch.

As a responsible gun owner, I don't think this guy acted responsibly. His responsibility was to call the police and then be ready to assist the police with a full and accurate report. While all the facts are still not in, I am afraid this might be a case of a John Wayne wannabe making a tragic mistake.

I heard on the news (so it MUST be true) that this individual has a history of making false police reports. We may have a buckaroo here. :nope:

and this is why im for gun control, because of stupid people. normal people are okay, but wanna be trigger happy cops are a good reason why we need to keep guns out of morons hands

That is an example of gun control as he had a permit to carry. Stupid people become doctors and presidents too.

Sounds to me like this Zimmerman was a bit an overzealous fellow and the Sanford Police kind of let him play his pretend to be a cop game.You can not say for sure but the 17 year old has no record of trouble at all why would he suddenly act violently something seems off.It sounds like this Zimmerman was convinced the boy was doing wrong and chased after him this man is not a Law Enforcement Officer and he was advised to stay in his vehicle "The police will handle it".

I think he approached the kid and somehow it got violent and the boy gets shot.From what I understand there where several witnesses that seemed to conflict with Zimmerman's claims I heard one of the 911 tapes on the radio on it you can very clearly hear a young man screaming for help no way that voice is coming from Zimmerman very disturbing.

Why did Zimmerman pursue this kid? It is clear that he was not armed in any manner Zimmerman could easily have just followed the kid in his car and wait for the police to show up problem if any solved.He also has been arrested for battery on a police officer and the Sanford Police trust this guys word?

Why do the police say he Zimmerman has a clean record even though he had been arrested before that is not a clean record.I think the Police tolerated Zimmerman because he had reported actual robberies before and though perhaps over overzealous (41 calls to the police in 3 months really?) they likely did not think that he would get involved in a highly questionable incident.

According to CNN I saw while flipping though the channels that the watch program Zimmerman is/was a member is not a part of the national system.I am pretty sure that they are not supposed to carry weapons.I think this is a case of an overzealous person with an itchy trigger finger and misunderstanding of laws.The no retreat applies only your home/residence or in or immediately around your vehicle not in a public location.

I understand that Florida Department of Law Enforcement is now investigating which implies that they feel that the Sanford Police are not doing a very good job.

I agree with both of you.

I am a fan of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but this yahoo deliberately inserted himself in what he believed was a potentially dangerous situation after being told by a PD representative to stay in his car.

As such, I believe Stand Your Ground will not apply to this guy in court. I also agree with the article where it states that the police have no say in whether the guy gets arrested or not. Stand Your Ground is a courtroom defense, not a police procedure.

Regardless what regulations that law enforcement must follow they never applied to Zimmerman because he is not a LE officer in the first place.It sounds to me like an overzealous and perhaps overly paranoid man decided to take the law into his own hands on what he believed to be a suspicious person seeing as he did not see the boy commit any crime he as a civilian had no right to chase the kid when he ran away(more than likely because some strange man was following him) Zimmerman is was not a LE officer and not in a LE vehicle any normal 17 old kid would feel threatened by a person in a private vehicle following them.More than likely there was some form of confrontation that ended poorly for the 17 year boy.

This is it in a nut shell. Zimmerman should be escorted to the local PD and booked.

Justice Dept and FBI are getting involved now. Hopefully this piece of excrement gets his.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...trayvon-martin

Which was my, probably poorly worded, point. The PD didn't arrest him stating that what he had done was protected under Stand Your Ground.

I vehemently disagree. If anything, he was the aggressor. It will not stand up in court as a defense, and it is not the PDs call anyway.

He should have been in a cell within 24 hours, once the fog had cleared surrounding the incident.

Does Florida use the death penalty :hmmm:

Yes, they do. :yep:

well by the phone call he made it sounds like he was not under duress when he shot the poor kid so i cant see how this applies. "stand your ground" does not have a provision for chasing down a kid with skittles and shooting him