detlef Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) based on the facts, should be murder 2 at the very least IMO. dumb to make this about gun control, but you can pretty much count on the usual suspects to try and do so any time someone gets shot. Dude, this is exactly about gun control, in as much as it is about laws that deal with how citizens can legally use lethal force. In the (not even very) big picture, the law that allows someone to fire on someone if they have some vaguely defined sense that they're in danger, is very much a "gun control" law. It goes a long way to define how citizens can legally use guns in our society. It sounds to me like it's going to be pretty damned hard to get a case against this guy based on how the law is worded and that law does fit under the umbrella of "gun control". Like I said, this doesn't mean that we need to take people's guns away or make it harder to get them, but, as the story says, there's a movement in this country towards laws worded like this and that is very much a "gun control" issue and in a direction that absolutely freaks me out. So, smart guy, given that the wording of the FL "stand your ground" law (apparently one of the most pro-gun of its type in the country) is smack dab in the middle of this entire issue. In many other states, dude would likely be behind bars right now. Either that or would not have been so emboldened as to have taken his gun and shot the kid to begin with, likely knowing the law was on his side. How is this not about gun control? Edited March 19, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Here are the "facts" as reported in the papers: Zimmerman saw this kid walking in his community (Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch patrol) Zimmerman called the police dispatch number and told them he is following a suspicious person in his neighborhood. Zimmerman was told by dispatch that they were going to send patrols out and not to confront the person. Zimmerman gets out of his car and begins to follow the person on foot. Zimmerman follows this person on foot past a few of the town homes calling to the person. Zimmerman catches up to the person and a fight ensues. Zimmerman shoots the person whom he pursued. A number of phone calls come in to the PD while this altercation was on going. People claimed they heard the kid who was shot calling for help. Kid was shot while he was on the ground with Zimmerman standing over him. Zimmerman has a busted lip and is bleeding from the back of his head when police arrive. A drug unit investigator interviewed Zimmerman and asked leading questions and determined that Zimmerman acted in self defense. These are the "facts" as laid out by the articles I have read. This was very close to a premeditated action. Zimmerman stalked the kid, Zimmerman willfully engaged the kid, Zimmerman had the foresight, or whatever you want to call it, to bring his pistola with him while instigating a confrontation, it was Zimmerman's intent to start a physical altercation with the kid and then he just followed that up by shooting him. Agree here - if the facts you lay out are the facts this guy should never be free again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Dude, this is exactly about gun control, in as much as it is about laws that deal with how citizens can legally use lethal force. In the (not even very) big picture, the law that allows someone to fire on someone if they have some vaguely defined sense that they're in danger, is very much a "gun control" law. not really. to my mind, gun control is about regulating the transfer of guns, making certain types illegal to possess, making it harder to purchase them, etc. the law that defines when someone is justified using a gun, or any other type of deadly weapon, in "self-defense" is not a gun control law. and I will add that it is way premature to assume that the self-defense law is going to protect the dude in this case. they haven't arrested him yet. that is all we know at this point. if they make a final decision not to prosecute, then you can gripe about an overly broad "self defense" law, and I'll probably agree with you. but even then it still won't make any kind of compelling argument in favor of greater restrictions on gun possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) not really. to my mind, gun control is about regulating the transfer of guns, making certain types illegal to possess, making it harder to purchase them, etc. the law that defines when someone is justified using a gun, or any other type of deadly weapon, in "self-defense" is not a gun control law. and I will add that it is way premature to assume that the self-defense law is going to protect the dude in this case. they haven't arrested him yet. that is all we know at this point. if they make a final decision not to prosecute, then you can gripe about an overly broad "self defense" law, and I'll probably agree with you. but even then it still won't make any kind of compelling argument in favor of greater restrictions on gun possession. If you'd like to define gun control in the manner you just did, so be it. I made it pretty clear in my first post that I wasn't going to make this about who can own a gun or what kind of gun they can own. So basically you're just arguing semantics because I made it clear that my issue is not with anything that pertains to what you're defining as "gun control". However, considering the NRA has something to say about broadening the defintion of self-defense, I would, say that it at least has to do with "gun rights". So, whatever. As far as jumping the gun on being annoyed, the self-defense law has already, to a degree, helped the guy out. Dude just shot an unarmed person and is currently not in jail because of this law. It is certainly going to be harder to make a case against him given the wording of the law. Much harder than in the 49 states that apparently don't define "self-defense" as loosely as FL. ETA: I googled "gun control" First link was a wikipedia page defining gun control which includes "the use" of firearms. Other links? Mostly pro-gun websites discussing data about guns, all of which include discussions of what is self-defense. And, in light of the fact that "control" would, at least logically, include defining appropriate use thereof, I'm going to to go ahead and keep thinking that "gun control" has to do, not only with who can own and what not but in defining what is the appropriate and legal use of a handgun. Which this story, absolutely is about. Edited March 19, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It's not about gun control. It's about bigotry on the part of Zimmerman and the local police force. The only only person in this instance who has the right of self defense is dead. And the local police have all the evidence they need to make an arrest and have chosen not to. If the feds don't get Zimmerman, I frankly hope he gets streeted one day in the same manner as payback. And I hate admitting that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 It's not about gun control. It's about bigotry on the part of Zimmerman and the local police force. The only only person in this instance who has the right of self defense is dead. And the local police have all the evidence they need to make an arrest and have chosen not to. If the feds don't get Zimmerman, I frankly hope he gets streeted one day in the same manner as payback. And I hate admitting that. It's not about gun control. It's about bigotry on the part of Zimmerman and the local police force. The only only person in this instance who has the right of self defense is dead. And the local police have all the evidence they need to make an arrest and have chosen not to. If the feds don't get Zimmerman, I frankly hope he gets streeted one day in the same manner as payback. And I hate admitting that. I was reviewing the hurdles that the fed has to get over to charge this Zimmerman dude, doesn't sound promising. If there ever has been a reason for all the Reverend Doctors to get on the pulpit and begin to complain, this is it. I'm heading south if this thing isn't cleared up by next week. I'll probably need you guys to pitch in for my bond... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That's worth repeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was reviewing the hurdles that the fed has to get over to charge this Zimmerman dude, doesn't sound promising. If there ever has been a reason for all the Reverend Doctors to get on the pulpit and begin to complain, this is it. I'm heading south if this thing isn't cleared up by next week. I'll probably need you guys to pitch in for my bond... And this is my point. That it is an issue with the law, not just one that can be brushed off as one John Wayne wannabe and a crooked police dept. And if it's an issue with the law, and this law is among a number of new laws that are defining "self-defense" in a manner more and more like this, than that's what I'm talking about. Again, if you don't like including the legal use of guns under the umbrella of "gun control" than so be it. Anyone who read my initial post on the topic knows that I wasn't talking about who is allowed to own a gun or whatnot. Call it what you want. But this is about a bigger picture issue than just one nut job. If the Feds, who we can't also fairly paint as some backwoods racists, can't get establish a case on this guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 det, it's difficult for the feds to prosecute because it's very difficult to frame it as a federal crime. it's a jurisdiction issue, and this is clearly a case that falls primarily under local law. looking at the law, I think the local DA easily has a case against this turd despite the rather generous self-defense provisions. there is zero doubt in my mind that he could and should pursue homicide charges here. the fact that he apparently isn't....well, I'm not sure what all is at play. hopefully people continue to put pressure on to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 det, it's difficult for the feds to prosecute because it's very difficult to frame it as a federal crime. it's a jurisdiction issue, and this is clearly a case that falls primarily under local law. looking at the law, I think the local DA easily has a case against this turd despite the rather generous self-defense provisions. there is zero doubt in my mind that he could and should pursue homicide charges here. the fact that he apparently isn't....well, I'm not sure what all is at play. hopefully people continue to put pressure on to do something. How about violation of civil rights if the state refuses to act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 How about violation of civil rights if the state refuses to act. That's basically what they're looking into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 det, it's difficult for the feds to prosecute because it's very difficult to frame it as a federal crime. it's a jurisdiction issue, and this is clearly a case that falls primarily under local law. looking at the law, I think the local DA easily has a case against this turd despite the rather generous self-defense provisions. there is zero doubt in my mind that he could and should pursue homicide charges here. the fact that he apparently isn't....well, I'm not sure what all is at play. hopefully people continue to put pressure on to do something. Regardless, I don't see how vaguely worded definitions of "self defense" help much. Keep in mind that, in my initial post, I merely said that laws shouldn't be loosened. Not tightened. To me, a trend towards laws that are more and more liberal (not politically, but literally) in this regard is moving us in a dangerous direction. Are you actually implying that FL's very loosely defined law has no effect on this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm still trying to figure out why the kid didn't fire back. I think most likely it is because he was not legally allowed to defend himself from a legally armed racist like Zimmerman. Seems logical that the best thing to do for public safety in Florida would be to allow teenagers to defend themselves from Zimmerman's type. You can be tried as an adult in Florida as early as the age of 14 so that seems like a good place to start making Florida safer - allowing 14 year olds to return fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm still trying to figure out why the kid didn't fire back. I think most likely it is because he was not legally allowed to defend himself from a legally armed racist like Zimmerman. Seems logical that the best thing to do for public safety in Florida would be to allow teenagers to defend themselves from Zimmerman's type. You can be tried as an adult in Florida as early as the age of 14 so that seems like a good place to start making Florida safer - allowing 14 year olds to return fire. Believe me, there are a whole sh!tload of 14 year olds running around FL with guns. It is unfortunate that this kid didn't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm still trying to figure out why the kid didn't fire back. I think most likely it is because he was not legally allowed to defend himself from a legally armed racist like Zimmerman. Seems logical that the best thing to do for public safety in Florida would be to allow teenagers to defend themselves from Zimmerman's type. You can be tried as an adult in Florida as early as the age of 14 so that seems like a good place to start making Florida safer - allowing 14 year olds to return fire. 1) He was unarmed 2) it's pretty tough to fire back with a bullet through your skill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 1) He was unarmed 2) it's pretty tough to fire back with a bullet through your skill I thought he was shot in the head, not his hip or throwing arm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 a racist wanna-be cop killing a kid? Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 1) He was unarmed 2) it's pretty tough to fire back with a bullet through your skill 2 pretty good reasons to allow Florida 14 year olds to defend themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Just started hearing about this story the other day, very disturbing. If this guy isn't charged it could get very ugly in that area. The idea that all you have to do is "feel threatened" in order to kill another person is pretty crazy. There was a recent case here in Ohio (google Matt Warmus) where a young man shot and killed a parking attendant over some minor disagreement and physical altercation. He argued self defense but was found guilty of murder, it wasn't self defense at all since he had gone back to his car to get the gun from the trunk when he could have walked away from the incident. But apparently he was POed at being beat down in front of his GF. If the FL law were in place here, he might have not even been charged with a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 We should definitely ban skittles over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I guess I'd have to hear all the facts of the case before deciding what to do with the guy. I'm thinking that without premeditation the harshest penalty would be life, with the possibility of parole. Here are the "facts" as reported in the papers: Zimmerman saw this kid walking in his community (Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch patrol) Zimmerman called the police dispatch number and told them he is following a suspicious person in his neighborhood. Zimmerman was told by dispatch that they were going to send patrols out and not to confront the person. Zimmerman gets out of his car and begins to follow the person on foot. Zimmerman follows this person on foot past a few of the town homes calling to the person. Zimmerman catches up to the person and a fight ensues. Zimmerman shoots the person whom he pursued. A number of phone calls come in to the PD while this altercation was on going. People claimed they heard the kid who was shot calling for help. Kid was shot while he was on the ground with Zimmerman standing over him. Zimmerman has a busted lip and is bleeding from the back of his head when police arrive. A drug unit investigator interviewed Zimmerman and asked leading questions and determined that Zimmerman acted in self defense. These are the "facts" as laid out by the articles I have read. This was very close to a premeditated action. Zimmerman stalked the kid, Zimmerman willfully engaged the kid, Zimmerman had the foresight, or whatever you want to call it, to bring his pistola with him while instigating a confrontation, it was Zimmerman's intent to start a physical altercation with the kid and then he just followed that up by shooting him. The more I hear about this case (the call to the girlfriend, the possible racial slur, etc.) the more I'm thinking that a charge of premeditated murder may not be out of the question. Damn it! Am I agreeing with SEC=USA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 The more I hear about this case (the call to the girlfriend, the possible racial slur, etc.) the more I'm thinking that a charge of premeditated murder may not be out of the question. Damn it! Am I agreeing with SEC=USA? You wanna get together and snuggle yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 You wanna get together and snuggle yet? On second thought, people need to leave Zimmerman alone. He was totally within his rights under the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Damn it! Am I agreeing with SEC=USA? Your journey to the Dark Side is almost complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 On second thought, people need to leave Zimmerman alone. He was totally within his rights under the law. Dammit.... I was this .!. close to having me a friend...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.