Florida man 'Stands His Ground' all over an innocent 17yo black boy whom he thought "looked suspicious" and needed shooting

Ahh it was persepolis. You didn't change your bio. I mis seeing his posts too.

CSB time:

I'm walking home talking on the phone with my wife. Some dude creeping behind me in his car when I'm walking down the street.
I walked a little faster, at my wifes prompting (chatting with her on the phone), and the dick kept skulking after me. So I ran. He got out of his car and ran after me. I don't know this neighborhood very well, and got pinned in a back yard and ended up scuffling with the guy.


Looks pretty reasonable from the kid p-o-v, doesn't it? I'd defend myself. This is a ridiculous as the "cop breaks into wrong house, home owner shot for brandishing a gun" crap.

swingingjohnson: Yes. Not even a full grown child.

Huh? Physical adulthood happens a good 4 years earlier than 17.

lard_baron: I'd of thought that widely reported. is it not?

I listened to it last night and I completely missed it.

I haven't seen/heard anyone else mention it either...

valaru: You know, I think this thing might be said on the fox news network.

And certainly would be/will be brought up by our very own resident flashpertLv

sloth: Huh? Physical adulthood happens a good 4 years earlier than 17.

Unless you ask a doctor.

surfnazi: Unless you ask a doctor.

ESPECIALLY if you ask a doctor. Biological adulthood corresponds to the onset of puberty.

sloth: Huh? Physical adulthood happens a good 4 years earlier than 17.

Are you kidding me?

Males don't stop growing until about 20 years old.

This kid just turned 17 last month btw.

Females are full grown at around 14-15.

sloth: ESPECIALLY if you ask a doctor. Biological adulthood corresponds to the onset of puberty.

So you're getting even further away from the claim of "full grown"

lard_baron: I hope you don't own a gun, there's nothing more dangerous than a fearful urban gun owner, fingering his piece for comfort in the dead of the night. I imagine they bought the gun to assuage a fear they cannot articulate. "Its for home protection," they croak, stroking the phallic power symbol lovingly.



LMFAO

I saw where someone quoted you and responded, I thought maybe you were talking to them originally. I feel so blessed that you were actually responding to me.
I like how me defending gun ownership against a hoplophobic retard instantly springs "fearful urban gun owner" to your painfully slow thought process.

The rest of your response is just garbage that doesn't even deserve a response.

swingingjohnson: Are you kidding me?

Males don't stop growing until about 20 years old.

Who said anything about "stop growing?" The exchange was started when someone objected to calling him a child, and someone else doubled down on the child claim. He's not a child - he's at least 4 years (and possibly 6 years) past childhood. He may be a minor, but he's not a child.

sloth: Who said anything about "stop growing?" The exchange was started when someone objected to calling him a child, and someone else doubled down on the child claim. He's not a child - he's at least 4 years (and possibly 6 years) past childhood. He may be a minor, but he's not a child.

Be quiet child.

surfnazi: They handled it like incompetent cronyistic assholes. And won't be called on it.

Welcome to Florida.

sabine: I guess the main point is that we should all be glad that flashlv satisfies his cop wannabe urges by posting here on bN instead of running around the Strip shooting tourists.

Imho, anyone on the Vegas Strip should be shot at least once on general principle ;^P

flashlv: Zimmerman told the police that Martin noticed that he was being followed and asked, “what’s your problem?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html

Good on you for pointing out it was Zimmerman's fault for aggressively following him.

farkmeblind: Imho, anyone on the Vegas Strip should be shot at least once on general principle ;^P

You have humble opinions?

Wow! I never knew that about you.

flashlv: How so? What have they done wrong? The law states that if you are fear for your life, you have zero duty to try to leave the scene. You hve the right to stand your ground and defend yourself.

Now, if the kid was aggressive at all, then this is justified if he really feared for his life. You have to be Zimmerman to know if he was scared or not.

Does Zimmerman have the right to defend himself?

According to the law, does Zimmerman have the right to defend himself if confronted?

Also, Zimmerman seems like a loose cannon and a douche, but doesn't mean he should be charged because people are outraged.

should public opinion overrule the law? Should the cops arrest him and go against the law? Is there any evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal?

If you can answer yes to any of that then legally he did something wrong.

Morally he is an idiot and never should have had a gun, but that doesn't change the fact that he was well within his right to be where he was.

Why do yo uguys disagree with his right to carry a weapon and defend himself?

So, if he's arrested and found guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter, will you agree that he's guilty, or will you blame the prosecutor for corruption or the jury for being stupid or wrong?

paranoyd: So, if he's arrested and found guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter, will you agree that he's guilty, or will you blame the prosecutor for corruption or the jury for being stupid or wrong?

yes, I would. I also think he acted wrongly here and went overboard.

I just don't think they can go back on the law about standing your ground just because of public outrage :/

flashlv: yes, I would. I also think he acted wrongly here and went overboard.

I just don't think they can go back on the law about standing your ground just because of public outrage :/

That's because no one here has claimed they should. This is about a guy abusing that law to perform racially-motivated homicide, not a questionable case of actual self-defense.

swingingjohnson: You have humble opinions?

Wow! I never knew that about you.

Remember when you said "I don't know why you're mad. I never said anything mean to you".

This is why.

farkmeblind: Remember when you said "I don't know why you're mad. I never said anything mean to you".

This is why.

Aw jeez girl.

Can't you take a joke?

That's all it takes to be on your shit list?

You need to sign up for anger management class.

flashlv: yes, I would. I also think he acted wrongly here and went overboard.

BTW, acting wrongly and going overboard WITH A GUN is generally, at the very least, attempted manslaughter. You are hereby agreeing that it was Zimmerman's fault. (You didn't really answer the question, BTW - you basically agreed to all of the choices.)

flashlv: I just don't think they can go back on the law about standing your ground just because of public outrage :/

In actuality, public outrage is EXACTLY how one repeals a law - generate enough outrage and people actually DO something, like vote or write their congresscritters. Citing cases like this where the law is misused, not just by a citizen but by the police handling the case, just adds fuel to the fire.

paranoyd: BTW, acting wrongly and going overboard WITH A GUN is generally, at the very least, attempted manslaughter. You are hereby agreeing that it was Zimmerman's fault. (You didn't really answer the question, BTW - you basically agreed to all of the choices.)



In actuality, public outrage is EXACTLY how one repeals a law - generate enough outrage and people actually DO something, like vote or write their congresscritters. Citing cases like this where the law is misused, not just by a citizen but by the police handling the case, just adds fuel to the fire.

You are correct about manslaughter, but the law says differently in this case. we will have to see what the grand jury says, but I doubt it will go to trial because of how the law is written and no witnesses.

You are correct about repealing the law, but you can't do it and then charge a guy because you changed the law.

swingingjohnson: Aw jeez girl.

Can't you take a joke?

That's all it takes to be on your shit list?

You need to sign up for anger management class.

Not when you do it over and over again, many times not "joking" at all. Then you get all hurt when someone decides you're an asshole based on your behavior.

Act like an ass, people will think you're an ass, and treat you like one. Deal with it.

farkmeblind: Not when you do it over and over again, many times not "joking" at all. Then you get all hurt when someone decides you're an asshole based on your behavior.

Act like an ass, people will think you're an ass, and treat you like one. Deal with it.

Kiss my ass.

swingingjohnson: Kiss my ass.

Jeez boy, it was a JOKE. You need anger management.

farkmeblind: Jeez boy, it was a JOKE. You need anger management.

So you no kiss my ass?

swingingjohnson: So you no kiss my ass?

No, because I still think you're primarily an asshole. I do feel kinda bad for the woman dumb enough to marry you, but that's her problem.

Have a great evening.

/dipshit

swingingjohnson: Kiss my ass.


farkmeblind: Jeez boy, it was a JOKE. You need anger management.

can't you 2 see you're in love with each other!

flashlv: You are correct about manslaughter, but the law says differently in this case. we will have to see what the grand jury says, but I doubt it will go to trial because of how the law is written and no witnesses.

Here's your problem - you've assumed he was right because he wouldn't shoot if he wasn't right so he's right. It's circular logic. You have not taken into account any of the surrounding evidence showing Zimmerman was the aggressor - even though it's been pointed out to you how he was - or that the kid screamed for help - even though you assume he was attacking Z. Why would you call for help if you are attacking someone? You don't acknowledge the 911 tapes, the guy's history of racism, the operator telling him to back off - none of it means anything to you because you've trapped yourself in your own circle of circular logic that says he must be right because he was right. All the evidence points to a completely different conclusion and you just don't care. It's infuriating to anyone who actually uses logic and rational thought to draw conclusions, assuming they actually care about what you think. (I only care insofar as I'm curious. I already know no one is ever going to change your mind.) You've said you would say he was guilty if the law said he was, but I don't think you would. I am almost positive you would blame the court, the jury, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, etc before you'd even begin to think Zimmerman was in the wrong. You should really really really look at that and try to understand why people pick on you.

flashlv: You are correct about repealing the law, but you can't do it and then charge a guy because you changed the law.

How is this even a thing you would think any single person here would ever in a million generations of faulty logic ever think about endorsing?

swingingjohnson: Aw jeez girl.

Can't you take a joke?

That's all it takes to be on your shit list?

You need to sign up for anger management class.

I gave up on actively engaging fmb. She has latching issues.

farkmeblind: I do feel kinda bad for the woman dumb enough to marry you, but that's her problem.


Hey, everybody, look! An unnecessary and hurtful jab at someone not involved with the discussion (calling the mrs dumb, how endearing).

supergrover: I gave up on actively engaging fmb. She has latching issues.

I suck boob just fine ;^P

supergrover: Hey, everybody, look! An unnecessary and hurtful jab at someone not involved with the discussion (calling the mrs dumb, how endearing).

you and he will get over it.

paranoyd: Here's your problem - you've assumed he was right because he wouldn't shoot if he wasn't right so he's right. It's circular logic. You have not taken into account any of the surrounding evidence showing Zimmerman was the aggressor - even though it's been pointed out to you how he was - or that the kid screamed for help - even though you assume he was attacking Z. Why would you call for help if you are attacking someone? You don't acknowledge the 911 tapes, the guy's history of racism, the operator telling him to back off - none of it means anything to you because you've trapped yourself in your own circle of circular logic that says he must be right because he was right. All the evidence points to a completely different conclusion and you just don't care. It's infuriating to anyone who actually uses logic and rational thought to draw conclusions, assuming they actually care about what you think. (I only care insofar as I'm curious. I already know no one is ever going to change your mind.) You've said you would say he was guilty if the law said he was, but I don't think you would. I am almost positive you would blame the court, the jury, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, etc before you'd even begin to think Zimmerman was in the wrong. You should really really really look at that and try to understand why people pick on you.



How is this even a thing you would think any single person here would ever in a million generations of faulty logic ever think about endorsing?

I didn't assume anything though.

The law says he has the right to defend himself. I look at people as inheriently good, and make my judgements based on that when there is a huge unknown.

call that a flaw if you want.

If it is found he was in fact the aggressor, then he should fry. Until than, I give the benefit of the doubt.,

farkmeblind: No, because I still think you're primarily an asshole. I do feel kinda bad for the woman dumb enough to marry you, but that's her problem.

Have a great evening.

/dipshit

Well hopefully you'll find somebody dumb enough to be with you someday so I can feel bad for her.

flashlv: The law says he has the right to defend himself. I look at people as inheriently good, and make my judgements based on that when there is a huge unknown.


flash, if i taunt you until you turn around or approach me then i punch you in the face, am i defending myself?

supergrover: Hey, everybody, look! An unnecessary and hurtful jab at someone not involved with the discussion (calling the mrs dumb, how endearing).

Don't call my wife Mrs. Dumb!

swingingjohnson: Don't call my wife Mrs. Dumb!

actually, she's pretty hott!! ;-)

baron muchhumpin: actually, she's pretty hott!! ;-)


I know.

Thank god she was dumb enough to marry me!

swingingjohnson: I know.

Thank god she was dumb enough to marry me!

now just get her an easy to use camera and you're all set! :)

I didn't assume anything though.

The law says he has the right to defend himself.
So does the kid. How do you make those jibe?
That's why the man has no right to force engagement if not witnessing an occurring crime. (And he doesn't get to assume it is criminal intent, he must be seeing something happening)

supergrover: I didn't assume anything though.

The law says he has the right to defend himself.
So does the kid. How do you make those jibe?
That's why the man has no right to force engagement if not witnessing an occurring crime. (And he doesn't get to assume it is criminal intent, he must be seeing something happening)

that's the rub though, any gun carry class teaches you to DISENGAGE from the situation, you KNOW you have a gun and others do not. You have a responsibility to not provoke people.

I was carrying my Sig .45 one day driving on the highway, this NY asshole cut me off so i double flipped him off.. he then became an ASSHOLE and was driving like a douche.. then he pointed for me to pull over, i could have pulled over and as soon as he moved towards me, shot the fuck dead

I didn't though.. i avoided the situation, and proceeded to my destination..

which is what Z should have done. Followed the 911 operator's instructions and avoided trouble, he instead sought out a confrontation and killed a kid

flashlv: I didn't assume anything though.

Wow.

flashlv: law says he has the right to defend himself. I look at people as inheriently good, and make my judgements based on that when there is a huge unknown.

This isn't even remotely true, Flash. Try again.

flashlv: that a flaw if you want.

Don't even try that one. Passive-aggressive is ugly on people who do it well. This is well-beyond.

flashlv: it is found he was in fact the aggressor, then he should fry. Until than, I give the benefit of the doubt.,

No, you've blamed the victim and absolved Z of wrongdoing.

Tell me, what evidence would you feel proved you wrong - besides the mountain of evidence that already exists?

paranoyd:
No, you've blamed the victim and absolved Z of wrongdoing.

He always does that. Makes assumptions based on law for one but no consideration based on law and known evidence for the other. Why does TM not get to defend himself from some guy out of nowhere stalking and suddenly chasing him?

He also loves the "but you don't KNOOOOWW" crap when we are clearly only arguing based upon what we do know. If a security cam shows up showing TM and MrZ talking amicably and then TM backstabbing him, then sure... but other than that, it's reasonable to discuss off what has been made known.

supergrover: He always does that. Makes assumptions based on law for one but no consideration based on law and known evidence for the other. Why does TM not get to defend himself from some guy out of nowhere stalking and suddenly chasing him?

He also loves the "but you don't KNOOOOWW" crap when we are clearly only arguing based upon what we do know. If a security cam shows up showing TM and MrZ talking amicably and then TM backstabbing him, then sure... but other than that, it's reasonable to discuss off what has been made known.

A gated community with past crime problems should have had cams set up.

paranoyd:

Tell me, what evidence would you feel proved you wrong - besides the mountain of evidence that already exists?

That Zimmerman lied to police about the encounter doesn't seem to phase Flash.

supergrover: That Zimmerman lied to police about the encounter doesn't seem to phase Flash.

I wonder where this guy is right now.

swingingjohnson: I wonder where this guy is right now.

So does the Grand Jury.

Most recent ABC News story:

Among other issues, police have been criticized for:

Withholding a batch of telling 911 calls, including the one revealing Zimmerman's possible racist remark.

Sending a narcotics detective to the scene, instead of a homicide detective, as is typical for homicides.

And failing to administer a drug and alcohol test to Zimmerman that night, which homicide investigator Rod Wheeler called a "fatal flaw in the investigation."

paranoyd: BTW, acting wrongly and going overboard WITH A GUN is generally, at the very least, attempted manslaughter. You are hereby agreeing that it was Zimmerman's fault. (You didn't really answer the question, BTW - you basically agreed to all of the choices.)

OOPS! Sorry dead kid! I guess I just went a little overboard!

I'm sure if/when he's convicted he'll apologize and that should be enough, right? Since he just went 'overboard'?

WTF...

In actuality, public outrage is EXACTLY how one repeals a law - generate enough outrage and people actually DO something, like vote or write their congresscritters. Citing cases like this where the law is misused, not just by a citizen but by the police handling the case, just adds fuel to the fire.

paranoyd: So does the Grand Jury.

I saw an article today saying that grand juries are sealed so we'll never know what happened. I'm also seeing testimony from other grand juries released after the fact, so I'm not sure what's going on with that.

farkmeblind: I saw an article today saying that grand juries are sealed so we'll never know what happened. I'm also seeing testimony from other grand juries released after the fact, so I'm not sure what's going on with that.

I think there's a statute of limitations.