Posted on 03/23/2012 2:08:00 PM PDT by vikingrinn
“It appears to be that he was shot by a racist”
"the guy looks like he just killed this kid, maybe because he’s a racist”
“It looks like this kid was killed in cold blood"
(Excerpt) Read more at glennbeck.com ...
It’s an interesting theory, and I knew it wouldn’t be long before you’re called “a idiot” by Zimmerman fans. Hit the abuse button.
I agree with you. The concept of hate crimes is just ridiculous. Crime is crime.
Why, because I don’t fault people for being ignorant of local busybodies grandiose if relatively harmless delusions?
Does that meet the elements of a crime under the Florida statute for "stalking"?
A gun is known to have been in his possession
I have several guns in my possession right now. So?
and he flunked out of community college criminal justice program
This is meaningful to determining criminal guilt somehow?
and called 911 to report open windows.
Even if this were true, it informs us about criminal liability how?
Here we have Barney Fife with a loaded gun wanting to be a hero.
Then you have a kid walking home from the store with a pop and skittles under his coat, being followed by a this guy. The kid has heard the stories of kidnappings, rape and killings. He doesn’t know this dude, and Barney Fife doesn’t tell the kid who he is! (nor should the kid trust him, if he did!)
What is a 17 year old young man gonna do? What would you have done at 17 with some Chaz Bono lookalike following you around, acting weird? Call for help? Run? What if Chaz tackles you, what would you have done? Maybe try to drive his nose up into his skull?
I don’t think Zimmerman wanted to kill an innocent kid. I bet he is horrified. He wanted to be a Hero. He was trying to protect his neighborhood. The kid was just trying to protect himself from assumed assault.
This isn’t about race. It is about an uneducated, untrained person ignoring the rules and making some deadly mistakes. The cops even told Zimmerman NOT TO FOLLOW the ‘guy’. This is in fact one of the scenerios many law enforcement academies practice with their trainees.
I am sad for both families. This is truly a tragedy.
You’re doing a whole lot of guesswork in your hypothetical scenario.
I’m glad criminal law doesn’t turn on what you “think” happened.
Allow me to tell you up front, that of all the posters talking about this incident, you seem to have your facts straight, and these facts that you present are unassailable and of great value.
Semper fi, soldier.
Thanks, I appreciate that. Getting pretty frustrating though...
I think a lot of people chiming in about this incident don’t understand the fundamental concepts of criminal law.
To arrest someone, the police must have probable cause that a crime has occurred.
Probable cause means a set of reliable facts, circumstances or information that would lead a reasonably prudent law enforcement officer to conclude that a crime has been committed, and that a certain person committed it.
A crime is broken down into elements. For example, a statute may be written such as,
“BEE’S WAX HAIR PRODUCTS - INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE - Whoever possesses, with intent to distribute, consumer hair products commonly used by humans and that contain bee’s wax, shall be guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor and fined no less than $100 and no more than $500.”
The police conducting an investigation into illegal bee’s wax hair products who find some product on a suspect, would have to determine:
Did Zimmerman knowingly possess bee’s wax hair products?
Did he intend to distribute them?
Are they of the type commonly used by humans?
Do we know that they contain bee’s wax?
You should note that the police must determine that ALL of the elements were present before concluding that they had probable cause to make an arrest.
Just because something is “tragic” or horrifying does not mean that ALL the elements of a crime are present to make an arrest.
The police have concluded, in this case, that the elements were not present.
That’s what I thought, too, but it turns out one man did come out and yell “Stop! I’m calling 911!” He went inside to make the call and heard the shot.
No. There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin - or rather, no evidence that he initiated a confrontation. Martin's girlfriend recounts that she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" She then heard the response "What are you doing here?"
Is it really so inconceivable that Martin decided to confront Zimmerman, and that he surprised Zimmerman by doing so? We do know that by the time Zimmerman left his four minute call with the police he said he did not know where "this kid" had gone.
It's fine to make an assumption that Zimmerman started the fight. But it is also possible to believe both that he is guilty, and that there is actually no evidence that proves it.
But I agree he needs a good lawyer. The writing appears to be on the wall.
he went after the kid. He was told not to. stand your ground doesn’t mean you can give chase. a struggle ensued after he gave chase and martin wss shot and killed as a result. I don’t care about Martin or Zimmerman, care about preserving the stand your ground law. Zimmerman wasn’t standing his ground. from the sound of it, Martin was.
What do you mean "went after"? You mean followed and watched at some point?
He was told not to
Except that he was not told not to.
was he operating under a legal/official authority to confront and/or pursue suspects? If not, he shouldn’t have pursued, confronted, and killed.
Have you ever heard of a citizens arrest?
Ordinary citizens have the power and authority to pursue and apprehend criminal suspects. Inherently with this power comes the authority to conduct an investigation, to the extent such investigation itself does not break statute.
By your rationale, a homeowner who hears breaking glass in his driveway has no authority to go outside and see what the hell is going on.
Furthermore, I am actually shocked that some of the supposed conservatives on this site don’t acknowledge the authority of a citizen to patrol his own neighborhood, to go about armed, to approach someone with the intent of determining their intentions, and to defend himself when in fear for his life.
he told the 911 dispatcher that he was pursuing. the dispathcher told him not to.
“Stalking.”
You need to reevaluate your definition of "weasel words"
In this situation “Stalking” is not the weasel word.
Use of weasel word would be "Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin down a dark walkthrough"
You are either intentionally obfuscating, or gravely mistaken.
The dispatcher did not tell him any such thing.
"Stalking" is a loaded word characterizing intent. Following is a commonly used word that ascribes no intent one way or the other.
If you have no evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" Martin, then the correct, neutral word would be "follow".
Well, unless you aren't concerned with being neutral and objective.
Martin did not observe the commission of a felony or other offense and he was told not to pursue by the police. Furthermore, from what I have read so far, Martin was not even trespassing. Zimmerman is not protected by a citizens arrest statute. He shouldn’t have pursued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.