or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 151

post #2251 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I would acquiesce to your point given that you know more about this than me, but I would argue that it's harder to claim to be an innocent party, not impossible. It would also depend upon the manner and extent to which you "pursued" this person, and it would certainly depend upon what the suspicious person was doing, no? For instance, being black and wearing a hoodie clearly does not qualify as suspicious - and I would certainly agree with you that in this case Zimmerman made a terrible decision. However, had he witnessed Martin doing something that was criminal or borderline criminal, the scenario might be different.

Harder yes and case law would indicate that most of the time it does not go well for the pursuer when it goes wrong. Civilans and especially armed civilians do not have the authority or are otherwise officially sanctioned to pursue anyone. This is the function of law enforcement and they have an entire set of rules and laws that they have to abide by as well. Do not confuse witnessing an event with actively being involved. CCW law does include some very narrow sets of circumstances where you can get involved and still claim personal defense. Outside of that things will most likely not go well for you.

I suppose part of the confusion is the guy was involved in a neighborhood watch program. Some of these are sponsored/backed up by the local PD. My neighborhood watch program is. However neighborhood watch groups have no powers of law enforcement. They cannot pursue detain or in any way present themselves as a law enforcement officer. People in neighborhood watch programs are eyes and ears only.
post #2252 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Not a lawyer and not inside everyone's head but don't forget there are other charges than murder, right? Being armed and following a person, maybe you can still claim self-defense if it all goes bad, but are you beyond any culpability? Could you not get some lesser charge? The option is not "murder or walk;" I think there are some way points in between that could be pretty reasonably applied.

There is and I would say this case will involve one of those lesser charges not to mention a helluva a wrongful death lawsuit.
post #2253 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Not a lawyer and not inside everyone's head but don't forget there are other charges than murder, right? Being armed and following a person, maybe you can still claim self-defense if it all goes bad, but are you beyond any culpability? Could you not get some lesser charge? The option is not "murder or walk;" I think there are some way points in between that could be pretty reasonably applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

There is and I would say this case will involve one of those lesser charges not to mention a helluva a wrongful death lawsuit.

Don't keep us in suspense. Zimmerman is acquitted of murder because he acted in self-defense. What's he guilty of?
post #2254 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Don't keep us in suspense. Zimmerman is acquitted of murder because he acted in self-defense. What's he guilty of?

What's the matter Ataturk? Is your crystal ball broke?
post #2255 of 6250
Just 'cause I'm not arguing with you anymore doesn't mean I'm not enjoying your posts. Let's have it.
post #2256 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Just 'cause I'm not arguing with you anymore doesn't mean I'm not enjoying your posts. Let's have it.

If you want to have at it start with answering these questions.

Are you a CCW instructor?
Are you a CCW holder?
Are you an attorney? If so do you specialize in cases involving CCW incidents? Are you an attorney licensed to practice in the US?
Are you a law enforcement officer?
post #2257 of 6250
I am a CCW holder and an attorney licensed in the US. Not a LEO. There's no such thing as specializing in CCW cases.
post #2258 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I am a CCW holder and an attorney licensed in the US. Not a LEO. There's no such thing as specializing in CCW cases.

But there is such a thing as specializing in weapons violations correct? In any case what were you taught in your CCW class in regards to pursuing someone?
post #2259 of 6250
A lawyer specializing in CCW or weapons violations would be like a mechanic specializing in replacing windshield wiper motors--pointless. It's too simple and doesn't come up much.

I didn't take a CCW class because my state doesn't require them. I was, however, provided a copy of the statute. It doesn't say anything about pursuit.

What do you mean by "pursuit" anyway? Be specific.
post #2260 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Not a lawyer and not inside everyone's head but don't forget there are other charges than murder, right? Being armed and following a person, maybe you can still claim self-defense if it all goes bad, but are you beyond any culpability? Could you not get some lesser charge? The option is not "murder or walk;" I think there are some way points in between that could be pretty reasonably applied.

I think the problem is that the self defense statute/concept, as I understand it, gets you a pass from everything, including these lesser charges.

So, if the self defense works for murder, it works for manslaughter (or negligent homicide), and assault, and battery, and so forth.

Of course, I might have bombed that question, or Florida might have some wrinkle that I am unaware of.

edit: You might be thinking of the concept of imperfect self defense, but I don't think it applies to these facts, at least based on the always accurate media reporting. Imperfect self defense knocks you down a charge (typically murder to manslaughter), but I think typically the person who gets the imperfect self defense needed to be the initial aggressor or have an unreasonable belief that deadly force was warranted. And I am not sure this concept applies to the FL statute.
Edited by NoVaguy - 5/11/12 at 10:10pm
post #2261 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

Wrong, an action can and does have different meanings in different situations.

How does this translate to simply walking behind someone giving them the right to attack you? Go on give me a relevant instance? Can't? No didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

If I'm so clueless than why don't you enlighten me? My guess is you can't so instead you along with the likes of Ataturk resort to the typical CE way of doing things. Why don't you bother to tell us all about your areas of expertise and then argue from that position? I have a list of questions to ask either one of you.
Are you a CCW instructor?
Are you a CCW holder?
Are you an attorney? If so do you specialize in cases involving CCW incidents? Are you an attorney licensed to practice in the US?
Are you a law enforcement officer?
Let's start there, perhaps you just might be able to validate your I don't know shit position.

Are you including me in this drivel?

I mean I do think your a bit of a bellend but I have not attacked you or said you were clueless, I just pointed out that you were dribbling diarrhea out of the corners of your mouth.
post #2262 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

A lawyer specializing in CCW or weapons violations would be like a mechanic specializing in replacing windshield wiper motors--pointless. It's too simple and doesn't come up much.
I didn't take a CCW class because my state doesn't require them. I was, however, provided a copy of the statute. It doesn't say anything about pursuit.
What do you mean by "pursuit" anyway? Be specific.

Actively involved in following or chasing someone for a particular reason. In this case that would mean someone who is perceived as being involved in suspicious activity.

So your entire premise that I or another CCW instructor could not or would not be called upon to give expert testimony stems from the fact that your State does not require you to go to a State sanctioned or approved course?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

I think the problem is that the self defense statute/concept, as I understand it, gets you a pass from everything, including these lesser charges.
So, if the self defense works for murder, it works for manslaughter (or negligent homicide), and assault, and battery, and so forth.
Of course, I might have bombed that question, or Florida might have some wrinkle that I am unaware of.
edit: You might be thinking of the concept of imperfect self defense, but I don't think it applies to these facts, at least based on the always accurate media reporting. Imperfect self defense knocks you down a charge (typically murder to manslaughter), but I think typically the person who gets the imperfect self defense needed to be the initial aggressor or have an unreasonable belief that deadly force was warranted. And I am not sure this concept applies to the FL statute.

I believe it does apply to every State that has CCW laws on the books. If all the elements are not present at the same time to justify the use of deadly force you are in trouble. You also have to be the innocent party which should be self explanatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

How does this translate to simply walking behind someone giving them the right to attack you? Go on give me a relevant instance? Can't? No didn't think so.
Are you including me in this drivel?
I mean I do think your a bit of a bellend but I have not attacked you or said you were clueless, I just pointed out that you were dribbling diarrhea out of the corners of your mouth.

What I said is self explanatory. As far as the rest of your post is concerned if the shoe fits then wear it. Otherwise what I said does not apply correct?

With that said I need to leave. I have a 10 hour CCW class to teach to a dozen students or so.
post #2263 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post


What I said is self explanatory. As far as the rest of your post is concerned if the shoe fits then wear it. Otherwise what I said does not apply correct?
With that said I need to leave. I have a 10 hour wank.

Yeah, didn't think so.

+ FTFY
post #2264 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Yeah, didn't think so.
+ FTFY

i was wrong on my interpretation of the sit the first time.. but to say actively following someone is the same as simply walking behind them (the former being the case here) is simply stupid. if by chance you are walking down on the sidewalk and some one just incidentally is going the same way that would be ok, but if you have been ever followed you have different feeling one does feel threatened. I cannot explain it in detail but it is very distinctive.
post #2265 of 6250
You suck, Grizzly Bear.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon