Florida Neighborhood Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
then Trayvon would be charged with manslaughter.

but then... gun or not, was it completely preventable if Zimmerman listened to 911 dispatcher and let the professionals handle it?
Click to expand...
First Degree Murder, not manslaughter! I wonder if it would make a difference when a dispatcher says "DON"T FOLLOW HIM" instead of "You don't need to do that".
 
CrazyPaul said:
First Degree Murder, not manslaughter!
Click to expand...

nope. it's not a murder since it was not premeditated. it's only a murder if it's premeditated. I've already discussed about this with a law student and look above where it said that homicide detective wanted to arrest him for manslaughter.

CrazyPaul said:
I wonder if it would make a difference when a disptacher says "DON"T FOLLOW HIM" instead of "You don't need to do that".
Click to expand...
it could but then... does it matter? everybody with common sense especially armed citizens and neighborhood watchdogs know very well not to do that. Why Zimmerman disregarded this? I have no idea but what I do know is that based on his criminal history, he has a history of exhibiting a very poor ability in decision-making and has a violent behavior.
 
Jiro said:
nope. it's not a murder since it was not premeditated. it's only a murder if it's premeditated. I've already discussed about this with a law student and look above where it said that homicide detective wanted to arrest him for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
If Trayvon wanted Zimmerman to die, then it's first degree murder.

"homicide detective wanted to arrest him for manslaughter" because Zimmerman didn't want to kill him but he had to for his protection.
 
Jiro said:
there are actually few more statutes but I'll start with this one -



wanna try to answer my question? :lol:

"when approaching a suspicious person, do you think it is possible that it can end badly?"


3 fallacies in your argument -

1. mall cops are easily identifiable with badges/insignia and uniforms. are you?
2. armed mall cops? NJ-NY are basically USA Capital of Malls :lol: and I've never seen armed mall cops but either way - if they're armed, they're most likely have been authorized and trained by law enforcement agencies and/or are either former or off-duty police officers.
3. you are very confused. Rights to self-defense and Rights to self-defense with deadly force are 2 two completely different things and both has completely different legal criteria.

any further question?
Click to expand...

Our mall cops are armed and our crime watch people are uniformed or at the very least wear a vest.

No see again you are confused. "Stand Your Ground" is a statute, It allows a person to meet force with force under certain criteria. It's a statute that can be applied by law enforcement. It grants immunity from prosecution

Self Defense is an affirmative defense. It's used as a plea in a court of law to excuse an offense due to mitigating circumstances. A plea of self defense is NOT immunity from prosecution.

The two things are totally separate and are applied two totally different ways. That is why the atty said he would not go the "Stand your ground " route. In other words, he won't seek immunity
 
TXgolfer said:
Our mall cops are armed and our crime watch people are uniformed or at the very least wear a vest.
Click to expand...
there you go! they were visibly and readily identifiable. how about Zimmerman?

and do you believe it is REASONABLE for any average person to view a person eye-balling you and approaching you as a potential hostile person? and that a person has right to defend himself from a potential hostile person if he felt his life was in danger?

TXgolfer said:
No see again you are confused. "Stand Your Ground" is a statute, It allows a person to meet force with force under certain criteria. It's a statute that can be applied by law enforcement. It grants immunity from prosecution

Self Defense is an affirmative defense. It's used as a plea in a court of law to excuse an offense due to mitigating circumstances. A plea of self defense is NOT immunity from prosecution.

The two things are totally separate and are applied two totally different ways. That is why
Click to expand...
There you go! This does not meet that criteria because you automatically forfeit that right (with deadly force) just by approaching a suspicious person when it can end badly.

It is very very very interesting that you continue to avoid answering my question ""when approaching a suspicious person, do you think it is possible that it can end badly?" :hmm:

vvveeeeerrrryyyyy interesting!
 
Jiro said:
there you go! they were visibly and readily identifiable. how about Zimmerman?

and do you believe it is REASONABLE for any average person to view a person eye-balling you and approaching you as a potential hostile person? and that a person has right to defend himself from a potential hostile person if he felt his life was in danger?


There you go! This does not meet that criteria you automatically forfeits that right just by approaching a suspicious person when it can end badly.

It is very very very interesting that you continue to avoid answering my question ""when approaching a suspicious person, do you think it is possible that it can end badly?" :hmm:

vvveeeeerrrryyyyy interesting!
Click to expand...

So you understand now, good. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
So you understand now, good. :)
Click to expand...

oh wow you just blatantly avoided my 4 questions. maybe you missed it so I'll repost in a clear format.

1. armed mall security and neighborhood watchdogs that you spoke of were visibly and readily identifiable with uniforms and vests. how about Zimmerman?

2. do you believe it is REASONABLE for any average person to view a person eye-balling you and approaching you as a potential hostile person? and that a person has right to defend himself from a potential hostile person pursuing him if he felt his life was in danger?

3. when approaching a suspicious person, do you think it is possible that it can end badly?

Please do let me know if you do not wish to or have no intention to answer my questions so we can put this aside for now.
 
Jiro said:
oh wow you just blatantly avoided my 4 questions. maybe you missed it so I'll repost in clear format.

1. armed mall security and neighborhood watchdogs that you spoke of were visibly and readily identifiable with uniforms and vests. how about Zimmerman?

2. do you believe it is REASONABLE for any average person to view a person eye-balling you and approaching you as a potential hostile person? and that a person has right to defend himself from a potential hostile person pursuing him if he felt his life was in danger?

3. when approaching a suspicious person, do you think it is possible that it can end badly?
Click to expand...

All irrelevant
 
TXgolfer said:
All irrelevant
Click to expand...

so why did you mention about armed mall cops? care to explain its relevance to this case? wait - never mind.

this is very relevant to Zimmerman's case - do you think it's prudent to approach a suspicious person because it could end badly?
 
Jiro said:
so why did you mention about armed mall cops? care to explain its relevance to this case? wait - never mind.

this is very relevant to Zimmerman's case - do you think it's prudent to approach a suspicious person because it could end badly?
Click to expand...
No, we can't predict the future. Zimmerman didn't expect it to happen like that. Good night to you, too.
 
Jiro said:
so why did you mention about armed mall cops? care to explain its relevance to this case? wait - never mind.

this is very relevant to Zimmerman's case - do you think it's prudent to approach a suspicious person because it could end badly?
Click to expand...

I don't find this question relevant either.
 
CrazyPaul said:
No, we can't predict the future. Zimmerman didn't expect it to happen like that. Good night to you, too.
Click to expand...

it does not matter what you expect or didn't expect. all it takes is a good judgement and common sense.

you know very well that approaching a suspicious person to confront him can end in either way and if there is a chance that it can get somebody hurt or killed... then why do it at all?
 
TXgolfer said:
I don't find this question relevant either.
Click to expand...

ok then. why did you talk about mall cops then? how is it relevant to this case?

don't bother. you're not going to answer it anyway and it's beginning to be very apparent that you are insidiously engaging in trolling.
 
Jiro said:
ok then. why did you talk about mall cops then? how is it relevant to this case?

don't bother. you're not going to answer it anyway and it's beginning to be very apparent that you are insidiously engaging in trolling.
Click to expand...

Sorry you feel that way. Certainly not my intent.
 
shame that we can't have an honest intellectual discussion with open mind. oh well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top