Florida Neighborhood Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! looks like my case is growing stronger and stronger every minute. in the beginning, I've accused police department of cover-up but I like the choice of word they used - "intelligent mishandling".

good post, foxrac.
Click to expand...

No problem. ;)
 
Steinhauer said:
Depends on the individual.

If the individual had prior suspensions for similar incidents, then no, I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

we're not talking about any individual. you're specifically talking about Trayvon Martin.

would you be surprised that burglary tools and women's jewelry was found in Trayvon's backpack?
 
Jiro said:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! looks like my case is growing stronger and stronger every minute. in the beginning, I've accused police department of cover-up but I like the choice of word they used - "intelligent mishandling".

good post, foxrac.
Click to expand...

I said that too , that there is a coverup going on! "intelligent mishandling" ?? That does not say much for Florida police department!
 
Steinhauer said:
Nope - the right to self defense is never "lost".

Does this mean if I see someone stealing in a grocery store, and I go and tell them to put it back, that I have lost my right to defend myself if they decide to attack me?
Click to expand...
well - since you stated that you would report it to the store manager, that's what you should do and walk away. you are not a cop and you do not have a power of arrest.

Citizen's Arrest and Stand Your Ground are not applicable in here since stealing something at grocery store is not a felony and no one's life was in dire danger. You do not know for sure that this person intended to steal since he never left the store without paying for it. I've put stuff in my pockets before because I didn't have a basket with me so it did look like I was stealing. So if you saw me doing that and effectuated a citizen's arrest on me but it turned out that I wasn't stealing, then you will be criminally charged with assault with deadly weapon and false imprisonment. and you'll face civil lawsuit from me as well. Is it worth it over some $5 stolen goods?

Bottom line - do what you said below. report it and walk away.

Steinhauer said:
Not that I would do that - I would report it to the store manager.
Click to expand...
then you have nothing to worry about as long as you report it to store manager and walk away.

which one's more important? human's life or $5/$10/$20 stolen goods? be smart and walk away.
 
Steinhauer said:
Stand your ground laws mean you have no duty to retreat from an attack.
Click to expand...
correct. but you automatically forfeit this right by provoking a conflict.

Steinhauer said:
That specific item is something I think a lot of people are confused with. You are not required to avoid a conflict.
Click to expand...
incorrect. you are required to avoid a conflict because a license to carry is not a license to use. Stand Your Ground is not applicable for aggressor.

You are confused. Let me help you then.

1. You are NOT required to retreat if an aggressor initially provoked the use of force against you.
Example: You're just walking down the street from grocery, eating your skittle and drinking your iced tea. Some guy was eyeballing you and following you. You saw him getting out of his car and chasing after you. You got freaked out and ran away. He caught up to you and both of you engaged in hostile conversation. You were trying to get away from him but he kept following you, menacing you with hostile tone and then... you happened to see a gun on his belt. You shot him and that's a justifiable use of force.

2. You are REQUIRED to avoid a possible conflict initially.
Example: You're just driving down the road. You happened to see a suspicious person so you called 911 to report him. You described him to 911 dispatcher and you stated that he's up to something no good... fiddling around in his pocket and it looks like he's got something in his hands. then he ran away and you pursued after him. You got to him and you engaged in hostile conversation with him. He punched you and got on top of you, pummeling away on you. You shot him and that's not a justifiable use of force because this conflict was completely and wholefully preventable by letting cops handle it but by taking matters into your own hands, you're an aggressor and provocateur in this case.

Steinhauer said:
The whole point of "stand your ground" is to not run away.
Click to expand...
correct. but you automatically forfeit this right by provoking a conflict.
 
Foxrac said:
Jiro already explains to you and he owns firearm. He has much experience with gun law and you don't understand about start confront at first place will result in loss of self defense, especially for citizens, NOT police officers.

Good luck and go to Atlanta to find any suspicious person on road and start confront on your own so let us know. You will LOSE your rights to self defense.

Again, you aren't goddamn police officer and you don't have any authority to take care of suspicious person, except for them to be on your property or your car.
Click to expand...

That is also incorrect. If I see a suspicious person around my neighbor's yard and I know they are not home, I will confront them while on the phone to 911.

I will introduce myself, ask them who they are and if pressed, let them know I have called 911

If they choose to attack me, I am armed and will defend myself.

If they are just a relative of the neighbor "dropping in" or something else harmless, then no harm no foul.

It is not illegal for me to ask people questions - that is NOT "confrontational".

Slamming someone's head into the pavement is.
 
Jiro said:
correct. but you automatically forfeit this right by provoking a conflict.


incorrect. you are required to avoid a conflict because a license to carry is not a license to use. Stand Your Ground is not applicable for aggressor.

You are confused. Let me help you then.

1. You are NOT required to retreat if an aggressor initially provoked the use of force against you.
Example: You're just walking down the street from grocery, eating your skittle and drinking your iced tea. Some guy was eyeballing you and following you. You saw him getting out of his car and chasing after you. You got freaked out and ran away. He caught up to you and both of you engaged in hostile conversation. You were trying to get away from him but he kept following you, menacing you with hostile tone and then... you happened to see a gun on his belt. You shot him and that's a justifiable use of force.

2. You are REQUIRED to avoid a possible conflict initially.
Example: You're just driving down the road. You happened to see a suspicious person so you called 911 to report him. You described him to 911 dispatcher and you stated that he's up to something no good... fiddling around in his pocket and it looks like he's got something in his hands. then he ran away and you pursued after him. You got to him and you engaged in hostile conversation with him. He punched you and got on top of you, pummeling away on you. You shot him and that's not a justifiable use of force because this conflict was completely and wholefully preventable by letting cops handle it but by taking matters into your own hands, you're an aggressor and provocateur in this case.


correct. but you automatically forfeit this right by provoking a conflict.
Click to expand...

Do you even understand what "duty to retreat" means?

That is what I meant by people are confused about this very specific item in the stand your ground law.

You do NOT have to walk away from a conflict. You do NOT have to take "safety" measures, like run away or call the police. If someone is attacking you, you can use the appropriate force to deflect the attack.

If this all goes to court, I am sure it will be an argument of appropriate force, and not whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense.
 
Steinhauer said:
That is also incorrect. If I see a suspicious person around my neighbor's yard and I know they are not home, I will confront them while on the phone to 911.

I will introduce myself, ask them who they are and if pressed, let them know I have called 911

If they choose to attack me, I am armed and will defend myself.
Click to expand...
sssssshhhh...... you need to slow down and breathe. you need to stop trying to keep changing scenarios to fit your world.

specifically based on your post above - yes you're within your right to stand your ground.

but your previous post wasn't about your neighbor's yard.... you specifically said store.... which is a public area. so based on what you said in previous post, you are not within your right to stand your ground if you brought it to yourself.
 
Steinhauer said:
Do you even understand what "duty to retreat" means?

That is what I meant by people are confused about this very specific item in the stand your ground law.

You do NOT have to walk away from a conflict. You do NOT have to take "safety" measures, like run away or call the police. If someone is attacking you, you can use the appropriate force to deflect the attack.

If this all goes to court, I am sure it will be an argument of appropriate force, and not whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

better re-read my post SLOWLY. you are still confused....

You are correct that you do not have a duty to retreat if an aggressor provoked use of force against you.

But you do have a sole responsibility to yourself and community by NOT inviting yourself to danger because by doing that, you forfeit your right to self-defense.

Again... a license to carry is not a license to use it.

Jeb Bush
“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington, The Dallas Morning News reported. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
Click to expand...

State Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Fla.) who co-sponsored the Stand Your Ground law
I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.

During the debate concerning this incident, some have brought into question the "Stand Your Ground" law, more commonly referred to as the "castle doctrine," which has been used by the attacker to pardon his actions.

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.

When the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" legislation passed in 2005, the catalytic event that brought the issue to the attention of the Florida Legislature was the looting of property in the aftermath of hurricanes.

Specifically, there was a situation in the panhandle of Florida where a citizen moved an RV onto his property, to protect the remains of his home from being looted. One evening, a perpetrator broke into the RV and attacked the property owner. The property owner, acting in self-defense in his home, shot and killed the perpetrator.

It was months before the property owner knew if he would be charged with a crime because of the lack of concrete definition in the statutes regarding self-defense and a perceived duty to retreat by the potential victim.

Until 2005, the castle doctrine had never been canonized into Florida law, but had been used with differing definition and application to the concept of self-defense. The focus of the law was to provide clear definition to acts of self-defense.

The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be. The law also protects property owners and their homeowner's insurance from being wrongfully sued by perpetrators who claim to be harmed while committing a crime.

The castle doctrine as passed, clarified that individuals are lawfully able to defend themselves when attacked and there is no duty to retreat when an individual is attacked on their property. Since the passage of this law in Florida, 26 other states have implemented similar statues.

Additionally, the American Legislative Exchange Council used the Florida version of the castle doctrine as model legislation for other states.

Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

Media stories sharing the transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

I have great sympathy for the family of Trayvon Martin and am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. Awaiting the convening of the grand jury, I trust that justice will be served and healing will begin for all of those affected.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
sssssshhhh...... you need to slow down and breathe. you need to stop trying to keep changing scenarios to fit your world.

specifically based on your post above - yes you're within your right to stand your ground.

but your previous post wasn't about your neighbor's yard.... you specifically said store.... which is a public area. so based on what you said in previous post, you are not within your right to stand your ground if you brought it to yourself.
Click to expand...

I am breathing just fine. I noticed your new word is "hyperventilate" - you use it quite often.

There is absolutely nothing at all in my post about the store, that would indicate I would have brought something on myself if I told a thief to put a stolen item back.

Nothing at all.

First of all, I am not the one stealing. If I approached the person and told them to put it back, then they attacked me - I could legally use the appropriate force to defend myself. And ... it would more than likely be caught on video if in a big box store. If the thief attacked me, it is not my fault if they get physically hurt or killed. It was their decision to attack and steal. Get it?

Only a very foolish and stupid person would try to claim that a person being attacked by a thief was "his own fault" for someone telling a thief to put something back. Like Grayma said - would you tell a rape victim it was their fault for getting raped?

Only a very foolish and stupid person would try to incriminate someone who was defending themself from an attack when a crime has been committed. That was the whole purpose of the stand your ground law. It leaves absolutely no confusion whatsoever about defending yourself.
 
Steinhauer said:
I am breathing just fine. I noticed your new word is "hyperventilate" - you use it quite often.
Click to expand...
you're confusing me with kokonut :lol:

Steinhauer said:
There is absolutely nothing at all in my post about the store, that would indicate I would have brought something on myself if I told a thief to put a stolen item back.

Nothing at all.
Click to expand...
do you agree that it is possible that by confronting him to make him put an item back, it can potentially leads to violence?

Steinhauer said:
First of all, I am not the one stealing. If I approached the person and told them to put it back, then they attacked me - I could legally use the appropriate force to defend myself. And ... it would more than likely be caught on video if in a big box store.
Click to expand...
the video would show that you killed him in cold blood since he never committed a crime because he never left the store without paying for it. that's why the stores do not dare to "arrest" a shopper before crime occurred because it's a liability issue for store - false imprisonment. libel. accusation.

Steinhauer said:
Only a very foolish and stupid person would try to claim that it was "his own fault" for someone telling a thief to put something back.

Only a very foolish and stupid person would try to incriminate someone who was defending themself from an attack when a crime has been committed. That was the whole purpose of the stand your ground law. It leaves absolutely no confusion whatsoever about defending yourself.
Click to expand...
the law disagrees with your interpretation. Jeb Bush and Dennis Baxley disagreed as well.
 
Jiro said:
better re-read my post SLOWLY. you are still confused....

You are correct that you do not have a duty to retreat if an aggressor provoked use of force against you.

But you do have a sole responsibility to yourself and community by NOT inviting yourself to danger because by doing that, you forfeit your right to self-defense.

Again... a license to carry is not a license to use it.

Jeb Bush


State Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Fla.) who co-sponsored the Stand Your Ground law
Click to expand...


You are still misunderstanding Jeb Bush.

You do not have a right to go after someone with guns blazing (Like Jeb Bush initially thought Zimmerman had done because of all the race baiting media reports). That is an attack - we already covered that.

You do have a right to be "nosy". You do have a right to ask questions. You do have a right to confront a suspicious person and ask them questions.

Although that may not be the wisest thing to do, it is not illegal and no law is broken.

If the suspicious person then attacks you - as you have said, you invited yourself to danger - you STILL have the right to defend yourself.


You have not forfeited your rights to self defense.
 
Steinhauer said:
You are still misunderstanding Jeb Bush.

You do not have a right to go after someone with guns blazing. That is an attack - we already covered that.

You do have a right to be "nosy". You do have a right to ask questions. You do have a right to confront a suspicious person and ask them questions.

Although that may not be the wisest thing to do, it is not illegal and no law is broken.

If the suspicious person then attacks you - as you have said, you invited yourself to danger - you STILL have the right to defend yourself.


You have not forfeited your rights to self defense.
Click to expand...

the law disagrees. so do Jeb Bush and Dennis Baxley. My law friend disagreed with you as well :lol:

I find it so comical that you're basically telling Jeb Bush and Dennis Baxley that they're wrong about Stand Your Ground not being applicable in Zimmerman's case.

I'm sorry you're still in denial. better look at several posts ago especially police video of Zimmerman coming out of police car. it's not looking too good for him and it's becoming more apparent that Zimmerman is a liar and so is police department.
 
Steinhauer said:
That is also incorrect. If I see a suspicious person around my neighbor's yard and I know they are not home, I will confront them while on the phone to 911.

I will introduce myself, ask them who they are and if pressed, let them know I have called 911

If they choose to attack me, I am armed and will defend myself.

If they are just a relative of the neighbor "dropping in" or something else harmless, then no harm no foul.

It is not illegal for me to ask people questions - that is NOT "confrontational".

Slamming someone's head into the pavement is.
Click to expand...

Again, you are in wrong side.

Good luck about what are you doing and I love to see you on media. I have no sympathy if you shoot someone is unarmed and innocent when you start confront at them and put their life in fear. Your action will result in manslaughter or murder, whatever depends on state definition on homicide.
 
Jiro said:
the law disagrees. so do Jeb Bush and Dennis Baxley. My law friend disagreed with you as well :lol:

I'm sorry you're still in denial. better look at several posts ago especially police video of Zimmerman coming out of police car. it's not looking too good for Zimmerman and it's becoming more apparent that Zimmerman is a liar and so is police department.
Click to expand...

It will be fun to see him to spend a new life in prison.
 
instead of quibbling around on technicality of Stand Your Ground law..... let's leave that to judge to decide on it.

meanwhile.... any comment about this video? what broken nose? what head laceration? did zimmerman lie?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0fQhGDxRo][Police Footage] George Zimmerman Being Arrested Shows No Blood Claimed Trayvon Attacked Him - YouTube[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top