I dont think its ******** at all when a child is shot by a grown man, teen or not, with very little further investigation beyond the word of the shooter and ONE witness out of SEVERAL.

I think people need to speak up so cases like this arent just brushed off without the examination they deserve. AT the very least, I want to see a negligent homicide charge INVESTIGATED because the man had a weapon which he used to shoot a boy who had no weapon.

I dont even think that a chief and prosecutor should have made that call so soon with so little and short of an investigation and with a presumed stand on the night that it was self defense.

These are times Im happy for those like Al or Jesse to draw attention when someones child is shot and they are told it was merely self defense because the shooter says so and ONE witness claims to have seen someone with a red sweater (Was that even what zimmerman was wearing, I know it was red,,,)

A childs death deserves more attention and investigation than that.

That is wrong too.

Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed.


A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person.




But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life.

IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all.

THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove.

The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends.

When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue.

That is wrong too.

Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed.


A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person.




But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life.

IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all.

THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove.

The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends.

When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue.

ITs a case of me having an opinion about how it was HANDLED and the attention it deserves and the opportunity for the family to GAIN knowledge of what happened ,,,even if it takes pressure from the national community to do so,,,

The hell they don't. Have you not heard of something called a Citizens Arrest or a Good Samaritan Law? I guarantee that if I saw a crime being committed and there was not law enforcement around I would do whatever I could to try and stop the suspect until they got there.

You only know what you have heard on the mass media. You weren't there and know nothing about how it was handled.

And "men" are often in the military, 17 years old and carry weapons, so your statements about what are "men" and who are boys and, again, just your opinion which conflicts with the facts.

With all the cell phones and such...

It is inevitable that someone recorded this incident by its image and not simply by voice.

If so it will pop up...

Even if someone is trying to supress it...

oh yeah

the defense attorney is saying this isnt a stand your ground case because the law is mostly used in relation to people inside your HOME or on private property

the defense is merely going to be 'self defense'

I have heard it.

The good samaritan applies to situations where AIDE is being given to someone else. This doesnt apply here.

A Citizens Arrest

In a citizens arrest a crime has to have ACTUALLY occurred or the citizen is legally liable. As in this case....

that assumes that being in the military is the same as being a man,, which is not at all true, but thats a whole other debate

we send children to war, that is pretty well recognized , it still doesnt prove they arent still children

but thats irrelevant here because



THIS 'man' was not a militant with a weapon, he was a high school junior and volunteer with candy and a drink...

and my opinion doesnt conflict with 'facts' at all

as few 'facts' have been revealed besides a short summary on a police report and the testimony of witnesses who dont even seem to give the same account (probably because they were witnessing the ordeal at different moments)


and also some background on the two involved

the boy , a high school football player and volunteer with no criminal background or known violent tendencies or episodes, and a past hero who risked death to save his dad from a fire


the man, a married , working man, who spent alot of time looking out for 'suspicious' people and had a past assault against someone else,,,(later dropped, but serious enough to consider given these circumstances), who was 'fed up' according to a friend and who implied as much to the dispatcher when he stated the 'aholes' always get away, and something was 'wrong' with the dude





A day in court for that young man is all I want to see....

The kid was fighting. Self defense right there.

Do we know for a fact that a crime wasn't committed? Are you privy to parts of the investigation that the rest of the country and media isn't? if so do fill us in.

Also if the person was acting in good faith they wont be held liable, even if they made a mistake.

No violent history and he just happens to start a fight with someone the night he gets shot?

For whom?

The kid was also 'standing his ground' (having been pursued).

I imagine since he was only found with skittles and a drink, he hadnt stolen anything

so yeah, I pretty much can guarantee he had not committed a crime that night that he was pursued

yes, good faith, without a crime, makes you legally liable for the consequences....

So theft is the only crime he could have committed?

Not if you believed there was a crime in progress.

what crime could be in progress from a sidewalk?.. please enlighten me...

if you approach someone to try to arrest them and they have not committed a crime,, you will be legally liable if any harm results,,,,




thats one reason why people dont do it everyday, because most understand if their ASSUMPTION is wrong they can be held liable,,,,