100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Stand Your Ground Case | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... actually the outrage started because the initial press reports were that Zimmerman was white.. this ties into what you can read here on a daily basis. whites are racists.. especially the ones that disagree with obama's failed and catastrophic economic policy.. a tragedy that has been turned into a political rally.. it is pretty appalling to be honest.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/26/12 07:22 AM
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... actually the outrage started because the initial press reports were that Zimmerman was white.. this ties into what you can read here on a daily basis. whites are racists.. especially the ones that disagree with obama's failed and catastrophic economic policy.. a tragedy that has been turned into a political rally.. it is pretty appalling to be honest.. I dont recall the parents having an issue with his race, I do recall that they wanted justice for their son and questioned the police handling of his death I have heard much more about him being profiled for his clothes than I have his race, although there is the question of whether race played a part. Even if Zimmerman had been black, with his history, the question of racial profiling would be relevant. Profiling doesnt only happen interracially,,,,, I cant deny that racism is real or that some people may be having the issue with the race but the INITIAL complaint and the consistent complaint of the parents is that their son deserves justice all whites arent racist, but most americans because of our history and our media, will subconsciously profile and stereotype other americans thats the elephant in the room noone wants to face, but its true a tragedy was quite possibly going to be written off as an 'oops', and that would have been the real tragedy at least now their will be pressure to truly look at the details and disclose to the parents why their son had to die that night... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 03/26/12 09:18 AM
|
|
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' SYG has nothing to do with this case, why? Because they have an eye witness which has said Martin was beating Zimmerman from a dominant position while Zimmerman was on his back. To all the kids out there, dont get in fights. You could loose your life, fights are not fun and games. Your rights end where another persons rights start. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? Except assault and battery . . . The kid was being a punk. If someone tried to detain me like that and I was truly innocent I would not fight, wait for the police to arrive, have the guy arrested for false arrest and false imprisonment then get his information so I can sue his a$$. This kid was trying to be a tough guy and a punk. More speculation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... actually the outrage started because the initial press reports were that Zimmerman was white.. this ties into what you can read here on a daily basis. whites are racists.. especially the ones that disagree with obama's failed and catastrophic economic policy.. a tragedy that has been turned into a political rally.. it is pretty appalling to be honest.. That's Obama, Jackson and Sharpton for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... actually the outrage started because the initial press reports were that Zimmerman was white.. this ties into what you can read here on a daily basis. whites are racists.. especially the ones that disagree with obama's failed and catastrophic economic policy.. a tragedy that has been turned into a political rally.. it is pretty appalling to be honest.. I dont recall the parents having an issue with his race, I do recall that they wanted justice for their son and questioned the police handling of his death I have heard much more about him being profiled for his clothes than I have his race, although there is the question of whether race played a part. Even if Zimmerman had been black, with his history, the question of racial profiling would be relevant. Profiling doesnt only happen interracially,,,,, I cant deny that racism is real or that some people may be having the issue with the race but the INITIAL complaint and the consistent complaint of the parents is that their son deserves justice all whites arent racist, but most americans because of our history and our media, will subconsciously profile and stereotype other americans thats the elephant in the room noone wants to face, but its true a tragedy was quite possibly going to be written off as an 'oops', and that would have been the real tragedy at least now their will be pressure to truly look at the details and disclose to the parents why their son had to die that night... It was an ooppss. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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' SYG has nothing to do with this case, why? Because they have an eye witness which has said Martin was beating Zimmerman from a dominant position while Zimmerman was on his back. To all the kids out there, dont get in fights. You could loose your life, fights are not fun and games. Your rights end where another persons rights start. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? Except assault and battery . . . The kid was being a punk. If someone tried to detain me like that and I was truly innocent I would not fight, wait for the police to arrive, have the guy arrested for false arrest and false imprisonment then get his information so I can sue his a$$. This kid was trying to be a tough guy and a punk. More speculation. there is no WITNESS that he did or did not detain the boy, ,that is the point there are various witnesses to the altercation at different moments of the altercation some saw the man on top, noone has said they saw someone with a grey hoody on top, w hich is how the boy was described BY ZIMMERMAN himself the JOHN who supposedly saw them on the street has not yet had any 911 recording released that he called for help after there IS a 911 call from a black boy who was later interviewed who only said he saw someone BEHIND the houses (not on the street near cars as Zimmerman is claiming it initiated), ironically, t his boy says HIS DOG got loose and then he ran in the house to call 911 and 911 recordings confirm this BOYS story you assume this boy is a punk, although he is a volunteer, an A and B student, a volunteer, with no history of run ins with the law, or history of aggression or temper, who (by zimmermans own account on the phone) RAN AWAY from ZIMMERMAN to believe its more likely this same boy came back and assaulted ZIMMERMAN than it is that this man who was already FOLLOWING HIM and had IDENTIFIED him in his mind as no good, and who himself has a RECORD of domestic abuse allegation and violence against an officer (both of which started with a PUSH from ZIMMERMAN) is beyond me but people can keep looking for justification why this man pursued and then ended up shooting this boy who had harmed and done nothing to anyone , except maybe not be SUBMISSIVE enough for Zimmermans taste if and when he approached him asking him what he was doing there (as if someone owed him an explanation when he IS NOT a police officer) and carrying a weapon that would only initiate further fear in a young man who was aware of the man following him ,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. 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. 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. 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.... 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. 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,,,, There obviously was a crime committed otherwise Zimmerman would have been arrested by now if that were the case. Actually probably not as long as he was acting in good cause, good faith. no, he wasnt arrested because they couldnt yet prove he had broken the law,, ,it had nothing to do with whether Martin committed a crime,,, IM surprised at the intellectual dishonesty to make the suggestion that one has anything to do with the other,,, They need to provide the detailed about the crime the teenager comitted. do you get that he committed NO Crime....???? seriously? wow? thats the whole focus of the outrage about his pursuit and death.... actually the outrage started because the initial press reports were that Zimmerman was white.. this ties into what you can read here on a daily basis. whites are racists.. especially the ones that disagree with obama's failed and catastrophic economic policy.. a tragedy that has been turned into a political rally.. it is pretty appalling to be honest.. That's Obama, Jackson and Sharpton for you. its a good majority of americans, especially parents who have kids that may sometimes wear 'hoodies' or be in areas where they 'look suspicious' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To a white racist all non white is suspicious.
He had no out at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/26/12 01:28 PM
|
|
I honestly dont think it was hate as much as it was unfounded fear.
I feel sorry for Zimmerman because I think he let his 'role' get away from him and made HIM feel like the hunted instead of the hunter, when someone ended up fighting for their life instead of cowering to his approach and possible physical contact, which panicked him and caused him to reach for the simple and fast solution of a gun and a bullet,,,, it would be so much simpler for people to see if he had just walked up and shot him but unfortunately, a fight ensued, and that fight with a teenager gave him justification to take the teenagers life in many peoples minds,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. None of that matters. Who threw the first punch matters. Got any evidence for that? No, then your just rambling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. None of that matters. Who threw the first punch matters. Got any evidence for that? No, then your just rambling. a punch didnt have to be first, when someone has a gun, or has followed you somewhere, just grabbing or pushing you can initiate a reason for a defensive fight,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. None of that matters. Who threw the first punch matters. Got any evidence for that? No, then your just rambling. a punch didnt have to be first, when someone has a gun, or has followed you somewhere, just grabbing or pushing you can initiate a reason for a defensive fight,,,, Doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. None of that matters. Who threw the first punch matters. Got any evidence for that? No, then your just rambling. a punch didnt have to be first, when someone has a gun, or has followed you somewhere, just grabbing or pushing you can initiate a reason for a defensive fight,,,, Doesn't matter. yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, yeah, POLICE misconduct can kill a case all the more reason they should be dotting their I's and crossing their T's,,,,,,,to back up what they claim,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, ... and who supported OJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, illegal touch will be the hard thing to prove Again you fail. Past illegal touch cannot be used to PROVE current illegal touch. Only the evidence gathered in THIS case can be applied to showing in THIS case a person was committing a crime. until or unless circumstantial evidence of lies on Zimmermans part and a past of 'illegal touch' in Zimmermans past tie together circumstantially to hold him accountable Civil it might be enough, Criminal not even close. not quite past history is often used to prove CHARACTER of a defendant, it can tie in very well in a criminal case,,,, remember the domestic abuse calls being used against OJ? remember past allegations of sexual misconduct being used against MJ? yes, history of behavior goes towards character and character can be a big part of how REASONABLE someones action seems,,, ... and who supported OJ. PEOPLE around the country who had gotten fed up with police misconduct in their communities,, basically,,, |
|
|
|
|
