Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

[navkat]

"I'm gonna self-defend the shit out of you!"
      /

This is my new favorite saying of 2012...along with "I DIDN'T FIGHT IN THE NAVY SO THESE FUCKS COULD _____!"

[Disco Pickle]

The problem is there hasn't been a grand jury convened to hear the facts yet.  The outrage comes from him not being held in custody until that happens, with good reason.

There was more than enough probable cause to make an arrest.

The police have no intention of arresting this bastard.  Why?

Black kid shot in Florida.  That's why.

Given Sanford's history with the black community, yeah.  More than likely.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

[Disco Pickle]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".

And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

[Disco Pickle]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".

And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law.  That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended.  That still doesn't make it a bad law.  It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.

[Freeky]

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

God dammit Pickle.  You never learn, do you?


YOU misread what she wrote, YOU are being a dick, and YOU said something fucking stupid in the first place, and now YOU are digging in your heels.

How many times do we have to go through this?  I mean, come on.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".

And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.

Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????

But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html

The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.

There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.

How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law.  That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended.  That still doesn't make it a bad law.  It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.

Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.

[Disco Pickle]

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

God dammit Pickle.  You never learn, do you?


YOU misread what she wrote, YOU are being a dick, and YOU said something fucking stupid in the first place, and now YOU are digging in your heels.

How many times do we have to go through this?  I mean, come on.

And I said I misread what she said.  I said it in a very dickish tone.  I don't see where I said something stupid in the first place.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Not worried. Just saying as much as Castle Law gets abused for all kinds of stupid racist reasons, how much stupider is THIS law?

[Disco Pickle]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".

And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.

Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????

But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html

The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.

There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.

How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law.  That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended.  That still doesn't make it a bad law.  It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.

Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.

What I meant by being validly used was when someone breaks into your home.  The reason the law was passed.  I thought this point was clear in the previous posts.  I'll reiterate that IMHO, that is a good law and a very good reason to have it, as people have been prosecuted for doing so when, before the law was passed, doing so would get you arrested, tried and convicted.

"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html

The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.

There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.

And there are a disturbingly large faction of people who become victims of violent, sometimes deadly crimes, who have the need to defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, without the ADDED fear of prosecution and incarceration.

What about them?

My internets are being stupid and I can't seem to get to the link but giving you the benefit of the doubt, that means that what you're saying is there is a problem with the enforcement, investigation and prosecution of the law.  I don't think that makes it a bad law. 

Yes, by the time it gets to jury the guy is dead.  When the law is used improperly, (and humans are notorious for this, finding ways around laws) people sometimes die.  People also die when people break laws that are very clear cut: home invasion followed by murder of the person or people.  Are you saying it's better for those people to die and possibly never have the attacker brought to justice?  That was the intention of the law as written.  You mentioned this yourself.  Is that supposed to be thrown under the bus because the law is being abused in some cases?  Or should there be a more strict interpretation of the law?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The law as it is written is, IMHO, a sound and a good one. 

It is being horribly misused in this and several other cases, but that doesn't make it a bad law. 

And I know it's fun to make fun of Florida, because we're just sooo zany, but we're not the only state to pass a law like this.  We were just the first.

I'm of the opinion that pacificism codified in law with threat of incarceration if not adhered is more dangerous.

I feel that I should reiterate that ^ that, is an opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

THIS fucker has it coming to him, though.   He was the instigator. 

Fucking sad story.

It's a bad law BECAUSE it gives all kinds of leeway to be misused. 
The law where I live is that you can shoot someone if they break into your house. Sounds fair, doesn't it? But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

Dragging a body into the living room is obviously more of a hassle than saying "He swung at me".

So how does ONE person saying "It was self defense" when the OTHER person (obviously, since they're dead) can't say shit, justify saying "OK, cool, you can go home now"?

I clearly said it was being misused in this instance, but feel free to ignore that.

The reason you site for the law being validly used was exactly why it was passed here, after someone was convicted for not "backing down" when someone broke into their house and instead shot them, dead.

I know you said it was misused. My post was in reference to your statement that "it doesn't make it a bad law".

And where did I cite a reason for the law being validly used????? How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

Oh, I forgot where I was for a minute and missed your facetious and condescending tone. 

I'm being "facetious and condescending" because I asked you to point out where I said something that I never said and you didn't do it? OK, yeah, whatever.

Now, would you show me where I supposedly cited a reason for the law being validly used?????

But there's a lot of stories of people who shot somebody outside and dragged them in. If the "right" person shoots the "wrong" (smudgey) person, there could be a blood smear from the corner bar to the living room and the cops wouldn't see it.

"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html

The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.

There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.

How is there a "valid use" for a law that lets people shoot anybody they want for no reason whatsoever and get out of it by saying "he tried to attack me"?

That is NOT, in fact, a valid use of the law.  That is an abuse of the law and a use for which it was not intended.  That still doesn't make it a bad law.  It means that there needs to be better judicial interpretation and application of the law, and that juries should be given a clear reading of the law and when it is applicable before they hear a case where it is called as a defense.

Uhhh...by the time it gets to the jury, the guy is DEAD.

What I meant by being validly used was when someone breaks into your home.  The reason the law was passed.  I thought this point was clear in the previous posts.  I'll reiterate that IMHO, that is a good law and a very good reason to have it, as people have been prosecuted for doing so when, before the law was passed, doing so would get you arrested, tried and convicted.

No, I used the Castle Law as an example of a similar law that gets abused. I meant the law in Florida that lets people say it was "self defense" when they kill somebody ANY TIME, ANY PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE ANYTHING is a bad law.

Did you listen to the tape of Zimerman's 911 call? He was setting the whole thing up ahead of time, and if everybody hadn't made a big stink, that would have been the end of it. That law is a license to hunt people.

"Drag him inside after you shoot him" is common advice here. A quick google got me this
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/One-night-after-burglary-San-Antonio-man-kills-1676299.php://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-360477.html

The expression has spread as far north as Minneapolis, where it doesn't fly, but Texas is another story.

There's a disturbingly large faction of people inbred racist dipshits looking for excuses to use deadly force.

And there are a disturbingly large faction of people who become victims of violent, sometimes deadly crimes, who have the need to defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, without the ADDED fear of prosecution and incarceration.

What about them?

My internets are being stupid and I can't seem to get to the link but giving you the benefit of the doubt, that means that what you're saying is there is a problem with the enforcement, investigation and prosecution of the law.  I don't think that makes it a bad law. 

Yes, by the time it gets to jury the guy is dead.  When the law is used improperly, (and humans are notorious for this, finding ways around laws) people sometimes die.  People also die when people break laws that are very clear cut: home invasion followed by murder of the person or people.  Are you saying it's better for those people to die and possibly never have the attacker brought to justice?  That was the intention of the law as written.  You mentioned this yourself.  Is that supposed to be thrown under the bus because the law is being abused in some cases?  Or should there be a more strict interpretation of the law?

Again, I'm not talking about home invasion. I'm talking about a kid walking back from the store.
With a law like that, you can be walking on any quiet street and you're fair game. It's a stupid law that was possibly even designed to enable racists exactly like Zimmerman (meh, Florida) and he knew it.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Thank you, PD.com.

Without you I sometimes start falling under the delusion that the world around me is Pretty Okay.

[Disco Pickle]

the law isn't a license to hunt people, it's being misused by people with a propensity toward violence to justify homicide and or murder.

I think we're crossing each other up a bit.  At times we seem to agree (this was a case of someone hunting someone down he thought was "suspecious", getting his ass beat by that person, and killing him.  Really it becomes a question of homicide or murder.) and yet disagree (Castle Law as applied to home invasion or armed robbery means use of lethal force cannot send the victim to jail, or subject them to prosecution for unresonable use of force (in the case of injury but not death))

I think this guy was clearly in the wrong for pursuing the kid, antagonizing him into being defensive, then shooting him when things didn't go his way. 

IMO, clear cut, dumb ass should go to jail.

The link you posted, that I've had a chance to read now, should not have resulted in any charges against the person defending their home.  No, he shouldn't have moved the body. Never move a body.   But if it's 2:30 in the morning and there's someone in my kitchen I do not know I won't wait to see if they're friendly.  That's how cold cases are created.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

the law isn't a license to hunt people, it's being misused by people with a propensity toward violence to justify homicide and or murder.

I think we're crossing each other up a bit.  At times we seem to agree (this was a case of someone hunting someone down he thought was "suspecious", getting his ass beat by that person,

There was no ass beating. Just killing.

and killing him.  Really it becomes a question of homicide or murder.) and yet disagree (Castle Law as applied to home invasion or armed robbery means use of lethal force cannot send the victim to jail, or subject them to prosecution for unresonable use of force (in the case of injury but not death))

I think this guy was clearly in the wrong for pursuing the kid, antagonizing him into being defensive,

"Defensive" as far as yelling for help. Listen to the tapes.

then shooting him when things didn't go his way. 

IMO, clear cut, dumb ass should go to jail.

Yep. For a lonnnnngass time.

The link you posted, that I've had a chance to read now, should not have resulted in any charges against the person defending their home.  No, he shouldn't have moved the body. Never move a body.   But if it's 2:30 in the morning and there's someone in my kitchen I do not know I won't wait to see if they're friendly.  That's how cold cases are created.

It's dicey. The guy he shot was running away and wasn't a threat at that point. OTOH, his place had been broken into not long before and I can see how he just wanted it to stop.

If it's 2:30 in the morning and there's somebody in the kitchen, they could be there to kill you. Or they could be some fifteen year old coming to steal the DVD player. I'd personally feel horrible if I shot a kid like that. That's why I keep dogs. So far, they've kept people from breaking in and my neighborhood is pretty high theft.