If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   The lawyer for the ex-cop who shot and killed a man in a Florida movie theater may use the Stand Your Ground defense because the victim "threw an unknown object" at the defendant. That "object?" It was likely popcorn   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 1007
    More: Followup, Chad Oulson, florida, Case CRC1400216CFA, Busch Gardens  
•       •       •

6567 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 11:31 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1007 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-15 06:45:48 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Such a sad story. Even if the old dude goes to jail, is justice really served? He's 70 and retired, his life is basically over anyway.


If Chad Oulson's life wasn't basically over, he might have an opinion on how much time his murderer should serve in prison.  In his stead, perhaps we could put Reeves in prison until his daughter is old enough to understand the situation and offer her opinion on the matter.

// Props to his wife.  It's not the most effective defense, but I have to admire anyone who, in a crisis, tries to block a bullet intended for their spouse.
 
2014-01-15 06:46:15 PM  

scroufus: Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: scroufus: Dimensio: Unless Mr. Zimmerman's actions at any time legally justified or could be construed to have reasonably provoked a physical assault on his person by Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force against Mr. Martin cannot be construed as criminal.

you mean like chasing after him?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had a "right to be" outdoors in the neighborhood. As such, Mr. Zimmerman's act of following Mr. Martin (which was not known to be occurring at the time of Mr. Martin's attack) was not itself justification for a physical attack.

So someone following you wouldnt freak you out?  So people  will run to  safe place if they think some one is chasing after them  some will stand and fight.  Yes they both had a right to be outside but soon as he pursued after Martin it changed things.   That action right there is where it all changed.    We can go back and forth on what ifs but that single factual  event of him leaving his car and going towards martin is what changed it all.

An individual following me in a public space, or in a private space in which both I and my follower are legally present, does not justify my use of force against that individual even if the act of following causes me to become "freaked out".

Even under the hypothetical premise that such an act of following itself justification for a use of force, that justification would end should the follower break contact and cease following me, and therefore my act of seeking out and physically attacking the follower would still not be justified. In such a confrontation, I would be the aggressor, and a use of force to stop my attack would be legally justified.

Being followed by an individual who is not trespassing, absent any other context, is never itself a justification for the use of physical force. Using physical force in response to being followed in public, absent any other context, causes the attacker to be the aggressor and justifies the use of deadly fo ...

when did I say my opinion was law?  I said it was my opinion and you dont have to agree with it just like I dont agree with the verdict.


In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.

Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!

By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.

Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.

Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.
 
2014-01-15 06:54:32 PM  
Dimensio

Did not the prosecution witness testify a belief that Mr. Martin had in fact arrived at his home, and that he doubled-back in pursuit of Mr. Zimmerman?

/I may be in error in recalling such testimony.


You are in error.

scroufus

That racism is a two way street too. Zimzam also was very prejudice against black folks which were documented in all the 911 calls he made prior to this event. He 100% of the time described a black male on his calls to 911 about suspicious people.

This is entirely incorrect. In almost fifty 911 calls prior to the incident we were discussing, he mentioned black people something like eight times. Considering the demographics of his neighborhood (20% black), he reported "black males" roughly on par with their representation in the actual community.

Martins actions where dumb no doubt but as I said before teenagers arent the brightest for the most part. Not to say all teenagers are dim but most of the time they make poor judgement calls.

Indeed. It's a shame that the particular teenager under discussion made the poor judgement call to attack a white homosexual who ended up being a brown heterosexual with a firearm, but that's what happened.
 
2014-01-15 06:55:32 PM  
NOT in error, even.

But to be fair, I remember Jeantel's testimony being that Martin was back by his temporary residence, which could mean anything from actually at the house to down the way.

/shrug
 
2014-01-15 07:03:31 PM  
Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.


funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.
 

 
2014-01-15 07:08:55 PM  

scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.


Keep on f-ing that chicken
 
2014-01-15 07:10:41 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: This is entirely incorrect. In almost fifty 911 calls prior to the incident we were discussing, he mentioned black people something like eight times. Considering the demographics of his neighborhood (20% black), he reported "black males" roughly on par with their representation in the actual community.


True I did pull that one at my ass but I wouldnt doubt he is a little prejudice against black teens.   But I can not prove that so its just my opinion.
 
2014-01-15 07:11:21 PM  

ShadowKamui: scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.

Keep on f-ing that chicken


Then prove it wrong.
 
2014-01-15 07:16:32 PM  

scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: This is entirely incorrect. In almost fifty 911 calls prior to the incident we were discussing, he mentioned black people something like eight times. Considering the demographics of his neighborhood (20% black), he reported "black males" roughly on par with their representation in the actual community.

True I did pull that one at my ass but I wouldnt doubt he is a little prejudice against black teens.   But I can not prove that so its just my opinion.


The reason he called the police about black teenage males is because that young black males were suspects in neighborhood burglaries and home invasions.
 
2014-01-15 07:16:52 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: NOT in error, even.

But to be fair, I remember Jeantel's testimony being that Martin was back by his temporary residence, which could mean anything from actually at the house to down the way.

/shrug


That girl is a moron and hurt the case more than she helped.
 
2014-01-15 07:17:57 PM  

Egoy3k: Kahabut: DROxINxTHExWIND: I told you that it would happen. They need to test the father for marijuana.

How much you want to bet that they can't find any pictures of him doing illegal drugs, holding illegal firearms, and I'm also willing to bet he wasn't in possession of stolen goods.

Good try though.  Racist.

Is it not illegal to concealed carry in an establishment that has a no firearms policy?  Doesn't that make the gun in the theater illegal?


You obviously aren't tracking the conversation all that well.  We were talking about the father that got shot.

As to the gun in the theater, believe it or not, no it's not illegal.  Retired police have special "privileges" when it comes to things like this.  The exact legality of which can only be worked out by 2 lawyers, a judge and the DA.  (so take a wild guess how that is going to turn out)
 
2014-01-15 07:20:30 PM  

Pathman: Egoy3k: Kahabut: DROxINxTHExWIND: I told you that it would happen. They need to test the father for marijuana.

How much you want to bet that they can't find any pictures of him doing illegal drugs, holding illegal firearms, and I'm also willing to bet he wasn't in possession of stolen goods.

Good try though.  Racist.

Is it not illegal to concealed carry in an establishment that has a no firearms policy?  Doesn't that make the gun in the theater illegal?

yup - probably.  definitely trespass anyway.  most places have statutory regulations giving businesses the authority to say "no guns"

as well they should!  your property, your right.


You would think so, but not really.

In the same exact way that your business can't restrict access based on race/creed/etc, it also can't restrict perfectly legal gun carrying, particularly when it's a cop carrying the gun.  (retired or otherwise)

Oh sure, you can say no guns.  You can even have people thrown out if you see them with a gun.  But it's not "illegal" unless the DA press charges, and can you guess how likely that is?
 
2014-01-15 07:23:24 PM  

scroufus: ShadowKamui: scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.

Keep on f-ing that chicken

Then prove it wrong.


The legal term is called justifiable homicide and/or perfect self-defense
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-manslaughter- de fenses.html

So kindly shove it w/ your opinions and lies that run counter to reality
 
2014-01-15 07:29:50 PM  

Kahabut: Egoy3k: Kahabut: DROxINxTHExWIND: I told you that it would happen. They need to test the father for marijuana.

How much you want to bet that they can't find any pictures of him doing illegal drugs, holding illegal firearms, and I'm also willing to bet he wasn't in possession of stolen goods.

Good try though.  Racist.

Is it not illegal to concealed carry in an establishment that has a no firearms policy?  Doesn't that make the gun in the theater illegal?

You obviously aren't tracking the conversation all that well.  We were talking about the father that got shot.

As to the gun in the theater, believe it or not, no it's not illegal.  Retired police have special "privileges" when it comes to things like this.  The exact legality of which can only be worked out by 2 lawyers, a judge and the DA.  (so take a wild guess how that is going to turn out)


The Gun Free Schools Act overrides even the permission granted by the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act. I suspect, however, that the theater does not qualify as a school.
 
2014-01-15 07:40:37 PM  

Dimensio: Even after 886 posts?


You won the internets tonight.
 
2014-01-15 07:41:56 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: "Shall issue" is stupid, too.

As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

That's a wonderful research question. And since "shall issue" started to become common after Congress blocked research into firearm violence, we need to study it.
But why are you limiting your comparison to a small subset of concealed carriers?
Is is because real research shows that when a higher percentage of the population is armed, there are higher rates of firearm homicide and suicide?

Yawn.  60% of the population of Wyoming is armed, vs Gun free Maryland at 22%.

Yet gun murders are 6x higher in Maryland.   Apparently, simply possessing guns doesn't cause people to just shoot their fellow man.


You mean to tell me that rural states with extremely low population densities where people actually use firearms to hunt have lower homicide rates than largely urban, densely-populated states?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
/Way to compare sausages with cumquats.
 
2014-01-15 07:43:43 PM  

ShadowKamui: scroufus: ShadowKamui: scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.

Keep on f-ing that chicken

Then prove it wrong.

The legal term is called justifiable homicide and/or perfect self-defense
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-manslaughter- de fenses.html

So kindly shove it w/ your opinions and lies that run counter to reality


Haha Opinion and lies. No ones allowed opinions even if you dont agree with them?  I guess I did misread that manslaughter charge because Florida has stupid laws.  How long did it take you to find that answer?   However as I said before he should have been charged with manslaughter and found guilty thus negating his self-defense claim.   The manslaughter charges would have stuck if the DA wasnt incompetent.   He fit the bill for manslaughter.

Elements of the Offense
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:
Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.


Following someone you dont know because you believe they committed a crime is inherent dangerous because you do not know if that person has a gun.  Zimzam had a gun knew his actions could warrant him pulling out his weapon and discharging it.

That is not his job to police the area.  That is the polices job.  If the polices fail at their job then you complain to them not take law into your own hands because fark it im the zimzam.


The judeg wouldnt have brought up manslaughter charges for nothing
 
2014-01-15 07:47:07 PM  
scroufus

That girl is a moron and hurt the case more than she helped.

She hurt the prosecution's case. Her comments didn't hurt Zimmerman at all, and those after the trial (that Martin was just going back to beat up a white homosexual for laffs)...well...
 
2014-01-15 07:48:41 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Nutsac_Jim: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: "Shall issue" is stupid, too.

As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

That's a wonderful research question. And since "shall issue" started to become common after Congress blocked research into firearm violence, we need to study it.
But why are you limiting your comparison to a small subset of concealed carriers?
Is is because real research shows that when a higher percentage of the population is armed, there are higher rates of firearm homicide and suicide?

Yawn.  60% of the population of Wyoming is armed, vs Gun free Maryland at 22%.

Yet gun murders are 6x higher in Maryland.   Apparently, simply possessing guns doesn't cause people to just shoot their fellow man.

You mean to tell me that rural states with extremely low population densities where people actually use firearms to hunt have lower homicide rates than largely urban, densely-populated states?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
/Way to compare sausages with cumquats.


you linked Montana not Wyoming but either way your point is still valid.  Just letting you know you go the wrong link.
 
2014-01-15 07:49:59 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

That girl is a moron and hurt the case more than she helped.

She hurt the prosecution's case. Her comments didn't hurt Zimmerman at all, and those after the trial (that Martin was just going back to beat up a white homosexual for laffs)...well...


well yea she hurt the prosecution case.  That is what I meant.  She helped the Zimzam more than anything because of her poor choice of words.
 
2014-01-15 07:56:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: scroufus: However as I said before he should have been charged with manslaughter and found guilty thus negating his self-defense claim. The manslaughter charges would have stuck if the DA wasnt incompetent. He fit the bill for manslaughter.

Manslaughter was considered by the jury you nitwit.


You dont say! I know that it was considered I never said it wasnt.  The judge was strongly hinting to them that he fit the bill for it BUT she can not tell them how to come out with the verdict.    I said he should have been found guilty of manslaughter but the DA failed horribly at proving that.  After all this is the same DA that was at the Casey Anthony trail.
 
2014-01-15 08:06:57 PM  

scroufus: I said he should have been found guilty of manslaughter but the DA failed horribly at proving that.


Of course the DA failed horribly at proving it.  Because manslaughter doesn't fit. In order to fit, you would have to maintain that a reasonable person would think it logical and rational to believe that walking behind a person will logical progresses to you shooting them as a normal chain of events.

Since this:

25.media.tumblr.com

...Doesn't result in mass casualties by gunfire, the assumption that walking near another person concludes in gunfire must be wrong.

The lethal chain of events started with Martins aggression.  Manslaughter isn't the appropriate charge.
 
2014-01-15 08:12:20 PM  

Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

this allowance along with keeping firearms at home should be subject to periodic review just like anything else with potential hazardous consequences to the public.

FTFY - and yes, I know it was a troll.  And a damn good one too.

My take on the whole guns is nicely summed up by misquoting Bill Clinton: "Guns in public should not only be safe and legal, they should be rare."
 
2014-01-15 08:20:55 PM  

Click Click D'oh: scroufus: I said he should have been found guilty of manslaughter but the DA failed horribly at proving that.

Of course the DA failed horribly at proving it.  Because manslaughter doesn't fit. In order to fit, you would have to maintain that a reasonable person would think it logical and rational to believe that walking behind a person will logical progresses to you shooting them as a normal chain of events.

Since this:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x339]

...Doesn't result in mass casualties by gunfire, the assumption that walking near another person concludes in gunfire must be wrong.

The lethal chain of events started with Martins aggression.  Manslaughter isn't the appropriate charge.


Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street.  Fine work there kiddo.
 
2014-01-15 08:31:00 PM  

Kahabut: Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.


Okie dokie then Fark Legal Eagle.  What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

Oh wait none?  Oh wait, that would be illegal?

Then it can't be the rational and predicted outcome of the action.
 
2014-01-15 08:36:02 PM  

Persnickety: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired. this allowance along with keeping firearms at home should be subject to periodic review just like anything else with potential hazardous consequences to the public.

FTFY - and yes, I know it was a troll.  And a damn good one too.

My take on the whole guns is nicely summed up by misquoting Bill Clinton: "Guns in public should not only be safe and legal, they should be rare."


Firearms in public are rare. Few individuals obtain concealed weapons permits.
 
2014-01-15 08:37:07 PM  
IANAL, but I slept at a Holiday Inn with my girlfriend Morgan Fairchild, and at some point wandered over to Wikipedia.

According to the W, LEOSA does not supersede the rights of private business owners to prohibit CCWs on their property in states which explicitly allow businesses to prohibit CCWs on their property.  Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are such states.

I'd add that it seems obvious that private property owners should be able to prohibit CCW on their properties (limited to non-LEOSA-qualified people), but I'm cribbing from wikipedia, Morgan's calling to me from my sock drawer and I have to bring my trash cans in, so I'm not going on record about this side issue.  I'll just say you may not bring firearms onto my property, and give you fair warning that I have a bunch of eggs from Justin Beiber's place, West Virginia Water, an ornery raccoon under my porch, some feral parrots in the avocado tree and diswashing detergent that is NOT gentle on hands, so you people looking for trouble would best keep away.
 
2014-01-15 08:41:08 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Kahabut: Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.

Okie dokie then Fark Legal Eagle.  What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

Oh wait none?  Oh wait, that would be illegal?

Then it can't be the rational and predicted outcome of the action.


he wasnt walking in proximity he was clearly jogging towards him.  You can hear him out of breathe and that is why the kid ran.   He wasnt trying to hid the fact that he was going straight for the kid.   Hell he even said he was following him on the 911 call.  Which is why they advised him not too.
 
2014-01-15 08:41:12 PM  

scroufus: ShadowKamui: scroufus: ShadowKamui: scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.

Keep on f-ing that chicken

Then prove it wrong.

The legal term is called justifiable homicide and/or perfect self-defense
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-manslaughter- de fenses.html

So kindly shove it w/ your opinions and lies that run counter to reality

Haha Opinion and lies. No ones allowed opinions even if you dont agree with them?  I guess I did misread that manslaughter charge because Florida has stupid laws.  How long did it take you to find that answer?   However as I said before he should have been charged with manslaughter and found guilty thus negating his self-defense claim.   The manslaughter charges would have stuck if the DA wasnt incompetent.   He fit th ...


Opinions don't override facts no matter how much you cry about it it
 
2014-01-15 08:51:53 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Kahabut: Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.

Okie dokie then Fark Legal Eagle.  What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

Oh wait none?  Oh wait, that would be illegal?

Then it can't be the rational and predicted outcome of the action.


Are you farking serious?  You can't be that obtuse.

Are you really, or are you just being this way because it's fun on fark?
 
2014-01-15 08:53:54 PM  

scroufus: Click Click D'oh: Kahabut: Damn, that is some REALLY EXCELLENT bait and switching going on there.

Comparing a daylight parade to a dark night on a mostly deserted street. Fine work there kiddo.

Okie dokie then Fark Legal Eagle.  What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

Oh wait none?  Oh wait, that would be illegal?

Then it can't be the rational and predicted outcome of the action.

he wasnt walking in proximity he was clearly jogging towards him.  You can hear him out of breathe and that is why the kid ran.   He wasnt trying to hid the fact that he was going straight for the kid.   Hell he even said he was following him on the 911 call.  Which is why they advised him not too.


Still not illegal to do that nor reasonable to punch someone for doing it.
 
2014-01-15 08:56:14 PM  

scroufus: he wasnt walking in proximity he was clearly jogging towards him. You can hear him out of breathe and that is why the kid ran.


It doesn't matter if he was on a Segway, boucing on a pogo stick, doing shoulder rolls or bear crawling.  He was engaged in something perfectly legal to do that posed no direct threat to Mr. Martin that could be reacted to with force.  This isn't SouthPark. The "he's commin right for us" defense doesn't really exist.


scroufus: He wasnt trying to hid the fact that he was going straight for the kid.


Well, I'm glad you were there to see that.  What was Mr. Zimmermans plan when he got to Mr. Martin, and what indicators are you using to determine that?

scroufus: Hell he even said he was following him on the 911 call.


And you think you can justifiably use force in response to a person calling 911 on you?

Yeah, we get it.  The rational person standard doesn't apply to you, because you're frakking insane.
 
2014-01-15 09:02:37 PM  

Kahabut: Are you farking serious? You can't be that obtuse.

Are you really, or are you just being this way because it's fun on fark?


Since you declined to answer, I'll ask again:What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

If there is no such thing in Florida law (and don't worry, there isn't), then using force illegally against a person can not be viewed as a reasonable, logical and unavoidable continuation of the chain of events started by that person walking... which you must claim it is if walking now raised to the level of manslaughter.  That is, it can't be found that walking down the street, committing no crime, reasonably and logically results a persons loss of life.
 
2014-01-15 09:23:26 PM  

scroufus: Provocation: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control


Following someone is now something that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control?
 
2014-01-15 09:27:17 PM  

Kahabut: You would think so, but not really.

In the same exact way that your business can't restrict access based on race/creed/etc, it also can't restrict perfectly legal gun carrying, particularly when it's a cop carrying the gun.  (retired or otherwise)

Oh sure, you can say no guns.  You can even have people thrown out if you see them with a gun.  But it's not "illegal" unless the DA press charges, and can you guess how likely that is?


gun owners aren't a protected class like some of those other examples you mentioned.  it might not be a crime, depending on the locality, but again it's definitely a trespass.  there is a contract when you enter into someone's business, if it is clearly posted that firearms are prohibited, then you are trespassing if you carry a gun onto that property.

most places have statutes that will allow police to carry firearms in those places which is going to be a privilege defense to any sort of legal complaint raised for them bringing the gun onto a place where its prohibited.  i doubt those same statutes allow retired police to carry in most places.
 
2014-01-15 10:08:19 PM  
Reasonable people don't lose self control over texting in a movie theater.
 
2014-01-15 10:20:40 PM  

scroufus: After all this is the same DA that was at the Casey Anthony trail.


huh?
 
KIA
2014-01-15 10:21:37 PM  

spiderpaz: Why are there so many piss-pants cowards out there that are so afraid of a "beat-down" that they want to keep their finger on a hair trigger all the time?  It must be an awful life to walk around terrified of everyone around you all the time.  People like you just need to be taken outside and have the crap kicked out of them one time just to show you that it's not the end of the world ... it's not worth being afraid all the damn time.


A) You first.

B) Beatings quite often do result in death.  This chance is increased if the attacker is younger and stronger and the victim is 70 years old.
 
2014-01-15 10:34:26 PM  

scroufus: Phinn:
In my opinion, you're guilty of Spouting Nonsense Law-Talking in the Second Degree, and should be jailed for it.
Even though it's not technically against the "law," it doesn't matter. People differ on legal opinions all the time, and to me you were and are guilty. Go ye to jail!
By the way, provocation requires actual force. There's no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There's evidence he followed him, but that's not provocation.
Also, as to Zimmerman's self-defense defense, it fully negates all homicides. Manslaughter included.
Most importantly, a self-defense claim is presumed true until disproven. Here, no one living saw the altercation (except Zimzam). All the witness and forensic evidence corroborated Zimzam's self-defense claim. Under no circumstances was it even close to be disproven beyond a doubt.

funny thing about opinions...

Criminally negligent manslaughter This type of manslaughter does not need to have  a person use physical force. It means they acted inappropriately causing serious harm or death

And no self-defense does not negate manslaughter.  It only downgrade Homicides to manslaughter because the act was not intended with malice.   That one I did have to look up. But its there if you go look.



For the short explanation as to why you are utterly wrong, please look up the Florida Jury Instructions on manslaughter.  You will find that it says that "The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter ... if the killing was justifiable."

You'll also need to refer to section 776.012 of the Florida Statutes, where it states, "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if ... he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides.

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly how thoroughly and irretrievably wrong you are.
 
2014-01-15 10:35:31 PM  

Fark It: scroufus: Provocation: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control

Following someone is now something that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control?


Are you asserting you wouldn't be the least bit concerned for your safety if someone started jogging toward you in the dark after following you in their car? And you expect us to believe that? And then after hiding and basically circling back on your path, that person still followed you, you wouldn't consider them a threat to your safety?
 
2014-01-15 11:00:11 PM  
He's white. He's guilty.

He's a LEO. He's not guilty.

He's old. We don't care.

He used a gun. WHARRGARBL

Thanks, Florida. Thanks.
 
2014-01-15 11:21:33 PM  

mofa: According to the W, LEOSA does not supersede the rights of private business owners to prohibit CCWs on their property in states which explicitly allow businesses to prohibit CCWs on their property.  Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are such states.


In other word, if I don't live in these states, I have no right to keep a retired Officer out of my house if he's packing?

Lovely.
 
2014-01-15 11:55:56 PM  

fnordfocus: mofa: According to the W, LEOSA does not supersede the rights of private business owners to prohibit CCWs on their property in states which explicitly allow businesses to prohibit CCWs on their property.  Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are such states.

In other word, if I don't live in these states, I have no right to keep a retired Officer out of my house if he's packing?

Lovely.


Even if states don't explicitly allow you to prevent people from coming in with a legally concealed weapon (ie a preventative sign), you can ask them to leave if you find out they are carrying. Indiana is absent from that list, but business owners can ask people to leave. Retired LEOs are just people with a federal CCW. They aren't a protected class of citizen.
 
2014-01-16 12:00:37 AM  

brantgoose: Welcome to America.

The death penalty applies for every crime, from attempting to ask direction while black to throwing popcorn in a movie theatre.

But you can't kill a fetus the size of a pin head even if it almost certainly will cost the life of the mother-to-be or was produced by incestuous father-daughter rape and will certainly be a miserable shameful inbred misfit and cause of misery and crime for life.

Because that would be murder.


..and against God.
 
2014-01-16 12:53:26 AM  

vpb: It will probably work.


Next time it ain't gonna be a bag of popcorn that gets thrown at him.

Baby Boomers with guns + age related cognitive decline.... errrr this ain't going to be pretty.

Q: How do we get the car keys away from gramdpa?
A: First we have to get his gun away from him.

\Going to make a mint selling fake ammo to people who are afraid of grandma accidentally shooting the postman.
 
2014-01-16 02:08:58 AM  

fnordfocus: In other word, if I don't live in these states, I have no right to keep a retired Officer out of my house if he's packing?

Lovely.


Well, you can order anyone out of your house for any reason, as long as they are not LEOs who have a warrant to be in your house and they're not actively pursuing some criminal in a time-sensitive emergency situation.  You can forbid all others (including LEOs who don't have LEO-related business) from being there; but you can't forbid LEOSA-compliant people from carrying their weapons.  Since you can tell them to leave anyway, the LEOSA thing is probably not meaningful in a private residence.  Also, you can't forbid your spouse or renter-with-a-lease from being in the house unless you have a court order or you're my cousins shiatstain ex-husband who may or may not die a slow, painful death.  (Don't worry; I'm not going to do it.  The waiting list is too long).

With the exceptoin of LEOs on LEO business with proper pieces of paper, that list of states is where LEOSA-compliant people who are not on official LEO duty still must adhere to proprietors' No-CCW policies.  But in the rest of the states, you can always go with the same thing they do with blah people: "this guy is creating a nuisance; these assholes always get away with it, and I need you to come arrest him."  It's just that "nuisance" is subjective, whereas the existence of a gun in a location where it's explicitly and legally prohibited is objective.

BTW: you can order someone out of your house even if they're in a protected class, and even if your reason is, "I don't like THOSE people."  Your life experiences will be less interesting, but you can do that.  I won't comment on subtleties such as people you employ to butter the garden or mow the kids; others can talk passionately about such subjects.

I am also not going to hazard any guess about people with CCW permits who are neither LEO nor former LEO; that path leads to madness.  In general, though, it seems to me that someone with a CCW permit who somehow lets you find out that they have a CCW are not following the whole "C" part of CCW, and I'd want to red shift from them.  Responsible people with CCW permits would be the people you don't know have CCWs, and I'd trust them.  So, there you have it: as a default, I trust friends to exercise good judgment regarding important things such as their handling of guns, and in general, I trust random strangers not to shoot me.  I may be wrong at the wrong time, but the alternative is to live in a state of constant paranoia.  That way also leads to madness.

// In my opinion, the two major groups of people in the US can be summed up thusly: one group fears that everyone is as mean, selfish and bitter as they themselves are, and one group hopes that everyone is as hopeful and compassionate as they themselves are.  I could be wrong, though; wouldn't be the first time.
 
2014-01-16 05:56:35 AM  

Dimensio: As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.


So you're in favor of changing the law such that the CDC and/or ATF can start keeping stats and studying gun crime, because the gun lobby got specific wording instituted that seriously hampers the federal government from doing that.  That way we could confirm or refute this canard.

As it is, in this case, does it matter?  I don't think it does, and as you've pointed out, shall issue doesn't apply here, but it seems daft to me, nonetheless.  As does stand your ground.  And knowing several cops and former cops, the ones that would carry probably shouldn't, and ones that won't probably should, much like those that seek elected office are the people who least deserve it.
 
2014-01-16 06:09:45 AM  

Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.


That's like saying that everyone's cars should be taken away because of the few who drive irresponsibly.  It's not logical to deny everyone something because of a small minority who are careless
 
2014-01-16 07:42:12 AM  

Nabb1: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

The shooter is a retired police captain.


What about the paid administrative leave vacation he gets because he shot someone? Will the department bring him out of retirement in order to send him on his paid administrative leave vacation, or simply mail him the checks as if he was still on the payroll?
 
2014-01-16 07:58:52 AM  
If retired cops are allowed to carry a concealed handgun anywhere, then retired military should be allowed to carry an assault rifle anywhere.

I'd trust a Vietnam / Iraqi / Afghanistan vet suffering from PTSD with an M-4 more than I'd trust some retired Deputy Dawg with a .38 special.
 
Displayed 50 of 1007 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report