Trayvon / Media

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exactly.

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

[likwid]

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) 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;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) 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;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

Ignorance is bliss

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

What do you base that on?

I'm not saying I think Zimmerman isn't builty, because I don't know many facts. But your statement is insane. If someone is bashing my head into the concrete, and I have a gun, too bad for them.

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. But I can point you to hundreds of cases where "kids beat the crap" out of their victims and either killed them or did grave harm.

You're saying that getting the crap beat out of you by a kid (which is irrelevent) isn't a justifiable use of deadly force. I bet there isn't a criminal lawyer in the country who would agree with you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

The police gave Zimmerman -- as a community watch officer -- strict instructions as to what he could or could not do. He was not supposed to carry a weapon, he was not supposed to engage a suspect. He violated both of these instructions.

As TDF said, witnessing a "crime" may be different. But acting on suspicion alone, especially when you've been instructed not to is clearly a conflict the jury will be forced to consider.

-spence