Home owner fired at burglar- gets arrested

[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. Outside of castle doctrine on your own property in some states, the standard if imminent danger is such that you have to clearly be in danger to use lethal force. Not just be in an unknown situation where there could be threat. You have to verify the danger before shooting. Again other than on your own property in some state's castle laws. But some states still require some standard of imminent threat even on your own property--they aren't all like Texas where you can shoot damn near anyone who's on your property.[/QUOTE]

Except in this case, and the multiple other cases that were quoted in this thread.
 
We're talking what the legal standard of imminent danger is, not what anyone thinks it is.

Outside of castle laws on your own property, thinking a criminal "may come after you" does not meet that standard.

If you're just arguing that it should, then fine. Agree to disagree on what it should be. If you're trying to argue that just thinking a criminal may come after you (not on your own property) meets the current legal standards for imminent danger, then you're simply wrong.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We're talking what the legal standard of imminent danger is, not what anyone thinks it is.

Outside of castle laws on your own property, thinking a criminal "may come after you" does not meet that standard.

If you're just arguing that it should, then fine. Agree to disagree on what it should be. If you're trying to argue that just thinking a criminal may come after you (not on your own property) meets the current legal standards for imminent danger, then you're simply wrong.[/QUOTE]


Can you remind me what the legal definition of deadly force is?


I would also like to know the application of deadly force because I believe somewhere it was stated:

Yep, shooting a firearm is always using lethal force, even if it's not aimed at someone.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Can you remind me what the legal definition of deadly force is?


I would also like to know the application of deadly force because I believe somewhere it was stated:

Yep, shooting a firearm is always using lethal force, even if it's not aimed at someone.[/QUOTE]


Edit: :) I'm Kidding. I figured I'm wait about ten minutes to see if I really was added to your ignore list.

Guess so
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We're talking what the legal standard of imminent danger is, not what anyone thinks it is.

Outside of castle laws on your own property, thinking a criminal "may come after you" does not meet that standard.

If you're just arguing that it should, then fine. Agree to disagree on what it should be. If you're trying to argue that just thinking a criminal may come after you (not on your own property) meets the current legal standards for imminent danger, then you're simply wrong.[/QUOTE]

And my argument is that it is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sure in the books it may list a definition, because it has to. However applied in real life, situational facts are taken into consideration. Such as in this case. Do you think the outcome for the victim would be any different if he shot the guy?
 
And that's where the discretion comes into play with being able to decide not to press charges, or to press lesser charges.

The imminent danger laws are on the books, and state that there has to be clear danger, just not suspicion that there could be danger (again except for castle laws for situations on your own property in some states). So the law is black and white.

It's just the enforcement of the law is not black and white in this country as actors in the system like police, prosecutors and judges have tremendous discretion, and even when they go forward with things there's the possibility of jury nullification in a case like this.

And of course the case would be very different if he'd actually shot the person. Hopefully it would be like the case I mentioned in Maryland where the guy who shot a fleeing thief got a voluntary manslaughter conviction and prison time as we can't have citizen's running around shooting property criminals in situations where there isn't clear imminent danger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And that's where the discretion comes into play with being able to decide not to press charges, or to press lesser charges.

The imminent danger laws are on the books, and state that there has to be clear danger, just not suspicion that there could be danger (again except for castle laws for situations on your own property in some states). So the law is black and white.

It's just the enforcement of the law is not black and white in this country as actors in the system like police, prosecutors and judges have tremendous discretion, and even when they go forward with things there's the possibility of jury nullification in a case like this.

And of course the case would be very different if he'd actually shot the person. Hopefully it would be like the case I mentioned in Maryland where the guy who shot a fleeing thief got a voluntary manslaughter conviction and prison time as we can't have citizen's running around shooting property criminals in situations where there isn't clear imminent danger.[/QUOTE]

So why was it so outrageous for people to say that he should not be charged?

I still think you are overstating the threat of people running around shooting each other over property. It is obviously happening right now regardless of the law. I would guess most cases where victims shot the criminals, the law didn't enter into their mind at any point.
 
Because I think it's fucking ridiculous for anyone to think it's ok to shoot at or near someone in any situation other than having clear risk of danger to yourself or loved ones if you don't do so.

It isn't legally ridiculous to think discretion could be used to not press charges. I just don't like the precedent it sets as a firearm should never be discharged at/near another person unless their is clear danger and the person is shooting to kill/incapacitate as a last resort.
 
I hope the home owner gets a jury and walks with no charges. What, was the old man supposed to wait until he gets his skull crushed in so that you liberals out there can see he has the right to use force? He was obviously intimidated and in fear of his life.

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically" says everything. Who are you guys to say he didn't perceive a clear danger, you weren't there!
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I hope the home owner gets a jury and walks with no charges. What, was the old man supposed to wait until he gets his skull crushed in so that you liberals out there can see he has the right to use force? He was obviously intimidated and in fear of his life.

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically" says everything. Who are you guys to say he didn't perceive a clear danger, you weren't there![/QUOTE]
And you're a fucking moron because you didn't read the thread.:booty:
 
*sigh* I've said it once, and I'm sure I'll keep on saying it, the only real utility of the vs. forum is to weed out the idiots who need put on ignore.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']*sigh* I've said it once, and I'm sure I'll keep on saying it, the only real utility of the vs. forum is to weed out the idiots who need put on ignore.[/QUOTE]

Hahah... You've been IgNoReD... booooyah
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I hope the home owner gets a jury and walks with no charges. What, was the old man supposed to wait until he gets his skull crushed in so that you liberals out there can see he has the right to use force? He was obviously intimidated and in fear of his life.

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically" says everything. Who are you guys to say he didn't perceive a clear danger, you weren't there![/QUOTE]

Not to worry - the guy walked.

This whole case proves why jury of your peers was a good idea.
 
I wonder where knoell is with his imminent threat defense. I'd say that the victim here was the kid that bought some skittles and an ice tea as every decision of the shooter after seeing this kid is basically indefensible.
 
Well I'm sure the kid looked at him suspiciously or something, right? I mean no way is the guy at fault here. He's a white guy in a gated community and saw a black kid walking down his neighborhood street, totally justifiable.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well I'm sure the kid looked at him suspiciously or something, right? I mean no way is the guy at fault here. He's a white guy in a gated community and saw a black kid walking down his neighborhood street, totally justifiable.[/QUOTE]
Zimmerman, the shooter, probably had Type 1 diabetes and upon seeing a black kid walking around a predominantly white neighborhood eating some delicious skittles and having a refreshing bottle of iced tea, Zimmerman realized that Martin, the "victim," was intending to kill him by making him chug a bottle of iced tea and eat some skittles. Imminent threat established! See, it has nothing to do with race at all!

*I wish I could take credit for this one, but I idea for it in another forum.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I can't believe that guy wasn't arrested.[/QUOTE]

Really? You think it's that important to lockup a guy who overzealously protects his neighbor's property?

No wonder the US prison system is overcrowded.
 
[quote name='camoor']Really? You think it's that important to lockup a guy who overzealously protects his neighbor's property?

No wonder the US prison system is overcrowded.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about the most recent story, in Florida. Is that what you're talking about? The "neighborhood watch" guy shot and killed his neighbor's son in front of the neighbor's house, but he apparently wasn't arrested.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I was talking about the most recent story, in Florida. Is that what you're talking about? The "neighborhood watch" guy shot and killed his neighbor's son in front of the neighbor's house, but he apparently wasn't arrested.[/QUOTE]

No I havent been following the thread for a while. It got kinda ridiculous and I bailed.

That actually sounds pretty bad.
 
[quote name='Yahoo News article']

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The family of a 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death last month in his gated Florida community by a white Neighborhood Watch captain wants to see the captain arrested, the family's lawyer said on Wednesday.

Trayvon Martin was shot dead after he took a break from watching NBA All-Star game television coverage to walk 10 minutes to a convenience store to buy snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad, the family's lawyer Ben Crump said.

"He was a good kid," Crump said in an interview, adding that the family would issue a call for the Watch captain's arrest at a news conference on Thursday. "On his way home, a Neighborhood Watch loose cannon shot and killed him."

Trayvon, who lived in Miami with his mother, had been visiting his father and stepmother in a gated townhome community called The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, 20 miles north of Orlando.

As Trayvon returned to the townhome, Sanford police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person.

Although names are blacked out on the police report, Crump and media reports at the time of the shooting identified the caller as George Zimmerman who is listed in the community's newsletter as the Neighborhood Watch captain.

Without waiting for police to arrive, Crump said, Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk near his home. By the time police got there, Trayvon was dead of a single gunshot to the chest.

"What do the police find in his pocket? Skittles," Crump said. "A can of Arizona ice tea in his jacket pocket and Skittles in his front pocket for his brother Chad."

Zimmerman could not be reached for comment on Wednesday evening at a phone number listed for him on the community's newsletter.
Crump said the family was concerned that police might decide to consider the shooting as self defense, and that police have ignored the family's request for a copy of the original 911 call, which they think will shed light on the incidents.

"If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order," said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.

"He (Zimmerman) didn't have to get out of his car," said Crump, who has prepared a public records lawsuit to file on Thursday if the family doesn't get the 911 tape. "If he never gets out of his car, there is no reason for self-defense. Trayvon only has skittles. He has the gun."

Since Trayvon, a high school junior who wanted to be a pilot, was black and Zimmerman is white, Crump said race is "the 600 pound elephant in the room."

"Why is this kid suspicious in the first place? I think a stereotype must have been placed on the kid," Crump said.[/quote]
http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

Zimmerman was previously arrested for assault on an officer: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/man-who-shot-killed-teen-sanford-neighborhood-has-/nLPgL/

Fleming(61 years old) was actually arrested for what he did; Zimmerman(26 years old and studies law) wasn't and he actually killed someone instead of firing into the ground. We are in Bizarro-World.

Just so people don't have to go fishing for facts:
- Zimmerman saw Martin walking on the street and called 911(it's assumed that Zimmerman was in his car because he was stalking Martin in it)
- 911 told Zimmerman to stay put and wait for the cops
- Zimmerman is quoted as saying "They always get away" on the 911 recording
- A fight occurs
- Within 2 minutes of the 911 call, Martin was shot in the chest
- After the shot, 6 neighbors called 911 to report a fight and shooting
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']I was talking about the most recent story, in Florida. Is that what you're talking about? The "neighborhood watch" guy shot and killed his neighbor's son in front of the neighbor's house, but he apparently wasn't arrested.[/QUOTE]


Now the FL story is a tragedy. No other way to put it; however before we label it as a crime and a racially motivated one at that, it might help to let all the "facts" be reported; not just what the press has released so far---that a white man killed a black kid.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Now the FL story is a tragedy. No other way to put it; however before we label it as a crime and a racially motivated one at that, it might help to let all the "facts" be reported; not just what the press has released so far---that a white man killed a black kid.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...what?

The kid was fucking walking down the street back to his father's house, Zimmerman called 911, got his gun, stalked the kid, got into an altercation AFTER 911 TOLD HIM TO WAIT FOR THE fuckING COPS, and shot him dead. How many more facts would you need to make a judgement? It isn't just that a white man killed a black kid, which is bad in itself, but the fact that he STILL wasn't arrested 10 DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT.
 
He should have just fired into the ground, that'd be totally justified as well, a "warning shot".
 
[quote name='Clak']He should have just fired into the ground, that'd be totally justified as well, a "warning shot".[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't surprise me if Zimmerman keenly followed the Fleming case and assumed that he get more support.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nah, cases like that don't inspire people to go out and do similar things.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the average person wouldn't, but a captain of the neighborhood watch in a primarily white gated community might be.
 
No no, this was clearly a case of a man defending his neighborhood from sugar fueled children. Why that kid may have walked on is lawn.

He may have walked on all their lawns.:shock:
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Now the FL story is a tragedy. No other way to put it; however before we label it as a crime and a racially motivated one at that, it might help to let all the "facts" be reported; not just what the press has released so far---that a white man killed a black kid.[/QUOTE]

I don't care if it's a racially motivated crime or not, unless the kid was beating him with a baseball bat with barbed wire, he shot a kid for no good reason. What good reason would there be for him to shoot the kid?
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I don't care if it's a racially motivated crime or not, unless the kid was beating him with a baseball bat with barbed wire, he shot a kid for no good reason. What good reason would there be for him to shoot the kid?[/QUOTE]

He could always say, "I couldn't handle this guy physically." That seems to be an acceptable reason to discharge a firearm on city streets (or a neighbor's property) these days.

I haven't run into a problem like this yet but I'm definitely wary being the only black man in my neighborhood. I made sure I met every neighbor within 4 houses in any direction. I'd hate to be the guy that got shot trying to "break into his own house." So far, everyone is super nice but it just takes one cowboy that believes that the justice system has broken down.
 
[quote name='depascal22']He could always say, "I couldn't handle this guy physically." That seems to be an acceptable reason to discharge a firearm on city streets (or a neighbor's property) these days.

I haven't run into a problem like this yet but I'm definitely wary being the only black man in my neighborhood. I made sure I met every neighbor within 4 houses in any direction. I'd hate to be the guy that got shot trying to "break into his own house." So far, everyone is super nice but it just takes one cowboy that believes that the justice system has broken down.[/QUOTE]
It's a damn fucking shame that you have to do that as to not be suspected of being a criminal and possibly killed because you're black, which seems to be an increasing trend these days. Imagine having to socialize your kids into that racist bullshit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's a damn fucking shame that you have to do that as to not be suspected of being a criminal and possibly killed because you're black, which seems to be an increasing trend these days. Imagine having to socialize your kids into that racist bullshit.[/QUOTE]

Damn near blew my daughter's mind when I told her The Help took place last century and not the 19th.
 
The guy honestly should have just shot and killed the man

I watched a Dateline NBC special a month or so ago, where they were investigating the situation if you are being robbed in your own house if you are allowed to shoot and kill a burger

in every case that the Dateline investigators could find not one person who shot or killed a burger did they do jail time, because no jury would convict them

even in one case a man, ran outside of his home to shoot and kill a man stealing his rims off his car

NOT guilty lol
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll go there as soon as I'm done watching this episode of Dateline NBC.[/QUOTE]

they also got a good deal on cameras...

...then you can make a music video, because you are such a good internet thug
 
[quote name='Tony Stark']The guy honestly should have just shot and killed the man

I watched a Dateline NBC special a month or so ago, where they were investigating the situation if you are being robbed in your own house if you are allowed to shoot and kill a burger

in every case that the Dateline investigators could find not one person who shot or killed a burger did they do jail time, because no jury would convict them

even in one case a man, ran outside of his home to shoot and kill a man stealing his rims off his car

NOT guilty lol[/QUOTE]
Burger? I think you mean burglar, right? I mean, unless BK or Mickey D's food suddenly became sentient and started robbing people.
 
[quote name='Tony Stark']they also got a good deal on cameras...

...then you can make a music video, because you are such a good internet thug[/QUOTE]

Oh man, you're not going to last long in these parts partner.
 
bread's done
Back
Top