Maybe this IS how Stand Your Ground works

[Guest profgunner]

Breaking news reports claim that officers at the scene wanted to arrest and charge Zimmerman. It's going to get even messier.

[Mark@Sea]

Everyone making Zimmerman out as being at fault are predicating on the belief that you don't have the right to ask a stranger in your neighborhood what they are up to.

For some here, asking a stranger that is enough of a provocation that you should "get your azz beat".

Are you kidding me?

[mikegideon]

Everyone making Zimmerman out as being at fault are predicating on the belief that you don't have the right to ask a stranger in your neighborhood what they are up to.

For some here, asking a stranger that is enough of a provocation that you should "get your azz beat".

Are you kidding me?

Nope. They're serious.

[Mike.357]

if someone looks out of place and is my neighborhood I am going to take serious interest in what they are doing. That is called being a good neighbor and watching out for the neighborhood. I think it is action to be encouraged.

Where this took place is supposed to be a gated community. I doubt there is gang presence there.

If Martin had stood his ground from the get go, none of this would have happened more than likely.

For the life of me I fail to see what Zimmerman did wrong.

[mikegideon]

if someone looks out of place and is my neighborhood I am going to take serious interest in what they are doing. That is called being a good neighbor and watching out for the neighborhood. I think it is action to be encouraged.

Where this took place is supposed to be a gated community. I doubt there is gang presence there.

If Martin had stood his ground from the get go, none of this would have happened more than likely.

For the life of me I fail to see what Zimmerman did wrong.

I can't either. We probably need sensitivity training.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Everyone making Zimmerman out as being at fault are predicating on the belief that you don't have the right to ask a stranger in your neighborhood what they are up to.

For some here, asking a stranger that is enough of a provocation that you should "get your azz beat". Are you kidding me?

I think some have contended that Z got what he deserved for channeling Barney Fife. I have not gone that far. However, lacking Z's actions, there would have been no altercation at all.

Flip it around-- If M had compliantly stood on the sidewalk and answered questions after Z tailed him for blocks in a fashion which I would label creepy if it happened to me-- If Z had decided he didn't like M's answer, then what was Z prepared to do about it? It is doubtful that dogs ever clearly plan out what they are gonna do after they finally catch a car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated. This is especially so when police forces are attempting to determine who an aggressor is ... American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including, but not limited to, any infringement of another's rights. Nonetheless many citizens' arrests are popular news stories.

http://justicefinder...ens-arrest.html Your best bet is to not. Realistically though, almost every state provides citizens the right to make an arrest if they personally see the commission of a crime, or have probable cause to believe a suspect committed a felony. However, detaining your "suspect" might actually be considered false imprisonment or even kidnapping if you violate someone's legal rights in the process. That is just the criminal liability you may endure. In addition, there is the question of civil liability you may incur from detaining your "suspect". Some states, however, have specific laws allowing individuals to protect their "domain" or home and property with lethal force. In addition, if any individual threatens your safety, you can use lethal force to prevent this from happening. Making a citizen's arrest of a person that threatened your safety would be hard to prove however, if you managed to gain full control and custody of that person. Typically, the courts look extremely harshly at citizen arrests and are not too thrilled about individuals actively exercising these rights.

For the life of me I fail to see what Zimmerman did wrong.

Hi Mike

You could try an experiment. Get in your truck and drive around until you find some fit young man walking down the road. Tail him in your truck for maybe 8 blocks. If that young man doesn't either get scared spitless and run away, or try to get in your face over it, then keep repeating the experiment until you find a young man willing to kick yer butt over it. I personally don't think it would take all afternoon to locate a suitable fellow. Especially if you choose the neighborhood properly.

[MattCary]

As an Insurance Appraiser, I am daily in people's neighborhoods and driveways looking at their cars.

At least once a week, I get asked by a neighbor if they can help me or what I'm doing.

I haven't jumped any of them yet.

I have asked a few of the more aggressive if they'd like to write the estimate for me.

If Martin had turned and talked to Zimmerman right off, they could have had a pleasant chat, until the police arrived. Or 911 could have heard the conversation and determined everything was Code 4.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If, indeed, it was a chip on his shoulder, it got him killed. I also wonder what the drug screen revealed

at his autopsy. another possibility. Some of these chips are worse than a bone spur in the wrong place.

Yeah dunno what to make of it.

In 1968 atlanta a couple of times was jumped with no provocation. Am pretty sure if I had shot the SOB's I'd have spent years in jail. Now, if somebody jumps me nowadays at advanced age, I'll shoot and take my chances. If they put me in jail it will at least solve the retirement finances. But I'm not looking for trouble and have no ambition to be an amateur Barney Fife.

About 1974 did a student assignment at a youth residential facility for "at risk teen boys". Teens with a criminal record were not accepted. It was not a lockup facility. The place was run on a shoe-string and was inadequately staffed.

I managed to do my three months without getting my butt kicked. The clients were not hardened criminals but were flakey and impulsive. Everybody on the payroll had their butt kicked at least once. When I was there a fellow I'd known several years was walking on crutches wearing a cast from a broke leg, after getting his butt kicked.

I don't recall them calling the law if there was a butt kicking. though the teens were probably expelled. If the place had got a rep for sending kids to jail, then kids wouldn't ever want to go there and they would run out of clients.

Not claiming the place was well-run or effective. If a counsellor had shot a kid for getting a butt-kicking, there would have been hell to pay.

Dunno what to say. It is confusing.

[daddyo]

Everyone making Zimmerman out as being at fault are predicating on the belief that you don't have the right to ask a stranger in your neighborhood what they are up to.

For some here, asking a stranger that is enough of a provocation that you should "get your azz beat".

Are you kidding me?

I find this amazing as well. It's as though they actually think they won't be arrested and charged with aggravated assault.

[Worriedman]

I am sure that the other thread has this, but in case it does not, this is the "true man" doctrine codified in TN:

TCA 39-11-611:

(1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

A. The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

B. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

C. The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

In TN if one raises self defense, it is up to the State to prove it was not reasonable, per supreme court ruling re Kenmore.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Worriedman

[Guest profgunner]

I am sure that the other thread has this, but in case it does not, this is the "true man" doctrine codified in TN:

TCA 39-11-611:

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

( The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

© The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

The words in red are why lawyers exist. What those words mean to a jury often depends on whether you hire a $1000 or a $1,000,000 lawyer.

[mikegideon]

After watching this case, I think it's good language. Your judgement should be questioned by reasonable folks. It makes the entire law reasonable.

[Worriedman]

The burden in TN is on the State to disprove that self defense should be allowed, it precludes a DA from speculating as to the intent of the individual, requires proof that the actor was not availing themselves of the protection of the law, not the other way around.