Unbaweavable: Black Man Murders Unarmed White 17 Yr Old Boy

[No_bammer_weed]

1st i'm not trying to argue, really just trying to flesh out this mental process.
2nd your example doesn't really help your argument.

A cop might respond to a call to "check it out". Not all calls like this would result in an arrest, ergo it's not illegal.

Again, If you follow someone home and they call the cops and say, "he's following me" and you say, "SO, i'm just walking".

They might tell you to stop or else, but at THAT POINT, chances are they aren't gonna do shyt but take your name in case the person you were following shows up dead.

It's fuked but it is what it is.

Also, if someone calls the police saying "there's a suspicious so and so" those don't always end up in arrests either. Sometimes people are just walking and if it's on a PUBLIC STREET then they can do that. If they happen to be walking the same way you are is that "stalking" all of a sudden?

Cops try to be "pro-active" where they can, but in most cases they really respond to CRIMES ALREADY COMMITTED or in progress. They respond to suspicious calls in an attempt to thwart some things, but ultimate in a lot of those instances there really are no crimes broken.

Im not sure what you're position is here. Just because a certain set of behaviors or activity doesnt result in an immediate arrest every time, does not make it lawful activity. Yes, there is a legal gray area when it comes to stalking or harassment, but again, my initial point (and one you keep trying to dance around for some reason) is that GZ was not within his legal rights to follow TM. Here is stalking as defined:

"STALKING.—The term ‘stalking’ means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to—(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or (B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

People are trying to make GZ's activity as legal as a casual stroll in the park. This is not true.

 

[Shogun]

Who said that all white people lack common sense though? Not the thread title, nor any poster in that thread up to the point where you felt the need to in the name of the white race.

I'm pretty sure the thread title was "white people lack common sense". Either way, you right....I reacted poorly. I think I acknowledged that on page 2 of that thread. Still seems like a weak basis for specifically calling me out as racist (which is a pretty serious claim imo).

But thats the Coli for ya. I gotta avoid these race threads

 

[Suicide King]

I agree in some cases. But let's say i see some guys messing with my car and I have a gun. Should I A. walk out there and say "hey leave the car alone" WITH or WITHOUT my gun?

Personally I'm calling the cops, but legally you have a right to defend your property, in some cases via deadly force.

Is that wrong?

I'm taking my gun. Too many botched robberies has left people very dead. But obviously this aspect of the law is not in question.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I'm pretty sure the thread title was "white people lack common sense". Either way, you right....I reacted poorly. I think I acknowledged that on page 2 of that thread. Still seems like a weak basis for specifically calling me out as racist (which is a pretty serious claim imo).

But thats the Coli for ya. I gotta avoid these race threads

Just accept it bruh, me and you are the racists here, not Family Ram or bytchio

 

[Nefflum nigga]

this white thug was commiting a crime. and got murdered for it

trayvon got killed for being black and wearing a hoodie.

You cacs need to stop reaching

 

[No_bammer_weed]

There goes that so-called white privilege so many here complain about. And look at that, no media coverage or race baiting. Bu-bu-but white devils...oh noez brehs - get guns because it's black genocide after Zimmerman got off.How interesting.

one example in which a self-defense plea works for a black man, and you somehow conclude that white privilege doesnt exist? How cute. Funny how this is somehow relatable to the Zimmerman case, when the details of the event are quite different, but then again racism and logic often produce cognitive dissonance.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Im not sure what you're position is here.

Following someone is not illegal.

Just because a certain set of behaviors or activity doesnt result in an immediate arrest every time, does not make it lawful activity.

Just because a certain set of behaviors can lead to situations where someone IS arrested doesn't make the initial behavors illegal (see: DRINKING).

Yes, there is a legal gray area when it comes to stalking or harassment, but again, my initial point (and one you keep trying to dance around for some reason) is that GZ was not within his legal rights to follow TM. Here is stalking as defined:
People are trying to make GZ's activity as legal as a casual stroll in the park. This is not true.

No HERE is stalking as defined...in florida
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048

You'll notice the term "repeatedly" used to define stalking.
STALKING and FOLLOWING are not the same thing.

LEGALLY GZ wasn't doing anything wrong.

At least not how i'm reading this law, i'm no legal mind so i may have glanced over the part where it says, "Following someone is illegal".

But YES the gray area in this law and laws like it does exist, partly because if they don't you get to accuse people of doing shyt they aren't necessarily doing.

Your point, GZ was doing something ILLEGAL is unfounded.
Was it smart? No

 

[Brown_Pride]

I'm taking my gun. Too many botched robberies has left people very dead. But obviously this aspect of the law is not in question.

Now what if they aren't trying to get into your car but saw a lost kitten under your car or something but they didn't like that you came out all sideways, or they simple didn't like that you assumed they were trying to break into your car. They start some shyt. You using that gun? IF you do use that gun are you wrong?

 

[Suicide King]

Following someone is not illegal. Just because a certain set of behaviors can lead to situations where someone IS arrested doesn't make the initial behavors illegal (see: DRINKING).
No HERE is stalking as defined...in florida
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048

You'll notice the term "repeatedly" used to define stalking.
STALKING and FOLLOWING are not the same thing.

LEGALLY GZ wasn't doing anything wrong.

At least not how i'm reading this law, i'm no legal mind so i may have glanced over the part where it says, "Following someone is illegal".

But YES the gray area in this law and laws like it does exist, partly because if they don't you get to accuse people of doing shyt they aren't necessarily doing.

Your point, GZ was doing something ILLEGAL is unfounded.
Was it smart? No

Legally, your intent is what gets you arrested. So the stalking argument is not a big part of the equation. Its his intent. Which for the most part was him being a wanna be cop, he broke all the rules of engagement. The law needs to better describe the rules of engagement, or its open season on the fine folks in Florida.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Legally, your intent is what gets you arrested. So the stalking argument is not a big part of the equation. Its his intent, which for the most part was to be this wanna be cop, he broke all the rules of engagement. The law needs to better describe the rules of engagement, or its open season on the fine folks in Florida.

What was his intent? We don't know. He knows. We dont' know, we can't know 100%.

Was his intent to murder a kid? I don't know.
Was his intent to ONLY FOLLOW? I don't know.

No one knows. So how do we proceed from here using intent? If that's the standard then GZ is 100% innocent because well you can't prove intent. Furthermore IF we wanted to argue intent then we'd have to deal with GZ calling the cops in the first place. If his intent was to kill the kid then chances are he doesn't call the cops.

His actions led to the boys death, he should be held responsible, bottom line.

Him following the boy was one of those actions, and though not illegal, the choices he made led to what happened.

This is why they should have gone for manslaughter, murder was never going to stick, there's no way to prove that. YOU CAN however prove he killed a person and even if that was an "accident" you can be held liable for an accident.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Legally, your intent is what gets you arrested. So the stalking argument is not a big part of the equation. Its his intent. Which for the most part was him being a wanna be cop, he broke all the rules of engagement. The law needs to better describe the rules of engagement, or its open season on the fine folks in Florida.

oh and what are the rules of engagement for a neighborhood watch? And when those rules are broken is a crime committed or is it just frowned upon? I suspect there is no punishment for NOT abiding by the codes of conduct of "The neighborhood watch". Even his "breaking the rules" isn't illegal i suspect.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Following someone is not illegal.
LEGALLY GZ wasn't doing anything wrong.

At least not how i'm reading this law, i'm no legal mind so i may have glanced over the part where it says, "Following someone is illegal".

But YES the gray area in this law and laws like it does exist, partly because if they don't you get to accuse people of doing shyt they aren't necessarily doing.

Yes you are reading the laws incorrectly...first of all GZ was guilty of (a) as legally defined:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

Scaring the life out of somebody by following one as he or she walks home, certainly fits that description. I dont get it --- how would you feel if someone were clearly following you, as you walked home at night?


For (b) and (c) he could also be held criminally liable because of one phrase in the legal wording of course of conduct:

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

The phase is "however short", which is open to interpretation...so in essence, when GZ followed TM for blocks and blocks, he established a patterned conduct that created a reasonable credible threat against TM's person. I agree that GZ's behavior may or may not have risen to an arrest (lets not discount race and gender as a factor), but once again to claim that GZ was acting lawfully is wrong, and kinda perverse. We are going by GZ's behavior on that night, and not a case where the party complaining was overreacting, or mistaken

 

[Beegio]

You think I give a fukk what you think you know about me?

The cac false equivalency game is The cac misdirection game is

Caaaaaaaaaaac please.

All yall cacs will find out in due time. "Ya reign on top is short like leprechauns"

Black Excellence

Im appalled that this thread has so little discussion, but a Zimmerman troll thread goes on for pages. WAKE UP BLACK PEOPLE!!! I

Can you make a single post that doesn't have anything to do with Race? Too intellectually challenging for you? Go play somewhere you intellectual midget.

@Walt that's why I just try to stay out of this shyt, this cat takes my posts out of context from a completely different thread and says I'm just as racist as all the other evil white people.

I'm on team people. I don't care about skin color.

You think I give a fukk that you don't give a fukk what I think you think I know about you?



First you pretended to be a redneck to rile the other rednecks up to say racist cac shyt,

then you pretended to be black to rile other racists up to say racist cac shyt.

Now you're pretending to be on team people, not caring about skin color.

I get it, you're a reformed racist troll cac

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

You think I give a fukk that you don't give a fukk what I think you think I know about you?



First you pretended to be a redneck to rile the other rednecks up to say racist cac shyt,

then you pretended to be black to rile other racists up to say racist cac shyt.

Now you're pretending to be on team people, not caring about skin color.

I get it, you're a reformed racist troll cac

You're a moron dude. I used to be in an improv comedy group when I was like 16, me trolling people on xbox doesn't make me a racist. I didn't pretend to be a redneck to "rile up other redneck racists", in fact it was usually white people who would get pissed at me and would talk shyt and call me a redneck. And it was a rapper persona, not a "black person" people would just think I was black. How about next time you got a problem with what I post you address it in that thread instead of being a little p*ssy and bringing me into a race bait troll thread.

You're racist bro, not me. Racists like you disgust me.

 

[Suicide King]

Now what if they aren't trying to get into your car but saw a lost kitten under your car or something but they didn't like that you came out all sideways, or they simple didn't like that you assumed they were trying to break into your car. They start some shyt. You using that gun? IF you do use that gun are you wrong?

If you are in New Orleans and you use your gun and you are not in "imminent danger", you will get convicted.

In Florida, you will go scott free if its just an heated argument.

It doesn't matter if I feel its right or wrong, it only matter what the law says.

This is why they should have gone for manslaughter, murder was never going to stick, there's no way to prove that. YOU CAN however prove he killed a person and even if that was an "accident" you can be held liable for an accident.

This is the only part that was relevant to the case. I never entertained any other arguments because it seemed to be from an emotional stand point instead of a legal one.