Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[Bob]

Why isn't this story blowing up?

White 26 year old, who is the self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch in a gated community in Florida, shoots and kills a visiting black 17 year old as he's walking back from the party store.

Police are not holding the shooter who appears to have at least some minor connections to the local force.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Family-Dem ... 07275.html

[dbt1949]

I saw that in the news this morning. I wondered about this "asshole on patrol" and then armed with a gun to boot.

[Jag]

It's not even blowing up down here. I happened to hear about it on the tv last night and that was it.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

[LordMortis]

Irrespective of race, that's about all kinds of fucked up.

What could have possibly happened to make a civilian tail a kid going to the store and then shoot him in self defense? I suppose something could have happened but you'd be hard pressed to make me believe it.

[Covenant72]

It's hard to say since the article presents no evidence whatsoever beyond "the family is mad" and "the shooter had grass stains and a bloody nose" in it.

[Vorret]

People shouldn't have gun, period.
That would solve so many problems but hey, it's in the constitution

[LawBeefaroni]

Police are not holding the shooter who appears to have at least some minor connections to the local force.

He also appears to have run-ins with them as well:

A records search revealed an arrest record for Zimmerman, including an arrest in 2005 for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

Does it really apply to following someone around in a car? I mean it certainly sounds like he was the instigator, tailing this kid.

[LordMortis]

People shouldn't have gun, period.
That would solve so many problems but hey, it's in the constitution

I don't know about "people", as I like the idea of an armed citizenry, but I'm pretty certain I would limit the right of this sort of person to own a hand gun:

A records search revealed an arrest record for Zimmerman, including an arrest in 2005 for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.

Legally documented violent behaviors should preclude you from being able to walk around with a gun, no questions asked, but then, as you say, it's in the constitution and I know I'm pretty stupid.

[hepcat]

People shouldn't have gun, period.
That would solve so many problems but hey, it's in the constitution

can of worms...opened.

[Mr. Fed]

People shouldn't have gun, period.
That would solve so many problems but hey, it's in the constitution

I feel the same way about speech.

[Vorret]

Meh, maybe it's my Canadian roots, I don't get why it's so important to have the right to own a gun...
Other than to kill other human being what are you going to use a handgun for?

[hepcat]

You DO know you can own a gun in Canada, right?

[Vorret]

You DO know you can own a gun in Canada, right?

I know.
But I don't know anyone who actually own a gun.

[hepcat]

Then it's not your Canadian roots that has fostered that opinion, it's your like minded peers.

[Smoove_B]

But I don't know anyone who actually own a gun.

If they told you they had a gun you'd probably go and get one yourself thereby making it more difficult for them to take your stuff. It will make more sense if you just think about it.

RE: On topic

There were some school shootings a few weeks ago...I can't even remember where now. I think it was in the news cycle for less than 12 hours. This is the world we live in.

[hepcat]

The shootings were outside Cleveland in my birth state of Ohio.

[Octavious]

But I don't know anyone who actually own a gun.

If they told you they had a gun you'd probably go and get one yourself thereby making it more difficult for them to take your stuff. It will make more sense if you just think about it.

RE: On topic

There were some school shootings a few weeks ago...I can't even remember where now. I think it was in the news cycle for less than 12 hours. This is the world we live in.

You know that's a good point.

[El Guapo]

It's not even blowing up down here. I happened to hear about it on the tv last night and that was it.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

What's the "stand your ground law"?

It's hard to see (based on the admittedly thin facts in the article) how the guy could have a strong self-defense argument. He was following the person, he wasn't at home or on his property, he was armed and the other person (from what I can tell) was not...

There could well be more to the story, though.

[Bob]

There were some school shootings a few weeks ago...I can't even remember where now. I think it was in the news cycle for less than 12 hours. This is the world we live in.

This Florida story not going anywhere still shocks me due to the race angle.

Have we finally become a post-racial culture and I missed it? Would this story get more air time if the teenager was middle eastern?

[Jag]

It's not even blowing up down here. I happened to hear about it on the tv last night and that was it.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

What's the "stand your ground law"?

It is essentially an extension of the Castle Doctrine, which many states have adopted, except in Florida it applies anywhere outside the home environment:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It passed a few years ago and my fear was that it would be used to justify unnecessary deaths. People could still claim self-defense before this, but now they have a statute to rely upon and it gives prosecutors an out to not press charges. Not surprisingly, this defense has been used in a number of road rage incidents as well.

As far as this story, the facts are pretty sketchy right now, but even if the 'guard' was attacked, does it justify killing the kid? I wouldn't be surprised if he bloodied his own nose to justify the shooting.

[LordMortis]

It's not even blowing up down here. I happened to hear about it on the tv last night and that was it.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

What's the "stand your ground law"?

It is essentially an extension of the Castle Doctrine, which many states have adopted, except in Florida it applies anywhere outside the home environment:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It passed a few years ago and my fear was that it would be used to justify unnecessary deaths. People could still claim self-defense before this, but now they have a statute to rely upon and it gives prosecutors an out to not press charges. Not surprisingly, this defense has been used in a number of road rage incidents as well.

As far as this story, the facts are pretty sketchy right now, but even if the 'guard' was attacked, does it justify killing the kid? I wouldn't be surprised if he bloodied his own nose to justify the shooting.

Does that count when you initiate the confrontation that results in meeting force with force though? I'm having a hard time imagining a situation, especially one where it isn't spelled out in the police report, where you tail someone going to/fro the store and you have a gun, where you are defending. If the law suggests that you can goad someone into attacking you and then gun them down like a rabid dog, then the law is puppies.

If there were no witnesses, then that's my first thought as well. But that aside, I'm not sure it matters. If I'm alone and a strange points a gun at me with no witnesses around and starts making demands, I'm not sure how I respond either... See your stand your ground law. Fight or flight kicks in.

[hepcat]

I posted a link to this somewhere a while back, but it bears repeating.

The audio of the call is chilling. He sounds almost eager to shoot someone at times.

[El Guapo]

It's not even blowing up down here. I happened to hear about it on the tv last night and that was it.

Horrible story and unfortunately the equally horrific 'stand your ground law' will claim yet another victim.

What's the "stand your ground law"?

It is essentially an extension of the Castle Doctrine, which many states have adopted, except in Florida it applies anywhere outside the home environment:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It passed a few years ago and my fear was that it would be used to justify unnecessary deaths. People could still claim self-defense before this, but now they have a statute to rely upon and it gives prosecutors an out to not press charges. Not surprisingly, this defense has been used in a number of road rage incidents as well.

As far as this story, the facts are pretty sketchy right now, but even if the 'guard' was attacked, does it justify killing the kid? I wouldn't be surprised if he bloodied his own nose to justify the shooting.

Does that count when you initiate the confrontation that results in meeting force with force though? I'm having a hard time imagining a situation, especially one where it isn't spelled out in the police report, where you tail someone going to/fro the store and you have a gun, where you are defending. If the law suggests that you can goad someone into attacking you and then gun them down like a rabid dog, then the law is puppies.

Just going by the statutory language that Jag quoted, it might. Basically the statute says that you must: (1) not be engaged in an unlawful activity; (2) be attacked; (3) have a lawful right to be there; and (to use deadly force) (4) reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

If you physicially attack the person, you probably could not use the statute (you're probably engaged in an illegal activity (assault), plus you attacked rather than 'be attacked'). However, if you followed someone in public and confronted them verbally, followed by them attacking you, you probably could use the statute to justify a forceful response. (Unless the following was somehow deemed harrassment or something).

[El Guapo]

I posted a link to this somewhere a while back, but it bears repeating.

The audio of the call is chilling. He sounds almost eager to shoot someone at times.

That wouldn't surprise me. Everyone wants to think they're the Punisher, not the villain.

[LawBeefaroni]

That wouldn't surprise me. Everyone wants to think they're the Punisher, not the villain.

People who shouldn't have guns:

• Criminals.
• People who fantasize about shooting criminals.

[LordMortis]

I posted a link to this somewhere a while back, but it bears repeating.

The audio of the call is chilling. He sounds almost eager to shoot someone at times.

No listening at work, and quite frankly I don't think I'd want to. I still don't blame him. He called 911. He waited for police. They didn't arrive. He warned the perps he was going to shoot. They fled. He made a lot of effort to not take the law into his own hands.

I'd feel pretty damned threatened and territorial too if it happened in my neighborhood, to my neighbor and I'd also give my neighbors my blessing to shoot anyone breaking into my house after calling the police and providing warning.

I suppose my support for this action is that robberies around here tend to be armed and it is not uncommon for robbers to execute their victims because dead men tell no tales, so it's not like forbidding victims from attacking their attackers is often saving their lives.

[hepcat]

He warned the perps he was going to shoot. They fled. He made a lot of effort to not take the law into his own hands.

Your entire argument for Horn falls apart at this point.

And he made little to no effort whatsoever to avoid what happened. I know you didn't listen to the 911 call, but did you even read the transcript?

Officers arrived about 80 seconds after the shooting, by the way. They weren't taking forever, as you seem to believe.

He was in no danger before leaving his house, the police were on the way and he knew no one was home at his neighbors. This guy wanted to shoot someone, in my opinion. The Castle Law in Texas gave him that chance.

[LordMortis]

He warned the perps he was going to shoot. They fled. He made a lot of effort to not take the law into his own hands.

Your entire argument for Horn falls apart at this point.

And he made little to no effort whatsoever to avoid what happened. I know you didn't listen to the 911 call, but did you even read the transcript?

Officers arrived about 80 seconds after the shooting, by the way.

I did. The dispatcher even made it clear that property wasn't worth killing over. But they were burglarizing and they were not going to be detained until police arrived, so he shot them with intent to kill. It doesn't bother me even a little that he shot them. It unsettles me a bit that he was excited (perhaps agitated may or may not be a better word) to shot them to kill. It's not something I would do but I don't blame him for it. 1) He's watching them get away with stealing his neighbors stuff. 2) He's watching them get away with a terrifying crime. 3) He's protecting the continued safety of his surroundings.

He had no way of knowing when the officers would arrive before they get there. We waited until the fled and then warned them he was goes to shoot them.

[hepcat]

He waited until they fled and then warned them he was going to shoot them.*

I guess I can't wrap my mind around shooting two people in the back. If I see my neighbor being robbed and I know they're not home, I'm not going to grab a shotgun with the intent to kill them. Horn point blank tells the dispatcher that's his intent.

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” But Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.”

As for the argument that Horn had no other option because the police weren't there, that's bull. He always had the option to tell the police what happened when they arrived and give them a description of the perpetrators.

*Translated for our English speaking readers.

[LordMortis]

I guess I can't wrap my mind around shooting two people in the back.

I can.

If I see my neighbor being robbed and I know they're not home, I'm not going to grab a shotgun with the intent to kill them.

Me either, but I'm not sure how much blame a lay at the person who does, even the person who would shoot someone else in the back with intent to kill them after burglarizing their neighbor.

When I was younger I've had knife and gun pulled on me for almost no reason and I felt helpless. As I got older several things happened. More and more people have been killed over stupid shit criminals do. More and more criminals feel empowered by the legal system to pursue vocations in being a criminal. Two home owners have been shot and killed by two different robbers within a mile of my house in the last year because they had the misfortune of being home when their house being broken in to. Another body was found with in a mile of my house. If you're fleeing the scene, you are free of facing charges and will rob again, which is to say nothing of the fact that you still have the stuff you stole.

While I couldn't shoot someone, much less shoot them in the back, I'm not so much as phased by someone feeling safer by gunning down criminal who threatens the safety of their neighborhood and who refuses to yield until law enforcement arrives.

[hepcat]

So you effectively endorse the death penalty for everything but misdemeanors?

and who refuses to yield until law enforcement arrives.

They were running away from a guy with a friggin' shotgun pointed at them. You'll forgive me if I can understand their reasoning in running like hell at that point.

p.s. we've all been a victim at some point in our lives. You're hardly alone in that matter. It doesn't justify going out of your way to kill when you have safer options.

[gbasden]

So you effectively endorse the death penalty for everything but misdemeanors?

Heck, maybe he supports it for misdemenors too. Brings a new chill to hearing "You kids get off my lawn!"

[Rip]

People shouldn't have gun, period.
That would solve so many problems but hey, it's in the constitution

I feel the same way about speech.

[LordMortis]

So you effectively endorse the death penalty for everything but misdemeanors?

If that's the way you choose to read it then, I suppose the answer must be "yes."

And I suppose you endorse that anything you get away with not being punished by the justice system is acceptable behavior.

[hepcat]

And I suppose you endorse that any time you get away with not being punished by the justice system it's acceptable behavior. *

That implies that you believe the only form of punishment is death. You realize that, right? The punishment we're discussing and that I find contentious involves killing.

p.s. Many criminals are actually caught by the police on a daily basis AFTER they commit a crime. Witnesses, detective work, etc..

*Translated from LM.

[LordMortis]

And I suppose you endorse that anything you get away with not being punished by the justice system is acceptable behavior.

That implies that you believe the only form of punishment is death. You realize that, right?

I don't even know how you possibly can arrive at that conclusion.

[hepcat]

And I suppose you endorse that anything you get away with not being punished by the justice system is acceptable behavior.

That implies that you believe the only form of punishment is death. You realize that, right?

I don't even know how you possibly can arrive at that conclusion.

I edited my reply to make it a little easier to understand.

[LordMortis]

And I suppose you endorse that anything you get away with not being punished by the justice system is acceptable behavior.

That implies that you believe the only form of punishment is death. You realize that, right?

I don't even know how you possibly can arrive at that conclusion.

I edited my reply to make it a little easier to understand.

Nope. I still don't follow.

[hepcat]

edited again with hopefully more helpful text.

[Rip]

Once you have broken into my house you have not fled until you are out of my range.