Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[ballen0351]

Depends on where you are. Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago. Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here. I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson. I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.

I don't think so.

Assault can happen BEFORE physical contact: "an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force" as Wikipedia puts it.

Battery is once physical contact has been made.


If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back, you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before defending myself?


"Who touched who first" is a fallacy.

 

[oftheherd1]

But, as its been said, his actions could be deemed criminal. Harassing, stalking....I dont know the FL laws, so who knows if that would apply.

I don't know Florida law either, but as a neighborhood watch person, he would probably not be deemed to be stalking, and even harassing would be a stretch if he is only following and observing.

 

[granfire]

Depends on where you are. Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago. Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here. I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson. I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.

That's interesting. How come the distinction?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

According to the specially assigned prosecutor there will me no murder charge for zimmerman

Are you certain? I read that the prosecutor was not going to convene a Grand Jury, which means that First Degree Murder (and the potential of a death penalty) is no longer an option, but it leaves the prosecutor to decide for herself what to charge him with (if anything) up to but not including Murder One.

 

[ballen0351]

That's interesting. How come the distinction?

1st deg is serious bodily harm or the use of a weapon. 2nd deg is like a shove, punch, kick, where nobody is really hurt or not seriously and no weapon is involved.

 

[oftheherd1]

Depends on where you are. Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago. Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here. I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson. I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.

I don't know Maryland law either, but I was told by a resident that he can stand in front of a person all day long and make threats without a law violation. But if he calls a person on the telephone and makes a threat, that is a violation of law.

Is that correct? If so, any idea what the legislators had in mind as to why the distinction was important?

 

[ballen0351]

Are you certain? I read that the prosecutor was not going to convene a Grand Jury, which means that First Degree Murder (and the potential of a death penalty) is no longer an option, but it leaves the prosecutor to decide for herself what to charge him with (if anything) up to but not including Murder One.

I just heard on the news last night they were not charging him with Murder but other charges could still happen at a later date. They didnt break it down the way you did so You may be more accurate. The news just said he wasnt getting charged with Murder.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't know Maryland law either, but I was told by a resident that he can stand in front of a person all day long and make threats without a law violation. But if he calls a person on the telephone and makes a threat, that is a violation of law.

Is that correct? If so, any idea what the legislators had in mind as to why the distinction was important?

Yes and no. You can say anything you want to a person except a threat of arson. You can call all you want as well until a person says dont call me again then it becomes telephone misuse and is a crime. I believe and Im not 100% sure on this but I was told it was because back when the law was passed before all these free airtime min. you could run up peoples phone bills as a form of harrassment by calling them over and over and over but it does not cost anyone anything if you just do it to there face. But until you actually say "stop calling me" they can call as much as you want.

 

[ballen0351]

As to harrassment and stalking that normally needs to be a continuing course of conduct. Meaning I cant harrass or stalk you if I only follow you or do something to you once. Like in the Zimmerman case this was the first time he had ever followed Martin so it wouldnt be harrassment. It needs to happen more then once. Now Fla law might be different but I know alot of states are like this.

 

[zDom]

Anybody remember seeing this on the news or the demonstrations that followed?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=679_1332640868

 

[CanuckMA]

I don't know Florida law either, but as a neighborhood watch person, he would probably not be deemed to be stalking, and even harassing would be a stretch if he is only following and observing.

Neighbourhood watch has no special status. He is just another civilian.

 

[ballen0351]

Anybody remember seeing this on the news or the demonstrations that followed?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=679_1332640868

Nope never saw that one that sucked to be him.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Neighbourhood watch has no special status. He is just another civilian.

That's correct. However, when a person is accused of stalking or harassment, being able to give a 'reasonable' explanation of why they are doing what they are doing can make a difference. It gives no special powers, that is quite true.

For example, a mall security guard follows around a car in the parking lot. The person driving the car becomes upset, calls police, and accuses the guard of 'stalking' or 'harassing' him. The guard has no special powers either; but he has a reasonable explanation for what he is doing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

In most states, to charge and convict a defendant of stalking, several elements must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. These elements include a course of conduct or behavior, the presence of threats, and the criminal intent to cause fear in the victim.

A course of conduct is a series of acts that, viewed collectively, present a pattern of behavior. Some states stipulate the requisite number of acts, with several requiring the stalker to commit two or more acts. States designate as stalking a variety of acts, ranging from specifically defined actions, such as nonconsensual communication or lying in wait, to more general types of action, such as harassment.

Most states require that the stalker pose a threat or act in a way that causes a reasonable person to feel fearful. The threat does not have to be written or verbal to instill fear. For example, a stalker can convey a threat by sending the victim black roses, forming his hand into a gun and pointing it at her, or delivering a dead animal to her doorstep.

To be convicted of stalking in most states, the stalker must display a criminal intent to cause fear in the victim. Various statutes require the conduct of the stalker to be "willful," "purposeful," "intentional," or "knowing." Many states do not require proof that the defendant intended to cause fear as long as he intended to commit the act that resulted in fear. In these states, if the victim is reasonably frightened by the alleged perpetrator's conduct, the intent element of the crime has been met.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Harassment as well tends to depend upon a systemic or continued unwanted presence. For example, if Martin routinely made his way back and forth to the local convenience store, and Zimmerman was always there waiting for him and following him wherever he went.

 

[shesulsa]

That's correct. However, when a person is accused of stalking or harassment, being able to give a 'reasonable' explanation of why they are doing what they are doing can make a difference. It gives no special powers, that is quite true.

For example, a mall security guard follows around a car in the parking lot. The person driving the car becomes upset, calls police, and accuses the guard of 'stalking' or 'harassing' him. The guard has no special powers either; but he has a reasonable explanation for what he is doing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Harassment as well tends to depend upon a systemic or continued unwanted presence. For example, if Martin routinely made his way back and forth to the local convenience store, and Zimmerman was always there waiting for him and following him wherever he went.

Your comparison is flawed as a security officer in a mall generally has a uniform. Zimmerman wore nothing to suggest he were acting in any kind of official manner that we can tell from the police report we've been able to look at.

If I saw a mall cop following me, I'd assume he were suspicious of me and would understand (even though a security guard tried to rape me once). If somebody with no uniform were following me and asking me what I was doing around here, I'd likely flip him off. Of course, I'd probably call the cops, but I'M AN ADULT WHO DOESN'T THINK NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN TO ME.

 

[MJS]

Did the neighborhood in which Zimmerman was 'patrolling' actually have an official watch group in place? Does anything have to be documented with the PD, city,town, etc, before something is put into place?

Not sure if any of that matters of not, but I thought it was said somewhere that he wasn't a part of an official watch group.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your comparison is flawed as a security officer in a mall generally has a uniform. Zimmerman wore nothing to suggest he were acting in any kind of official manner that we can tell from the police report we've been able to look at.

If I saw a mall cop following me, I'd assume he were suspicious of me and would understand (even though a security guard tried to rape me once). If somebody with no uniform were following me and asking me what I was doing around here, I'd likely flip him off. Of course, I'd probably call the cops, but I'M AN ADULT WHO DOESN'T THINK NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN TO ME.

Store detective, then. Same argument. Stalking just doesn't apply. He *is* just a citizen as you said. No special powers. Nobody has any special powers, except the actual police. That does not mean a citizen cannot follow a person around if they've got a good reason to do it. As was previously mentioned, I can park in front of your house for days if I want to, watch you coming and going, scribble down notes and take photos. All perfectly legal. You probably would not like it, but it's not stalking or harassment. Especially if I have a 'reasonable explanation' for doing so, like your spouse hired me as a private investigator to do so.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did the neighborhood in which Zimmerman was 'patrolling' actually have an official watch group in place? Does anything have to be documented with the PD, city,town, etc, before something is put into place?

Not sure if any of that matters of not, but I thought it was said somewhere that he wasn't a part of an official watch group.

Apparently so:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

However, the city neither claims he was a member nor states he wasn't. I can only surmise that if there was no such group, or if he was not a member, they'd have said so. Since they mention it and don't state he wasn't a member, I have to conclude that he is.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

There is also a link on their page to Neighborhood Watch information; which again does not say they have one, but it sure seems as if they would, since they provide the information.


EDIT: Correction, they do have an official Neighborhood Watch program: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/index.html

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Breaking news related to the case?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ot-neighborhood-teen-killed-article-1.1059140

Trayvon Martin case: Empty police car shot up in neighborhood where teen was killed
No one was injured, and the shooting is under investigation

Several shots were fired at an empty city police cruiser around 4:30 a.m. Tuesday morning. Witnesses reported hearing at least six gunshots, according to multiple local media reports.

The police car was parked near the site where Martin was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman on Feb. 26. Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense, and has not been arrested or charged with a crime — a fact that has sparked protests nationwide.

The cruiser had been parked across from Sanford’s Bentley Elementary for several weeks at the school's request, according to The Associated Press.

In a statement, Sanford police said it was being used as "a visible deterrent due to tour buses using the school property to park during the day and evening hours."

The shots hit the car's windshield, pierced its hood, and shattered one of its windows, police told Fox Orlando.

Protesters blockaded Sanford Police Department headquarters on Monday, temporarily shutting down the station.

Since Martin's shooting, the city has become a magnet for racially charged gestures. Members of the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement have pledged to protect Sanford's "white citizens" in the event of a race riot. The New Black Panther Party had earlier announced a $10,000 bounty for George Zimmerman's capture.

 

[CanuckMA]

Store detective, then. Same argument. Stalking just doesn't apply. He *is* just a citizen as you said. No special powers. Nobody has any special powers, except the actual police. That does not mean a citizen cannot follow a person around if they've got a good reason to do it. As was previously mentioned, I can park in front of your house for days if I want to, watch you coming and going, scribble down notes and take photos. All perfectly legal. You probably would not like it, but it's not stalking or harassment. Especially if I have a 'reasonable explanation' for doing so, like your spouse hired me as a private investigator to do so.

The store devtive is an employee of a private corporation. A private detective has been hired for a specific task. A neighbourhood watch is still a civiian following another civilian on public property.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The store devtive is an employee of a private corporation. A private detective has been hired for a specific task. A neighbourhood watch is still a civiian following another civilian on public property.

Doesn't matter what a person is hired for by a private agency; they have the same authority as any citizen; no more, no less. Same for Neighborhood Watch. You seem to be looking for some in-between state of legal authority between police and everybody else. There isn't any that I am aware of. Let me put it another way; Zimmerman could have been a private security guard hired by the gated community and his authority to follow people around would still have been the same; which is to say the same every citizen has. It would not change his status in any way. Only sworn police officers have police authority. But for the most part, just your regular citizen has all the authority he needs to go where he wants and do what he wants, so long as he does infringe on the rights of others. Follow someone around? Hey, he could dress up like Deputy Dawg and follow guys around in his housing area if he wants to. It's legal.