The Founder
Well-Known Member
If not murder at least charge him with manslaughter....SOMETHING!!! This is so sickening.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AHH............ Yes I do and if you had comprehended what I was saying, you would know that I WAS SAYING FLORIDAS Castle Doctrine should not come into play in this case. If you had COMPREHENDED what I was saying, you would have read that into my comment. I thought that was clear when I said "In Mississippi, that guy would be arrested for MURDER" or did you miss that part? :noidea:
I know he was not at a house. That is why I said the rules of a Castle Doctrine is very clear. You can't chase someone down who is not committing a crime or is not on your property committing a crime and then scream self defense after you shoot them in a fight. But I thank you for trying to point out something that I already know. :lol:
And BTW:
You can shoot someone ON YOUR PROPERTY committing a crime, threatening YOU OUTSIDE your home under the Castle doctrine. They don't have to be INSIDE your house in MISSISSIPPI to be a "threat". IN MISSISSIPPI, the Castle Doctrine even extends to YOUR CAR. It states that YOUR CAR is an EXTENSION of your HOME. Just thought you should know that before you shoot and start moving bodies inside your house. Maybe you should go back and read YOURS just in case you missed a fact or 2 that can save your backside one day OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE..... ON YOUR PROPERTY. :lol:
Mississippi Castle Doctrine
3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable
Ok lets recap for your sake OK!!!
I basically said it is pointless for you to mention the Castle Doctrine, because Trayvon Martin was not on Zimmerman's property, had not left Zimmerman's property, or done anything that would have done any harm to Zimmerman; this dude followed Trayvon and then killed him. So even if you bring in the Castle Doctrine Trayvon Martin is still an innocent that lost his life for nothing, he was not doing anything illegal, that is my point, if Trayvon Martin had been doing something illegal then I can see where the CD plays a role. And even thought you say Zimmerman would have been arrested, I disagree, I think the JPD would still be stonewalling the same way those cops are doing in FL.
One other thing the CD is modified per state and based on that states hand gun laws, for example: in the state of Alabama, if you have a pistol in your vehicle without a pistol permit, you are in violation of a law and thus the Castle Doctrine would not help you, but if you are legally carrying a pistol then like Mississippi you are covered. Also the italicized section is the same in Alabama, something that's different is once your life or those under your protection ceases to be in danger and you kill someone, you will be charged with murder. So good I know my states' law, and it's good you know yours.
[COLOR="#FF0000"]In Mississippi[/COLOR], that guy would be arrested for murder.
They made the rules crystal clear when they passed that Castle Doctrine here. That kid was not bothering anyone. JPD would have had him in handcuffs that night.
Ok lets recap for your sake OK!!!
I basically said it is pointless for you to mention the Castle Doctrine, because Trayvon Martin was not on Zimmerman's property, had not left Zimmerman's property, or done anything that would have done any harm to Zimmerman; this dude followed Trayvon and then killed him. So even if you bring in the Castle Doctrine Trayvon Martin is still an innocent that lost his life for nothing, he was not doing anything illegal, that is my point, if Trayvon Martin had been doing something illegal then I can see where the CD plays a role. And even though you say Zimmerman would have been arrested, I disagree, I think the JPD would still be stonewalling the same way those cops are doing in FL.
One other thing the CD is modified per state and based on that states hand gun laws, for example: in the state of Alabama, if you have a pistol in your vehicle without a pistol permit, you are in violation of a law and thus the Castle Doctrine would not help you, but if you are legally carrying a pistol then like Mississippi you are covered. Also the italicized section is the same in Alabama, something that's different is once your life or those under your protection ceases to be in danger and you kill someone, you will be charged with murder. So good I know my states' law, and it's good you know yours.
And before you type more words I never said, comments I never made, or imply shat I never implied, here is my 1st comment on the subject again. STARE at it and use comprehension skills to understand what is being said and why.
Not once did I say that kid was on his property but because this idiot saw a black male in a hoodie, the first thing that came to mind was crimminal and he went to confront HIM..........THE KID.
And last.
JPD ARRESTED a store owner at the corner of Bailey and Watkins Drive last year for chasing a crook with a knife out the store and then shooting him. Please don't tell me what I know about my city. I don't deal in what if's when I KNOW what they do here.
You know what, you're the ignorant arse (n e g r o) who mentioned the Castle Doctrine, and then posted the Mississippi law, after my comment. If you really wanted to have a civilized discussion you could have replied with a little more intelligence and discretion but since you didn't; I replied further, because you took it upon yourself ASSuming and insulting that someone could not comprehend your post. And screw your city, you need to know your state law. I never said you didn't know anything about your city, hell I dont care what city you live in. You're in Mississippi that says enough..... Oh and my last comment about disagreeing with you was more about the police and not what you or do not know, but hey guess you couldn't comprehend that....
Damn, can we squash this???? :lol: Both of you have proven your point. I'm hearing now from the emergency dispatch that the dispatch person told the guy to wait for the police to arrive.
Damn, can we squash this???? :lol: Both of you have proven your point. I'm hearing now from the emergency dispatch that the dispatch person told the guy to wait for the police to arrive.
they did and that bytch made SOB got out of his car anyway. He WANTED to kill this black child...he'll see how it is really soon...bet that.
I posted waaaaaayyy above (before they started going back/forth :lol where the police chief said the dispatch just advises people what to do...but it's not law. So by Zimmerman disobeying the suggested advice of the dispatcher to sit still doesn't mean he broke any laws.
However...as the Martin's attorney stated, if Zimmerman made statements on the 911 call like "Black youth wearing hoodie", or something that points out race but that the boy wasn't really doing anything...then that will help.
Zimmerman needs to be in jail!
I understand but he could have just let the kid walk until the police got there and this kid could possibly still be alive.
You know what, you're the ignorant arse (n e g r o) who mentioned the Castle Doctrine, and then posted the Mississippi law, after my comment. If you really wanted to have a civilized discussion you could have replied with a little more intelligence and discretion but since you didn't; I replied further, because you took it upon yourself ASSuming and insulting that someone could not comprehend your post. And screw your city, you need to know your state law. I never said you didn't know anything about your city, hell I dont care what city you live in. You're in Mississippi that says enough..... Oh and my last comment about disagreeing with you was more about the police and not what you or do not know, but hey guess you couldn't comprehend that....
Damn, can we squash this???? :lol: Both of you have proven your point. I'm hearing now from the emergency dispatch that the dispatch person told the guy to wait for the police to arrive.
For the life of me...:smh:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html?ref=mostpopular
Austin was standing less than 20 yards away from Martin when he was shot on the night of February 26. He didn't see much that night, but says he can't shake the screams for help that he heard or the thunderclap of gunfire that nearly shook him from his shoes.
The screams rattle around in his daydreams, so loud at night that sleep hasn't come easily. And he can't stop asking himself a thousand what-ifs: What if he could have stopped it? What if he had looked "suspicious" that night, and not Martin?
Austin's mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.
Brown said in hindsight she feels the police investigator on the case attempted to lead her son to provide information that he didn't have. The investigator, she said, would nod yes when asking if it was the man in the T-shirt, who turned out to be Zimmerman, and not the one in the hooded sweatshirt, Martin, who was screaming out for help. And while the police have said that they don't have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's claims of self-defense, the investigators had a different story when they visited her family about a week after the shooting, Brown said.
"That investigator said flat out that we don't think it was self-defense," Brown said, recalling the day the police came to interview Austin. "Several times he said, 'I have kids, and I'm going to tell you something that I don't tell many people.' He looked at me and said, 'You have to read between the lines. There's some stereotyping going on.'"
She continued: "He stood here in my family room telling me that this guy [Zimmerman] is not right and it wasn't self-defense and that they have to prove that it wasn't. He was adamant about that. I don't know if that was to make me less uncomfortable or to make us feel that he was on our side."
In recent days, other witnesses have come forward to say that the police attempted to twist their testimony to support Zimmerman's claims of self-defense or ignored them entirely, including two witnesses who joined the Martin family during a press conference on Friday.
A police spokesman could not be reached immediately for comment. The Sanford Police have said in the past that there is little evidence to refute Zimmerman's claims. But the department has also publicly stated that some witnesses have since contradicted their initial statements to police, which supported the self-defense theory.
Last night the Sanford Police, pushed by city officials, released 911 recordings made the night of the shooting. And Martin's lawyers say that all the evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claims can be heard on the tape. In the background one can hear what seem to be screams or pleas for help. Then a gunshot and silence. Neighbors can be heard sobbing, telling the dispatcher what they heard or saw: mostly the screams, the cries for help and the gunshot that ended it all.
I saw in the lobby on Fox that the FBI was looking into this case now. The sheriff said he doesn't see what the big deal everybody is making out of this case. :shame:
I knew if I kept going, the byotch would come right out of you.
You quoted me ho.......... Remember that little puzzy byotch. I never wanted to post to your azz in the first place clown so take it upon your damm self to move your azz on down the road with this shat.
I hate a punk byotch that wanna throw temper tantrums over shat they start because they too damm dumb to understand what COMPREHENSION means before they start posting to people. :smh: and :lol: at this ignorant ankle grabber.
Man......... This byotch come in every once and a while and do this same shat. Seems like everytime he come on this board, he bleeding between the legs. :smh: