Reply to Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

That's right folks you can't chase somebody down and then claim self defense when they whoop your ass... Well you can claim it - but it probably will not fly.[/quote]  Florida's aggressor statute appears to disagree with your interpretation.  Moreover, you misunderstand my point - or rather, you assume that Z chasing T was unlawful.  That's not clear to me.  I mean, if T noticed Z watching/following him, started walking fast/running away, and Z started chasing him, exactly what law would Z have broken?  Taken a step further, T gets tired, stops, Z catches up to him, words are exchanged - [b]at that point, have any laws been broken? [/b] Doesn't it all turn on who struck first?  And unfortunately, the only living witness to that is Z, at least as far as I'm aware.  I personally believe Z is responsible for the whole altercation, and likely took the first swing, and I think most other people do as well, but that doesn't really matter.  The Stand Your Ground law, combined with Florida's aggressor statute and the lack of eyewitnesses at critical times in the altercation, really make this a mess (as far as establishing to the legally required level of proof what happened - apart from that it's a tragedy and a travesty).    [/quote]

Arguably, GZ was stalking TM.

From [url]http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm[/url]
[quote][b]FLORIDA[/b]

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(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.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of 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.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.[/quote]

In particular, bullets 2 and 3 could apply.  After the 911 call where he was told that he didn't need to follow TM, his pursuit was clearly "willful".  Once can argue that his comment "these ***, they always get away." leads one to believe that his following TM was malicious.  Repeatedly?  GZ claims that he followed in his car, lost track of TM, then left his car on foot and hunted until he found TM again.  One could argue that he was stalking and whether it was misdeamor or felony stalking, once it is deemed to be stalking, then he is no longer eligible for the "Stand your ground" defense.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics