"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 1:18 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04 pm, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your
Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using
lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal
force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around
and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see
if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go
looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found
it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff
tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him
so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. There is new evidence,
apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. There aren't many ways that turns
the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. What followed next is
what needs to be determined. But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.



Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. HE should have been thrown
off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Self appointed" according to news in the UK. ie wandered about
looking for someone to shoot. A bit like a mugger but the mugger has
a motive.

yawn
Another stupid presumption by harry