Unarmed boy shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain...

[blackberry74]

 

 

They do, huh? "They" have certainly gotten away with murder thus far in this case.

 

This is about to get my pressure up.

 

Breathing gets your pressure up. What are you at now? Defcon 3?

 

I was Defcon 2 last night...but back at 3 today. For now. It's pretty early.

 

I'd like to know more details. No information is given about what happened between the 17 year old and the neighborhood watch guy.

 

As far as not getting out of the car, what is the point of a neighborhood watch then?

 

I think it would be wise to withhold judgment pending details. People are having emotional reactions now IMHO.

 

Furthermore, why did this story start out with the fact that the 17-year-old was black and the neighborhood watch guy was white? I can't see where this played any part in the story. It's sad that a 17-year-old was killed, not that a black 17-year-old was killed by a white man. [/rolling eyes at media]

 

The 17 year old was armed with Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. The neighborhood douche shot him to death. What else needs to be known? Had he stayed in the car as directed by police, none of this would have happened.

 

Being on the neighborhood watch doesn't mean get out of your car and accost people who are doing nothing but walking down the street and entering their own home.

[Tigz]

I have to go with BB here. Dude stalked the kid. They got into an altercation - either dude went up to the kid, or the kid came up to the dude. (I can see the latter happening, I mean, someone following me around I'd probably have words for them too).

 

Kid is dead. Unarmed.

 

First Degree Murder.

[Nostromo]

Gotta agree with Tigz and BB on this one.

[Tigz]

Correction, Second degree murder. (I just ran over the Florida State Statutes)

[dingaling]

This is Seminole County where I lived for over 20 years. I was in the southern part of the county and this is in the north part. The system works well there. Good prosecutors and good Judges. It is not as backward as a lot of Florida. It is the county north of Orange (Orlando). My point is, I think that in the end it will be handled properly. I sure don't see why this happened at all. No reason for it to escalate to that level after police were called.

 

BTW, this is the same city that hit the news a couple weeks ago when the cops raided a couple CVS pharmacies for selling massive quantities of pain killers and other scheduled drugs. Florida has a big problem with pain clinics.

[hegemony]

 

Sooooooo he studied criminal justice so that makes it okay? To me that just makes it worse on him. He wasn't ignorant of his actions. Perhaps he isn't a police officer for a reason? Like maybe didn't pass the psych test? Don't they give potential po's a psych test that they must pass?

 

exactly.

 

he must not have been a good student because at 25 and "studied" he would have been employed in the field instead of a murderous vigilante.

[dingaling]

I just looked up the state attorney and it is still Norm Wolfinger. I see he is still using the same picture he has used for the past 30 years or so. He is a good prosecutor. My experience with dealing with them in the past is that they are very good. In some parts of Florida, a crime like this (white killing a black) would be an automatic no file. In Seminole County, the prosecutors will do the right thing. They are all very professional. Forty of fifty years ago I would not have said that. Seminole County was very backwoods in those days.

[orangecrush]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/man-who-shot-killed-teen-sanford-neighborhood-has-/nLPgL/

 

Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of battery on a law-enforcement officer. He was not prosecuted, and it looks like the case was dismissed for some reason.

[blackberry74]

Hmmmm...

[Tigz]

 

BB....I just nicked your smiley.

It's awesome.

[orangecrush]

 

BB....I just nicked your smiley.

It's awesome.

 

 

I snagged it too.

[iH8cra]

 

I'd like to know more details. No information is given about what happened between the 17 year old and the neighborhood watch guy.

 

As far as not getting out of the car, what is the point of a neighborhood watch then?

 

I think it would be wise to withhold judgment pending details. People are having emotional reactions now IMHO.

 

Furthermore, why did this story start out with the fact that the 17-year-old was black and the neighborhood watch guy was white? I can't see where this played any part in the story. It's sad that a 17-year-old was killed, not that a black 17-year-old was killed by a white man. [/rolling eyes at media]

 

The 17 year old was armed with Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. The neighborhood douche shot him to death. What else needs to be known? Had he stayed in the car as directed by police, none of this would have happened.

 

Being on the neighborhood watch doesn't mean get out of your car and accost people who are doing nothing but walking down the street and entering their own home.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. It's possible that it's as black and white as that but it's also very possible that it's not.

 

Why does a neighborhood watch need to stay in the vehicle? There is not a formal neighborhood watch where I live (I live semi-rurally) but if there were, I'd want whoever is on watch to feel free to leave a vehicle.

 

Furthermore, we don't know what happened between the 17-year-old and the watchman. I think people are getting fixated on the fact that the watchman was armed and the 17-year-old was not. That detail is irrelevant. If, for example, the 17-year-old attacked him and the watchman felt that he was in immediate danger, then it's a good shoot. If the watchman was not in fear of his life, it's not a good shoot and then it's criminal.

 

It's all speculation until more details are released. It's very premature to cast judgment.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

Agree 100% with Tigz and BB. It's murder, plain and simple.

[orangecrush]

 

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. It's possible that it's as black and white as that but it's also very possible that it's not.

 

Why does a neighborhood watch need to stay in the vehicle? There is not a formal neighborhood watch where I live (I live semi-rurally) but if there were, I'd want whoever is on watch to feel free to leave a vehicle.

 

Furthermore, we don't know what happened between the 17-year-old and the watchman. I think people are getting fixated on the fact that the watchman was armed and the 17-year-old was not. That detail is irrelevant. If, for example, the 17-year-old attacked him and the watchman felt that he was in immediate danger, then it's a good shoot. If the watchman was not in fear of his life, it's not a good shoot and then it's criminal.

 

It's all speculation until more details are released. It's very premature to cast judgment.

 

1. Because the dispatch told him to.

2. Because official neighborhood watch groups are not supposed to engage suspects.

 

 

I don't care if the guy was armed or not. This guy followed him with his car and then got out to confront him. That is not acceptable behavior in response to someone walking down a sidewalk. Gated community or not.

 

The shooter did all of this while it was dark. If he had pulled that crap with a woman, most would be screaming that she should have killed him.

 

Actually, it isn't all speculation. Comments were made on the 911 call, that have given some insight into what happened.

[blackberry74]

I'm sorry but I disagree. It's possible that it's as black and white as that but it's also very possible that it's not.

 

Why does a neighborhood watch need to stay in the vehicle? There is not a formal neighborhood watch where I live (I live semi-rurally) but if there were, I'd want whoever is on watch to feel free to leave a vehicle.

 

He needed to stay in his vehicle because that's what the police told him to do, for starters. Secondly, what rights do private citizens have to detain/harass other private citizens?

 

Furthermore, we don't know what happened between the 17-year-old and the watchman. I think people are getting fixated on the fact that the watchman was armed and the 17-year-old was not. That detail is irrelevant. If, for example, the 17-year-old attacked him and the watchman felt that he was in immediate danger, then it's a good shoot. If the watchman was not in fear of his life, it's not a good shoot and then it's criminal.

 

It's all speculation until more details are released. It's very premature to cast judgment.

 

Actually that detail isn't irrelevant, since it led to the unarmed person being shot dead. Nothing would have happened if that salamander had stayed in his car where he belonged. Let's say that the 17 year old did attack him...and if he had, I wouldn't blame him. He was walking in his neighborhood minding his own business when some douche started following him, then got out of his car and approached him. If somebody did that to me, I'd be looking for the nearest blunt object to crack him in the head with. But again - none of this would have happened if he'd done what he was supposed to do in the first place. He didn't and now a kid is dead.

Edited March 9, 2012 by blackberry74

[orangecrush]

I wonder why the police told the boy's family that the shooter had a clean record.

[Tigz]

I wonder why the police told the boy's family that the shooter had a clean record.

 

Yeah....pbft....

 

Everybody has a clean record until that first offense....in this case, the offense is murder.

[orangecrush]

I wonder why the police told the boy's family that the shooter had a clean record.

 

Yeah....pbft....

 

Everybody has a clean record until that first offense....in this case, the offense is murder.

 

The shooter was arrested previously, but the charges were dropped.

[breeze]

Can you check and see if the watch guy had tried to get on the police force and been turned down? Sounds like one of those guys - we had one here. He was always out looking for "lawbreakers."

[Bad Doctor Frost]

Can you check and see if the watch guy had tried to get on the police force and been turned down? Sounds like one of those guys - we had one here. He was always out looking for "lawbreakers."

 

That's a very valid, and creepy, point.

[breeze]

There's a lot of crazy people running around. You don't know they're crazy - they're just misfits - til they do something.

[blackberry74]

Can you check and see if the watch guy had tried to get on the police force and been turned down? Sounds like one of those guys - we had one here. He was always out looking for "lawbreakers."

 

I had that thought, too...especially when I read how young he was.

[orangecrush]

I think that I have found the shooter's case from 2005. It looks as if he was put into a pre-trial diversion program.

[sirrowan]

I'm sorry but I disagree. It's possible that it's as black and white as that but it's also very possible that it's not.

 

Why does a neighborhood watch need to stay in the vehicle? There is not a formal neighborhood watch where I live (I live semi-rurally) but if there were, I'd want whoever is on watch to feel free to leave a vehicle.

 

He needed to stay in his vehicle because that's what the police told him to do, for starters. Secondly, what rights do private citizens have to detain/harass other private citizens?

 

Furthermore, we don't know what happened between the 17-year-old and the watchman. I think people are getting fixated on the fact that the watchman was armed and the 17-year-old was not. That detail is irrelevant. If, for example, the 17-year-old attacked him and the watchman felt that he was in immediate danger, then it's a good shoot. If the watchman was not in fear of his life, it's not a good shoot and then it's criminal.

 

It's all speculation until more details are released. It's very premature to cast judgment.

 

Actually that detail isn't irrelevant, since it led to the unarmed person being shot dead. Nothing would have happened if that salamander had stayed in his car where he belonged. Let's say that the 17 year old did attack him...and if he had, I wouldn't blame him. He was walking in his neighborhood minding his own business when some douche started following him, then got out of his car and approached him. If somebody did that to me, I'd be looking for the nearest blunt object to crack him in the head with. But again - none of this would have happened if he'd done what he was supposed to do in the first place. He didn't and now a kid is dead.

I totally agree with you!

[breeze]

I believe FL law allows you to shoot in self defense if you are in fear for your life. Someone can put his hand in his pocket and point his finger and you'll be in fear for your life if you don't know that he doesn't have a gun in there. I'm not siding with the watch guy - my first impression is that he was one of those over-eager LE wannabe types.