17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[The Mad Moderate]

and the person he was following sped up, he would have to speed up as well. That's not chasing, that's still following.
.

What kind of logic is that, its all about perspective. If you were walking alone at night and you noticed someone was following you so you sped up and they sped up too would you not call that being chased. You argument holds no water and is completely lacking in logic.

[jocat54]

It really doesn't matter if Z walked, ran, limped, hopped, crawled.........I think most will admit (even if they don't want to)that Z STARTED all of this, even if not really meaning to, he should have never left his car to pursue(?) the matter.
He states in his call to the PD that M ran, did he run after him?

There is only one side to this story being told by someone involved...his....we will never know the other side involved. With no one to oppose his story first hand, well he can say what he wants.

Still think he caused a confrontation and was getting his tail whipped.

[mamabearCali]

Sure Z started it in the same way a girl wearing a short skirt started the assault on herself.

Shouldn't she have known better than to wear a skirt? Shouldn't she have known that the boys would see it and be inflamed? Maybe if she had worn pants this would never have happened......

That is a ridiculous argument and everyone here would say so. But it is precisely the same argument that is being applied to Z. Is getting out of your car to determine where a suspicious person is going wise--nope. But neither is wearing a short skirt to excite boys. Both however are legal and neither rises to the level of inciting a attack.

[jocat54]

Didn't know there were any short skirts there.
I wasn't there so I don't know what z did when he got out of his car.... to determine where m went or something else... do you?

I am also unsure that M was innocent in all this.

[baldeagle]

It really doesn't matter if Z walked, ran, limped, hopped, crawled.........I think most will admit (even if they don't want to)that Z STARTED all of this, even if not really meaning to, he should have never left his car to pursue(?) the matter.
He states in his call to the PD that M ran, did he run after him?

There is only one side to this story being told by someone involved...his....we will never know the other side involved. With no one to oppose his story first hand, well he can say what he wants.

Still think he caused a confrontation and was getting his tail whipped.

Even if that's true, he still retained the right to self defense. And that's the entire point of this forum. To understand when self defense is justified. Even if GZ did something "wrong" (although he broke no laws), that doesn't justify assaulting him. Even if he was verbally abusive to TM (and there's no evidence that he was) assaulting him is not justified. Once he was being assaulted, he had a duty to try to escape the assault IF he triggered the confrontation. He tried to do that. If you listen to the 911 tapes he screamed for help for almost 50 seconds before firing his weapon. Self defense law does not require that you assume some level of abuse before firing, because you were somehow "guilty" of triggering the conflict. That's insane liberal thinking.

If you are in a restaurant and you confront someone who is disturbing your meal, you don't lose your right of self defense if the other party decides now would be a good time to beat you to a pulp. Even if you get into heated words, and according to witnesses you started the confrontation and escalated it, you still have no duty under the law to absorb some level of punishment before fighting back. The point is, you need to distinguish between "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" or "ethical" and "unethical" and what is legally allowed. Emotion doesn't enter into the law. Facts and evidence are what matter.

[baldeagle]

Didn't know there were any short skirts there.
I wasn't there so I don't know what z did when he got out of his car.... to determine where m went or something else... do you?

I am also unsure that M was innocent in all this.

You're unsure????? TM assaulted GZ. The evidence of that is clear. Photographic evidence as well as witness and police accounts. How could you possibly be unsure?

[jocat54]

It really doesn't matter if Z walked, ran, limped, hopped, crawled.........I think most will admit (even if they don't want to)that Z STARTED all of this, even if not really meaning to, he should have never left his car to pursue(?) the matter.
He states in his call to the PD that M ran, did he run after him?

There is only one side to this story being told by someone involved...his....we will never know the other side involved. With no one to oppose his story first hand, well he can say what he wants.

Still think he caused a confrontation and was getting his tail whipped.

Even if that's true, he still retained the right to self defense. And that's the entire point of this forum. To understand when self defense is justified. Even if GZ did something "wrong" (although he broke no laws), that doesn't justify assaulting him. Even if he was verbally abusive to TM (and there's no evidence that he was) assaulting him is not justified. Once he was being assaulted, he had a duty to try to escape the assault IF he triggered the confrontation. He tried to do that. If you listen to the 911 tapes he screamed for help for almost 50 seconds before firing his weapon. Self defense law does not require that you assume some level of abuse before firing, because you were somehow "guilty" of triggering the conflict. That's insane liberal thinking.

If you are in a restaurant and you confront someone who is disturbing your meal, you don't lose your right of self defense if the other party decides now would be a good time to beat you to a pulp. Even if you get into heated words, and according to witnesses you started the confrontation and escalated it, you still have no duty under the law to absorb some level of punishment before fighting back. The point is, you need to distinguish between "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" or "ethical" and "unethical" and what is legally allowed. Emotion doesn't enter into the law. Facts and evidence are what matter.

Do we know for sure Z broke no laws? I don't.

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

[jocat54]

Didn't know there were any short skirts there.
I wasn't there so I don't know what z did when he got out of his car.... to determine where m went or something else... do you?

I am also unsure that M was innocent in all this.

You're unsure????? TM assaulted GZ. The evidence of that is clear. Photographic evidence as well as witness and police accounts. How could you possibly be unsure?

I wasn't there, were you?

[baldeagle]

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're serious? TM had a cut knuckle. GZ had a broken nose, lacerations to his face, two cuts on the back on his head and his blood all over his clothes. He had no damage at all to his hands, and TM had no injuries other than the cut knuckle and the gun shot wound. If it isn't clear to you who assaulted whom then I have no idea what to say. Apparently evidence is meaningless.

[jocat54]

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're serious? TM had a cut knuckle. GZ had a broken nose, lacerations to his face, two cuts on the back on his head and his blood all over his clothes. He had no damage at all to his hands, and TM had no injuries other than the cut knuckle and the gun shot wound. If it isn't clear to you who assaulted whom then I have no idea what to say. Apparently evidence is meaningless.

So what you might be saying is.....Z caught up with M and asked him politely what he was doing and M pounced on him---or----Z maybe grabbed M and then M began to whip his tail---or---or----or to many.

Again I wasn't there.

[baldeagle]

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're serious? TM had a cut knuckle. GZ had a broken nose, lacerations to his face, two cuts on the back on his head and his blood all over his clothes. He had no damage at all to his hands, and TM had no injuries other than the cut knuckle and the gun shot wound. If it isn't clear to you who assaulted whom then I have no idea what to say. Apparently evidence is meaningless.

So what you might be saying is.....Z caught up with M and asked him politely what he was doing and M pounced on him---or----Z maybe grabbed M and then M began to whip his tail---or---or----or to many.

Again I wasn't there.

Doesn't matter if Z grabbed him. He still doesn't have the right to assault him. smh

[jocat54]

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're serious? TM had a cut knuckle. GZ had a broken nose, lacerations to his face, two cuts on the back on his head and his blood all over his clothes. He had no damage at all to his hands, and TM had no injuries other than the cut knuckle and the gun shot wound. If it isn't clear to you who assaulted whom then I have no idea what to say. Apparently evidence is meaningless.

So what you might be saying is.....Z caught up with M and asked him politely what he was doing and M pounced on him---or----Z maybe grabbed M and then M began to whip his tail---or---or----or to many.

Again I wasn't there.

Doesn't matter if Z grabbed him. He still doesn't have the right to assault him. smh

Are you sure that wouldn't be simple assault---it would be in Texas.SMH
What is Assault?
Under the criminal laws of Texas, assault can be charged if you:

Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to someone else, including your spouse.
Intentionally or knowingly threaten someone else, including your spouse, with imminent bodily injury.
Intentionally or knowingly cause physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

[speedsix]

... if Z grabbed him...THAT is an assault...and TM would have the right to defend himself against that assault vigorously...we'll never know for sure all that happened once the two were in each others' presence...we only have one story...from a liar...a little physical evidence that's not conclusive...and eyewitness and earwitness testimonies that are vague and contradict each other...we will probably never know who did what first...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 4.011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Mad Moderate]

[jocat54]