What should be the appropriate thing to do in this case

[CCHGN]

Listen, y'all ( those that are) need to realize what fallacies of arguments are. What some are doing is the classic, "discredit the messenger" by personal attack or trivializing or mocking the message, etc. Sorry, that won't work, all that means is that your side of the debate has no merit ( all you know is that you disagree, but don't know why), so you have to resort to that.. We're all supposed to be mature adults here.

 

[CCHGN]

Actually...it's "private person's", citizen or not--and they can
effect an arrest for misdemeanor or felony offenses.

Well, IDK what state ( or World) you're talking about, but IN Florida it has to be a felony (preferably a forcible felony) and yes you HAVE to be a U.S. Citizen. I dare you to try and hold me for a misdemeanor. You better know the law better than me.

BTW, employing deadly force is not tantamount to arrest...carry on.

???? Do you know what "tantamount " means? it means "the same as", so you said, "employing deadly force is not "the same as", arrest." Well of course it isn't, who said it was? I have NO idea what you're trying to say. Employing a citizens arrest is todetain them until the cops arrive and yes, some times it means using SOME kind of force. How deadly it is, is entirely up to them.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Listen, y'all ( those that are) need to realize what fallacies of arguments are. What some are doing is the classic, "discredit the messenger" by personal attack or trivializing or mocking the message, etc. Sorry, that won't work, all that means is that your side of the debate has no merit ( all you know is that you disagree, but don't know why), so you have to resort to that.. We're all supposed to be mature adults here.[/QUOTE

No reason to get butthurt. Some of us disagree. Opinions vary. No big deal.

Take a deep breath and relax.

 

[Wise_A]

Dude. I really can't tell if you're a bleeding-heart anti-gun troll trying to drum up moronic quotes for you to repost on Reddit, or you actually think this stuff.

I find it really, really, really hard to believe anybody could actually think this stuff.

I WANT to die saving an innocent life....just think of all the other ways folks die, and we all HAVE to do it. That's my choice. YMMV

Uh. I was planning on living another 40, maybe 50 years. I guess...



...mileage really does vary.

As for the other stuff:

(1) Castle Doctrine. I think I already explained it to you. Castle Doctrine covers your duty to retreat, or lack thereof, inside your own home. Stand Your Ground, which loosely refers to self-defense statutes which do not create an obligation to retreat in public spaces, is entirely different than Castle Doctrine.

(2) George Zimmerman was legally justified. George Zimmerman was also a total retard who managed to destroy his own life by dint of being a total retard. It doesn't matter if he's Captain of the Space Police, or what he has the right to do. He should have stayed in his stupid car. There's no such thing as a "good shoot". Even if you're such a morally-deplorable person that you think killing somebody is NBD, then you still wound up in a life-threatening situation that you conceivably could have avoided, a life-threatening situation in which you might not have prevailed, and put yourself through the post-event ordeal and all that that entails.

(3) Do you know what happens when you interject yourself into other people's domestic violence? Usually, they both turn on you. The battered wife/girlfriend decides to tell the cops about the crazy guy that attacked them for no reason. Also, "on your way home" is not "in your home".

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Sounds like it's about time for everyone to take a deep cleansing breath, let it out slowly, and think really hard before saying anything more.

 

[Tom S.]

Time out for a reminder of the rules we all agreed to follow:

2. Remember- opinions will differ. Get over it. State your opinion calmly, and allow others to state theirs. Discussion will be fine, but there is no need to take a thread into a verbal fistfight or shouting match.

3. Do NOT descend into personal attacks on a member.
Naiveté, or viewpoints different from yours are no reason to call a member an idiot or moron.
If a poster is obnoxious, report him and ignore him.
Do not feed trolls.
NO LYNCHINGS or MUGGINGS.
Learn to use the "IGNORE" feature for posters that ANNOY you. In your User CP, under Settings & Options, click Edit Ignore List.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Muss Muggins]

"Obligation" is not the issue. People do things for others all the time that they are not obligated to,

Agree with the latter statement, but as to the former, but I always keep in mind my most important obligation when taking or not taking action . . .

 

[keith44spl]

None of us knows jest exactly what we would do in a similar situation.

At the end of the day, I would hope, I would do the right thing.


.

 

[fredj338]

I treuly dont? I bet you I do.



You're in Kali, This is Florida, a whole 'nother Country, how can you POSSIBLY know about that? FYI, (pay attention): HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, IT WAS HIS JOB TO INVESTIGATE SOMEONE PEEPING INTO PEOPLES' BACK WINDOWS. He was WELL within his rights. He was breaking contact with Martin and going back to his vehicle, to wait for the cops( who he had on the phone) when Martin jumped HIM.

I won't even respond to the other stuff, too ridiculous. We can "what if" all day long, don't mean a thing. I didn't pull a gun, didn't have one with me. IDK what you're talking about.

Being from kalif doesn't mean you can't see stupid. NW, does NOT MEAN ARMED security, does not mean investigate, here or Fl. You ID, call the cops, report, that us what NW means. He caused the shooting by pursing a suspect even after being warned against that. No, IMO, he wanted to use his gun, why else would he pursue anyone while carrying a gun??? That was the entire crux of the prosecution. FL has stand your ground but that does NOT mean you get to force that to happen, which, IMO, Zimm did just that. ID, call the cops, report what you see, stand down, he did not.
As to why you can't respond to the rest, you have no answers, plain to see. There is reality & there is fantasy. Most of us live in the real world.

 

[16thVACav]

"It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me, it's what he knows for sure just ain't so."

--- attributed to Will Rogers, referring to Herbert Hoover, by Walter Mondale

 

[dougb1946]

Justified or not, legal or not, if you plan to use your gun to defend others, better get insurance to cover the legal bills or your act of heroism will put a real dent in your savings and maybe in your employment. You shoot somebody, and unless there is really obvious evidence (film on TV, lots of witnesses who really like you) your life is going to change. Maybe for short term, maybe long. You are not a cop, you may not know what is actually going on, you may be wrong, you may miss and get shot yourself, or the cops arriving on top of an adrenaline rush may just shoot you because( especially if you have a cow badge-better wear the sash)..

 

[The Big D]

WHAT?

My goodness, if you actually do believe that's the law re: 'castle doctrine' you need education/guidance/legal advice from a professional...seriously.

You are waaaaaaaaay off track.

Be safe.

Absolutely it does, THAT INCIDENT WAS IN MY WAY HOME. Castle Doctrine allows you to defend yourself (and others) ANYWHERE you normally go in a week's time, JUST as if you're at home.

(emphasis added)

 

[The Big D]

Me.

These threads pop up occasionally and always get forceful arguments from those who would abandon their fellow citizens and those who would endeavor to help.

I am in the latter category, but I won't refuse to help any of your family members who are in danger even if you are one of the folks who will only help yourself or YOUR loved ones.

I am not stupid, am well trained, know WHEN to use a gun, and have a history of (then) off duty and (now) armed citizen involvement. Still haven't had the need to shoot anybody and was once sued for $50M in a case where there was no zero violence.

Will continue to do what I think is right. Will accept the consequences if I am wrong. Think that is part and parcel of being a responsible world citizen.

Be safe.

 

[Steve912]

In the interests of making lemonade for those who are familiar
with castle doctrine, and wonder "just how far back, does it go?"...

From 'An Englishman's home is his castle' - the meaning and origin of this phrase :

What was meant by 'castle' was defined in 1763 by the British Prime Minister...
William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.
It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm
may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

But it was noted earlier, in Semayne's case, where it was
" ...established as common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke...in...1628:

'For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium
[and each man's home is his safest refuge].' "

Semayne's case--essentially a claim for property owed Semayne by a
deceased (but located within the home of a third party)-- also noted the
unique sanctity afforded the home under the castle precept with a seemingly
tangential observation---that while a homicide committed in self-defense
was still a felony, a killing in defense of one's home was not.

An interesting paper on the origins of castle doctrine, and it's
inclusion in American colonial and subsequent law, is here:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=wmjowl

 

[Muss Muggins]

All well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand . . .

In the interests of making lemonade for those who are familiar
with castle doctrine, and wonder "just how far back, does it go?"...

From 'An Englishman's home is his castle' - the meaning and origin of this phrase :

What was meant by 'castle' was defined in 1763 by the British Prime Minister...
William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.
It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm
may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

But it was noted earlier, in Semayne's case, where it was
" ...established as common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke...in...1628:

'For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium
[and each man's home is his safest refuge].' "

Semayne's case--essentially a claim for property owed Semayne by a
deceased (but located within the home of a third party)-- also noted the
unique sanctity afforded the home under the castle precept with a seemingly
tangential observation---that while a homicide committed in self-defense
was still a felony, a killing in defense of one's home was not.

An interesting paper on the origins of castle doctrine, and it's
inclusion in American colonial and subsequent law, is here:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=wmjowl

 

[Steve912]

All well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand . . .

First two lines, my crusty curmudgeon..."duly noted".

 

[robertrwalsh]

Since I have the misfortune to live in the PRC (People's Republic of California) I would be VERY SLOW to insert myself into that situation. I would likely maintain my place in the parking lot, call the cops and if the shooter showed up within my reasonable line of sight I would then feel justified in shooting. Some jurisdictions in CA like nothing better than to arrest legally armed private citizens, confiscate their weapons and prosecute them merely for having the temerity of being armed in public. If you are in the middle of a developing situation that is one thing. If you rush in (play cop in gun-haters lingo) to a situation that did not and does not involve you, your potential criminal and civil liability is HUGE. In the real world that might not be an issue, in CA it is.

 

[Muss Muggins]

First two lines, my crusty curmudgeon..."duly noted".

I'm pretty sure that fella' that's makin' all the fuss here doesn't like lemonade . . .

 

[joeintexas]

Seems like a lot of shooting going on here before breakfast!

 

[Minorcan]

WOW, I was trying to follow the discussion, that made me dizzy, then I realized the discussion had turned into "cussin" so I gotta quit following along before I fall down. See ya on another thread.