Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

I don't know if you mean there is never a justification to attack or in this case. In general, you can attack to defend another.

---

:rofl2: That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another.. :p

Very slight difference there but it is a difference..

Now working off of that premise, let's say I came out of my appartment at the time Trayvon, was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, do you think I legally could have shot him ???? Not knowing any of the preceding circumstances :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

It covers both as far as we know, but we really don't know a whole bunch. I always use the OJ case as an example on how the press/politics can even convolute
the principles of Science. This one has just gotten started and it will be a long, horrible ride for many. This case was screwed the moment they decided to bypass the Grand Jury.
What they should have done is used the grand Jury as a investigative body/fact finder as well as a vehicle for charging.

---

Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.

Hmm, more pics are released.
George Zimmerman: Charged and Jailed | Photos - ABC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.

---

That may be true in New Mexico, it isn't true here. The first CCW shooter was charged with murder in Dallas. The Grand Jury threw it out. Grand Juries are much closer to the will of the people in Texas.

There was also a vigilante killing in Irving. A man shot his girlfriend in the parking lot of Irving Mall in front of witnesses. He killed her. This was before CCW was legal. Another man pulled out a revolver with a scope and took the killer out. Both shootings were witnessed by a city council woman.

He was no-billed and hailed as a hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

Can you please provide a citation to the law that allows a person to shoot another person in the back, as they are running away, over a piece of property?

Edit: I found it: Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws and Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws. However it is not so clear cut, and I fear that you will be facing murder charges because property can be recovered by other means than shooting a person in the back as they run away.

---

The police are less forgiving if this is done in daylight.

At night shooting someone fleeing from your house is much more accepted.

We have had drunks banging on someone's door at night being shot through a door, no billed. You don't screw around another person's house at night. People are paranoid and it's accepted.

It's also legal to open carry on your own property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

---

At $4.04 at gallon down the street; I will wait till he puts the can down first.:hmmm:
Don't want to take a chance of hitting the can & losing the gas. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

---

If he pointed a gun at me while he was taking the gas, damn right I would shoot him. He threatened me with lethal force and soon could do the same to someone else.

That's the justification used at the Mall shooting and it held up in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

:rofl2: That sounds like "Lawyer Speak", You can not "Attack" you can use deadly force in defense of yourself or the "Defense" of another.. :p

Very slight difference there but it is a difference..

Now working off of that premise, let's say I came out of my appartment at the time Trayvon, was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, do you think I legally could have shot him ???? Not knowing any of the preceding circumstances :hmmm:

---

Yes. In that case you would be on the attack. ATTACK: to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

I agree it is semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Grand Juries are a joke. They are a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. If he can't get a true bill he's in the wrong line of work. They are all one sided and half the time they don't even pay attention to what is going on and treat the proceedings as some casual affair. Most of the time they use them as insurance so they can say well, the grand jury saw a case there.

---

I've not experienced this at all with a Grand Jury. I have spent hundreds of hours presenting testimony and evidence before a Grand Jury. I'd like to know where you have had this experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

SOOOOOOO. if somebody stole,say a can of gas out of your truck and was running away,would YOU shoot him or her?

---

Not him or her shoot the can!!!

I think this is going to get more and more interesting as the facts come out,,,

We need to keep this thread going through the process and see if our perception changes as we learn what is presented...

Watched GMA this morning and their bias in this case was so transparent it was laughable... :(