George Zimmerman's wife charged with perjury

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigarrow:

Exactly, I don't know if AAA is playing devils advocate or just doesn't get it.

Sorry, but I don't see it as murder when a crowd of drunks threatens a man who is asking them to tone down a drunken party late at night. They escalated the situation.

He probably used poor judgment in going over there armed, but he may have known the kind of people he was dealing with and feard they would attack him if he wasn't armed.

The nieghbor should have apologized and promised to turn down the music. Instead, he and his pals started making threats, including a clear threat to get a gun.

Anyway, we are going around in circles, but it makes my original point that carrying a weapon can put you in a can't win situation.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Wrong again. It certainly is not the law that "you show up with a gun and whatever happens next is on you." That's ridiculous. It implies that having a weapon makes you some sort of a criminal, to whom normal rules don't apply. Anyone can take a free shot at you and it's your fault.

Your mistake, and I would add the jury's, was to assume that a guy who was kept awake by a loud party thrown by inconsiderate neighbors was thinking clearly and making a clear plan when he went to the house. If he was planning on gunning someone down, why would he want it on video? Your logic is faulty. The fact that your neighbors are drunken thugs doesn't mean you have to cower in your house all night either. Murder was a serious miscarriage of justice, but it shows what can happen when you are armed. You can be at the mercy of ambitious prosecutors and naive jurors.

Sorry, your logic is flawed on this one. He wanted it on video because he thought he knew the law. He wanted it on tape as evidence thinking hey, I was standing my ground, here's the proof.
And you're wrong about the gun as well. When you show up uninvited on property other than your own, clearly wanting to provoke someone into violence, and show a weapon when no one else has one, it's you that incited any violent act that follows.
The law provides means to take care of loud and unrulely neighbors. We cannot take the law into our own hands just because we're not happy with what we think should be the outcome of our complaints. If you think it's OK in this situation, then you must be OK with the anarchists that tear up property and incite violence simply because they ain't happy with how things work in our system.
What you're supporting is anarchy. Neighbor pisses you off and you're not happy with the cops response...go kill the fucker. Appealing as that thought might be at times, we simply cannot have that as an option to solving our problems.

 

[bigarrow]

Using AAA logic if my neighbor continuously lets his yard grow up with weeds and makes keeping my yard weed free a real bitch and doesn't help my property value then I can go on his property and ask him to mow his yard while pointing a gun at him. And when he tells me to fuck off or he'll go get his gun then I can kill him.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigarrow:

Using AAA logic if my neighbor continuously lets his yard grow up with weeds and makes keeping my yard weed free a real bitch and doesn't help my property value then I can go on his property and ask him to mow his yard while pointing a gun at him. And when he tells me to fuck off or he'll go get his gun then I can kill him.

This really beginning to bore me, but maybe just maybe you and CO can learn something if you concentrate really hard.

Your hypothetical assumes an explicit threat in pointing a weapon at someone while making a demand. My understanding is that the defendant in this case did not do that. He was carrying a gun, yes, but was he pointing it at people? Big difference.

Also, I never said he was "justified" in shooting, only that (1) the neighbors bore substantial responsibility as well for what happened, and (2) I did not think the case merited a murder conviction.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Sorry, your logic is flawed on this one. He wanted it on video because he thought he knew the law. He wanted it on tape as evidence thinking hey, I was standing my ground, here's the proof.
And you're wrong about the gun as well. When you show up uninvited on property other than your own, clearly wanting to provoke someone into violence, and show a weapon when no one else has one, it's you that incited any violent act that follows.
The law provides means to take care of loud and unrulely neighbors. We cannot take the law into our own hands just because we're not happy with what we think should be the outcome of our complaints. If you think it's OK in this situation, then you must be OK with the anarchists that tear up property and incite violence simply because they ain't happy with how things work in our system.
What you're supporting is anarchy. Neighbor pisses you off and you're not happy with the cops response...go kill the fucker. Appealing as that thought might be at times, we simply cannot have that as an option to solving our problems.

See above. You should change your name to Captain Strawman.

The only reason I am even responding is you continue with this dangerous fantasy that someone who is carrying a gun has somehow automatically triggered any criminal response from others that follows. Following your logic, anyone who is engaged in concealed or open carry, which is perfectly legal in most states, could be said to have triggered any violence that occurs. You don't seem to get the concept that it is the person who starts the violence, like a trayvon, who is responsible, not a person who happens to be armed.

I get it that you think the mere act of carrying a weapon is provocative, but what I keep saying is that that is not the law. Merely carrying a weapon is not a violation nor is it an invitation to violence. It may be a seriously bad idea, as it was here.

I have never advocated resorting to violence or anarchy just because someone is dissatisfied with the police's response. Obviously it is illegal to go over and threaten your neighbors with or without a gun because of a noise complaint. In this case, I didn't hear the guy making any threats. I heard plenty of threats from the drunks.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

See above. You should change your name to Captain Strawman.

The only reason I am even responding is you continue with this dangerous fantasy that someone who is carrying a gun has somehow automatically triggered any criminal response from others that follows. Following your logic, anyone who is engaged in concealed or open carry, which is perfectly legal in most states, could be said to have triggered any violence that occurs. You don't seem to get the concept that it is the person who starts the violence, like a trayvon, who is responsible, not a person who happens to be armed.

I get it that you think the mere act of carrying a weapon is provocative, but what I keep saying is that that is not the law. Merely carrying a weapon is not a violation nor is it an invitation to violence. It may be a seriously bad idea, as it was here.

I have never advocated resorting to violence or anarchy just because someone is dissatisfied with the police's response. Obviously it is illegal to go over and threaten your neighbors with or without a gun because of a noise complaint. In this case, I didn't hear the guy making any threats. I heard plenty of threats from the drunks.

You're only seeing what you want to see in my posts. First off, the Zimmerman case is not the same as the Texas case. It's one thing for an armed neighborhood watchman to ask questions of suspicious people, and quite another for some knuckle head to come walking up your driveway with a drawn weapon. That act in and of itself is a threatening gesture. The home owner would have been justified to shoot him dead at that moment. The home owner is the one who had stand your ground on his side, not the dummy walking on to someone's property, uninvited, while carrying a clearly visible gun, and talking shit.
Also I never said the mere act of carrying a weapon incites violence. There is a world of difference between carrying a weapon and pulling a weapon. Once that gun comes out in plain view the owner of that weapon best have a damn good reason for doing so. To flash a weapon just to show someone you mean business is one of the dumbest things you can do. A weapon should never be drawn unless you intend to shoot it. It ain't for show, making threatening gestures, or trying to prove you're serious. It's for killing people! The only reason to kill someone is if you feel in eminent danger to your life and health. It was the property owner in this case who was in danger, not the guy unhappy with the loud music. Had he, the property owner, been armed at that moment, he could have pulled his weapon and killed in self defense.
The overwhelming majority of people have no business carrying a gun. They simply don't have the proper temperament for doing so.
We can agree on one thing. A person best think long and hard about the consequences of carrying a gun. What you think may be a justified shoot may not be the case at all.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I do see your point. It is at best very bad judgment to storm up to someone's house with a drawn gun.

Now it wasn't clear to me his gun was actually drawn. He had a video camera and phone in play as well, so either he had an extra arm or maybe he was taping with the phone.

I think we can draw at least three lessons from this. One, if you have a complaint about neighbors and you feel the need to be armed to pursue it, it's best to wait for the police. Two, if an angry man with a gun barges into your party complaining about noise, it's probably best to try to defuse the situation rather than start making threats to him. Three, as you point out, even the SYG and other laws offer pretty narrow safe harbors for using a gun, particularly if the target is unarmed.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I do see your point. It is at best very bad judgment to storm up to someone's house with a drawn gun.

Now it wasn't clear to me his gun was actually drawn....

I was under the impression the shooter didn't draw/show his weapon until after he was approached by the guy directly in front of him. It was at this point that same guy mentioned the firearm.



As an aside it never ceases to amaze me how some guys get macho and belligerent when drinking. I'm normally just the opposite when I'm drinking, I just want to get laid and go to bed.

 

[bigarrow]

This is just another example of a disturbed and insecure little man with a gun taking the law into his own hands. Deadly force because in his opinion his neighbors were too loud... Verdict guilty. At least Zimmerman was lucky enough not to have his killing video recorded.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Now it wasn't clear to me his gun was actually drawn. He had a video camera and phone in play as well, so either he had an extra arm or maybe he was taping with the phone.

I was under the impression that either he was recording with his phone or had a bluetooth headset. Cuz at one point, he was video taping, talking on the phone and apparently had his gun out.