[UPDATED] Seeking perspective on a situation my neighbor is going through...

[JColumbus]

Yeah, please read and make sure you understand what people are talking about because most of us aren’t angry when we post something. I’m certainly compassionate to a degree about what’s going on and even if you don’t like me I hope the kid can learn from this. I hope you can help him bounce back if he does get convicted.

If anything I owe you an apology for the Uvalde thread. I shouldn’t be calling people stupid. Not with half the shit I type. Lol.

Yea, same here, never angry on here and even in heated debates, I can joke and laugh. Wasn't the same ten years ago, I took everything personally and thought everyone was yelling at me. I was what most of these fellas would call, excuse my french, a pussy. I actually LOVE this forum and most of the people in it because they’ve taught me a lot and have even helped me in certain situations.

So yea, I’m sorry I thought you were telling everyone to calm down. This calls for a good face palming.

Here, do IT. PLEASE don’t give me a black eye when you do it and if my wife asks, I kicked your ass. Deal?

Haha. Cool man I’m glad we’re good. Thank you for going the extra step to engage that last time as I’m sure I probably would have been baffled all night. I’ll just blame it on my screaming kids. Humor me.

God bless you and yours.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I feel like I am missing something that everyone else seems to be assuming. I didn't see anything about them "pinning the lady in"..

Don’t even have to pin somebody in.

Unless you’re a peace officer or have witnessed a felony, a citizen does not have the legal authority to detain (prevent from leaving) someone.

Preventing somebody from leaving is an unlawful use of force which specifically voids self defense and castle doctrine.

ETA: leaving the scene of an accident is covered elsewhere, but it’s a class c or b misdemeanor and it applies whether you were the hitter or hittee, so there’s no legal angle there, either.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…This is looking a hell of a lot better for him...

No, it’s not looking any better for him. Carlos The Neighbor was charged with Agg Assault with a deadly weapon and no matter what way you look at it, the prosecutor has all the evidence needed to convict, without needing to plea down after being over charged. Two wrongs do not make a right.

You don’t seem to accept Carlos The Neighbor illegally detained someone thru an unlawful use of force when he and the father would not allow the other driver to leave. That act voided his ability to justify use of force or deadly force in self defense.

Could a good lawyer spin it to a sympathetic jury and wind up with no conviction? Maybe. But I guarantee the prosecution is going to fill that jury with as many women and mothers as possible and after that as many fathers as possible.

 

[General Zod]

Finally, he told me the judge said he was a threat to society and wanted him locked up.

And...you think this is part of things "looking up" for him?

Dude and his father chased the woman down after she hit his car. As has been mentioned multiple times, this puts him in a very bad legal position. No matter what her husband said to her when he arrived, no matter how belligerent the husband got, the fact remains that your friend and his dad created the situation with an illegal chase and, no matter whether they blocked her in or she stopped on her own, they had no right to chase and detain her. That fact negates the whole self defense angle. Even if the husband had drawn a weapon, your friend would still be in a very bad legal position because he created the situation.

Self defense isn't something you can claim when you're already breaking the law.

 

[mongoose]

And...you think this is part of things "looking up" for him?

Dude and his father chased the woman down after she hit his car. As has been mentioned multiple times, this puts him in a very bad legal position. No matter what her husband said to her when he arrived, no matter how belligerent the husband got, the fact remains that your friend and his dad created the situation with an illegal chase and, no matter whether they blocked her in or she stopped on her own, they had no right to chase and detain her. That fact negates the whole self defense angle. Even if the husband had drawn a weapon, your friend would still be in a very bad legal position because he created the situation.

Self defense isn't something you can claim when you're already breaking the law.

This is good to know.

 

[oldag]

He needs to make sure he has retained a top notch lawyer.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…Self defense isn't something you can claim when you're already breaking the law.

I don’t get why so many people don’t understand this simple concept.

It’s literally the core of how Texas implemented castle doctrine in the law.

 

[General Zod]

I don’t get why so many people don’t understand this simple concept.

It’s literally the core of how Texas implemented castle doctrine in the law.

It's the urge to believe someone's in the right because he was "stickin' up for himself"...when actually he was being a hothead and broke the damn law.

 

[AR1911]

Interesting discussion. I think the best result would for Carlos to plea down to a misdemeanor charge of some sort and consider himself blessed if able to do so.
For myself, I'm thinking about buying some legal insurance.

 

[benenglish]

George Zimmerman got off with self defense.

He initiated everything.

No. All the stuff Zimmerman initiated, all the stuff that was repeated over and over on the news to make him look bad, was finished.

Minutes of time passed during which there was no contact.

During that time, the kid was waiting in the bushes to ambush Zimmerman. He attacked Zimmerman and was trying to commit murder, pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

Zimmerman responded by shooting him. Zimmerman was entirely justified, legally and morally, to use deadly force to defend himself.

Zimmerman most assuredly did NOT initiate everything.

 

[General Zod]

No. All the stuff Zimmerman initiated, all the stuff that was repeated over and over on the news to make him look bad, was finished.

Minutes of time passed during which there was no contact.

During that time, the kid was waiting in the bushes to ambush Zimmerman. He attacked Zimmerman and was trying to commit murder, pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

Zimmerman responded by shooting him. Zimmerman was entirely justified, legally and morally, to use deadly force to defend himself.

Zimmerman most assuredly did NOT initiate everything.

Yes. Everything ZImmerman did was legal. Being in the neighborhood watch? Legal. Being a licensed concealed carrier in Florida? Legal. Following a suspicious person during your neighborhood watch patrol while on the phone with 911? Legal. Not obeying a 911 operator who isn't there and tells you to let the suspicious individual disappear? Legal. Walking back to your car when said suspicious individual does disappear? Legal.

Trayvon Martin's actions were illegal - lying in wait for someone who had been following you, after declaring your intent to kill that person on a phone call with your morbidly obese girlfriend, then attacking and attempting to murder said individual by pounding his skull into a curb. Illegal.

Zimmerman's following actions were also legal - yelling for help and, when none was forthcoming, shooting the person who was attempting to murder him in order to save his own life. Police on the scene and the DA agreed it was self defense. Zimmerman was only prosecuted when the Department of Justice and the President waded in and wanted to make an example of him.

Obviously ZX9RCAM didn't watch any of the trial. It was amusing to see the prosecutor with his head in his hands so very many times when prosecution witnesses invariably backed up Zimmerman's defense. Including Rachel Genteal, Martin's girlfriend who he was talking to on the phone about how he was going to find and kill Zimmerman.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

No. All the stuff Zimmerman initiated, all the stuff that was repeated over and over on the news to make him look bad, was finished.

Minutes of time passed during which there was no contact.

During that time, the kid was waiting in the bushes to ambush Zimmerman. He attacked Zimmerman and was trying to commit murder, pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete.

Zimmerman responded by shooting him. Zimmerman was entirely justified, legally and morally, to use deadly force to defend himself.

Zimmerman most assuredly did NOT initiate everything.

Thanks.

I don't think I ever heard the ambush part.

 

[Axxe55]

Thanks.

I don't think I ever heard the ambush part.

Martin ambushed Zimmerman, and was bashing his head into the curb, hence the injuries that showed up in the police reports, and backed up his statements to police about the incident.

The police never initially wanted to charge Zimmerman in the first place. The trial was politically motivated from the get go.

 

[V-Tach]

He was also the first to be known as a "White Hispanic".................

 

[Axxe55]

He was also the first to be known as a "White Hispanic".................

Yes, exactly. They were trying in every way to make the incident race related and to push an agenda and narrative.

 

[General Zod]

Thanks.

I don't think I ever heard the ambush part.

Because it was very carefully omitted from almost every press report. I'll bet you also thought Zimmerman claimed a "stand your ground" defense. He didn't. But it was part of the narrative the media was pushing.

The truth of the ambush came out in the trial, from the prosecution's star witness who wasn't smart enough to understand she needed to stick to a narrative. Even then, they tried to bury it and keep it out of news reports.

Also, Martin wasn't that bright-eyed 12 year old featured in the only photo the mainstream media ever showed of him. He was a grown man, over six feet tall and weighing more than 180lb. He towered over Zimmerman.

 

[benenglish]

I don't think I ever heard the ambush part.

Funny how none of the evening news programs ever made much, if any, mention of that part.

Obviously ZX9RCAM didn't watch any of the trial. It was amusing to see the prosecutor with his head in his hands so very many times when prosecution witnesses invariably backed up Zimmerman's defense.

For some reason, that case touched a nerve in me. I sat in front of my computer and watched every minute of the streamed trial proceedings. The differences between what happened in court and what the mainstream media was reporting were dumbfoundingly stark.

 

[General Zod]

Funny how none of the evening news programs ever made much, if any, mention of that part.

For some reason, that case touched a nerve in me. I sat in front of my computer and watched every minute of the streamed trial proceedings. The differences between what happened in court and what the mainstream media was reporting were dumbfoundingly stark.

I wasn't glued to it, but I listened to snippets on my local AM radio morning show and watched "highlights" online. And yeah, even during the trial the narrative was pushed hard, even to the point of contradicting the actual testimony.

 

[deemus]

Justice was served.

 

[Axxe55]

Funny how none of the evening news programs ever made much, if any, mention of that part.

For some reason, that case touched a nerve in me. I sat in front of my computer and watched every minute of the streamed trial proceedings. The differences between what happened in court and what the mainstream media was reporting were dumbfoundingly stark.

It was almost like they needed Zimmerman convicted to move forth a political agenda.

Crazy white guy guns down defenseless young black boy in the streets!