It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

In Joe Horn's case there was actually a robbery going on, and he had personally witnessed the robbery (about which there was no doubt). Here, there was nothing of that level.

That's a big difference to a lot of people.

 

Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman, that he had called 911 50 times, mostly for false alarms, and that Sanford police didn't test him for drugs or alcohol, which is standard procedure in homicide cases.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watchman-allegedly-shot-trayvon-martin-wanted-cop/story?id=15949879#.T2dVy8UgdDl

Why are the police protecting this guy?

 

You're wrong. Once the felony has already been committed, you can't use deadly force for the escape. There's a legal difference.

 

As I noted, Horn would probably not be convicted because there was a robbery going on. (As to the point that the shooting happened during the escape -- if you have the right jury, that won't matter.)

Anyway, whether the law covers you or not doesn't make it smart or right for people to shoot to kill before the police arrive. I feel better that, when the house across the street from me was broken into, two neighbors called 911, the police came quickly and chased down the robbers, and not a shot was fired. We didn't need a neighbor to go there guns a-blazin'. The risk is too high that the neighbor will get shot, or that somebody will miss, and someone is going to catch a bullet while watching a ballgame.

 

I hope the DOJ and FBI get involved. I hope the kid's family files a wrongful death suit and win millions.

And F that chief of police who after saying he was sure the shooter wishes he done things differently added that he was sure the kid would say the same. WTF did the kid do wrong aside from walking while black!?!

 

This world is fucking insane.

 

Joe Horn saw an actual robbery. Zimmerman guy saw a 17-year-old black kid and assumed it was a robbery.

If you want to suggest the two are identical, that's your prerogative. But they're not.

I loathe what Joe Horn did, and I suspect the DA sandbagged the grand jury to avoid going to trial. But you should at least admit that one could see a reason to acquit Joe Horn but convict this guy.

And you initially said, "I'm no lawyer, but it appears that Florida would let the likes of Joe Horn go because he was trying to prevent a 'forcible felony.'" My response was to tell you that, legally (i.e., "I'm no lawyer"), the forcible felony defense will not fly. A jury always can acquit, but assuming a Florida jury had convicted Joe Horn, the conviction would have been upheld on appeal.

 

They are similar, in that each state has a shoot-first-ask-questions-later law that could, in theory, give each protection. Certainly, I could see why Horn would be acquitted while Zimmerman could be convicted, or vice versa, depending on the location and makeup of the jury. In Zimmerman's case, the Sanford police are clearly protecting him, and themselves, for reasons that are not yet clear.

 

As racist cities go, Sanford is one of them.

 

I listened to the tapes, and this guy is a Class A fuckface, right down to the sound of his voice. He belongs in an electric chair.

 

Florida's self-defense laws are fairly permissive. I really hope that doesn't help this asshole get off.

 

In what way is chasing a guy self-defense?

Now that the 911 tapes are out, this is the question the Florida AG is going to have to answer.