[macosxnerd101]

Criminal negligence:

Quote

The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.

We have established that Zimmerman believed Martin was in the wrong, along with the fact that Zimmerman was irresponsible regarding the gun in this situation. We have also established that Zimmerman could have taken steps to avoid this. I see the definition of Criminal Negligence satisfied here.

[atraub]

macosxnerd101, on 16 July 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Criminal negligence:

Quote

The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.

We have established that Zimmerman believed Martin was in the wrong, along with the fact that Zimmerman was irresponsible regarding the gun in this situation. We have also established that Zimmerman could have taken steps to avoid this. I see the definition of Criminal Negligence satisfied here.

Your link goes on to say

Quote

Criminal negligence is a statutory offense that arises primarily in situations involving the death of an innocent party as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who is under the influence of Drugs and Narcotics or alcohol.

I'm not sure I'd use that as my definition source. I've been looking at This one which has a bit better detail

EDIT: Although, one for Florida would be even better.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:22 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Let's use your definitions:

Quote

1) that the defendant acted so recklessly that he/she created a high risk of death or great bodily injury,
3) that a reasonable person in a similar situation would have known that the act(s) naturally and probably results in harm to other people.

Zimmerman followed someone he believed was a criminal while carrying a loaded weapon. We have established that this was stupid because he was putting himself in a situation where the likelihood of someone getting hurt went up drastically.

Please explain how this *isn't* criminally negligent.

Quote

I'm not sure I'd use that as my definition source.

Okay, so it's primarily used when drunk drivers kill people. By the definition provided, I'd still say it's relevant. Using your definitions produces the same results.

[atraub]

Stupid, yes. A complete departure from how a sane person would act? Not really.

The act didn't really show a disregard for human life.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:24 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Even you admitted you wouldn't follow someone you believed was a criminal.

Seriously- by a show of hands, how many of y'all would follow someone you believed was a criminal?

Quote

The act didn't really show a disregard for human life.

His own at the very least?

[atraub]

Although, all of this is really moot. The Jury could not have found Zimmerman guilty of criminal negligence because he was not accused of criminal negligence in the first place.

EDIT:
Anyone who puts themselves into a situation where they are in danger could fall into the "disregard for human life" by that logic. Meh? I've put myself into life threatening situations, but I'd hate to think I could be arrested for not having better judgment.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:28 AM

[macosxnerd101]

That's fair, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman wasn't criminally negligent.

[depricated]

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

well, once again, tm 'attacking' is not a fact that i'm aware of.

So use the google machine. TM attacked GZ.

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

Anyone who puts themselves into a situation where they are in danger could fall into the "disregard for human life" by that logic. Meh? I've put myself into life threatening situations, but I'd hate to think I could be arrested for not having better judgment.

I'd also like to think that people can be arrested for following others. There is a phrase for it- stalking. It's fine when someone puts their own life at risk, just not when it also puts others' well being at risk. For example, I'm personally okay if someone lives in the middle of nowhere, gets drunk, and drives their car into a tree. I'm not okay with that same person getting drunk and driving on a main thoroughfare. That's the difference I'm trying to illustrate.

[xclite]

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Something to that effect has happened to me before. When I was keenly aware I was being followed, I went home, not attacked.

Is there a conclusion we should draw from this statement?

[atraub]

xclite, on 16 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Something to that effect has happened to me before. When I was keenly aware I was being followed, I went home, not attacked.

Is there a conclusion we should draw from this statement?

Mac asked me about my personal experiences, so I answered.

[h4nnib4l]

Ignoring the dispatcher's advice = no problem: they're pretty far from being police officers. I have a friend who was a dispatcher, and her account of dispatchers and their decision-making skills is a little frightening. However, the key here (and the reason I made the CHL comment) is that things are different when you are licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. You are not the same as everyone anymore when you're carrying: your judgment is expected to occur at a higher level when it comes to situations like this. You are agreeing to live within a separate (stricter) set of rules when it comes to altercations, and the use of a weapon in self-defense. I keep repeating this because it is a vital point to grasp: if you instigate in ANY WAY, and it leads to YOU using your weapon, YOU are at fault. You are agreeing to follow a stricter set of rules for personal conduct while carrying, plain and simple.

Another fun fact: it is unlawful for a CHL holder to pursue a shooter. It is not permissible for me to chase down a gunman in order to engage, because I am only licensed to carry for defensive purposes, not offensive. That being said, if I follow an active shooter through a mall and put him down, I will probably not be prosecuted, and good luck to any DA who pushes it, but technically speaking, I was acting outside of the agreement I made with the state of Texas. Remember folks, George Zimmerman got out of his car. His neighborhood watch role and his CHL agreement came in direct conflict with each other, but the CHL agreement trumps here. Had GZ been unarmed and just gotten his ass kicked (anyone really think TM would have beaten him to death? I personally think that's silly), then this would have been an assault and battery charge against TM: with his past problems, he would have probably ended up a felon, and poor GZ would have probably been lauded as a hero by his neighborhood. Unfortunately for all involved, that's not how it went down. GZ put himself in a situation to need to use his weapon, and that is a violation of the agreement he made (I don't know Florida law, but Texas has CHL reciprocity there so I assume they're pretty similar).

If anyone wants to talk in more detail about the logistics of the fight and why I think GZ was an aggressor, I'd be glad to, but otherwise I'm leaving that part alone.

[atraub]

macosxnerd101, on 16 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Quote

Anyone who puts themselves into a situation where they are in danger could fall into the "disregard for human life" by that logic. Meh? I've put myself into life threatening situations, but I'd hate to think I could be arrested for not having better judgment.

I'd also like to think that people can be arrested for following others. There is a phrase for it- stalking. It's fine when someone puts their own life at risk, just not when it also puts others' well being at risk. For example, I'm personally okay if someone lives in the middle of nowhere, gets drunk, and drives their car into a tree. I'm not okay with that same person getting drunk and driving on a main thoroughfare. That's the difference I'm trying to illustrate.

Stalking, by definition, has to be repeated. This was only 1 incident.

EDIT: Florida stalking law CITE

Quote

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(/> “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 09:41 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Not to be pedantic, but I asked if you would feel threatened if something like that happened to you. I didn't ask whether or not you attacked.

Also, I was making a point that it's odd for people to follow others they don't know, and there is some legal protection from that. If someone is following me and I feel threatened, it's nice to know that I can call the police and have someone come out.

[atraub]

Attacking anyone who makes you feel threatened would certainly be unreasonable, perhaps even.... negligent?