Police Abuse

Ohio Deputy Shoots and Kills Unarmed 16-Year-Old Outside Courtroom

Spurs calls for officers to stop carrying guns in court

|

family photo

Richard Scarborough, a sheriff's deputy in Franklin County, Ohio, fatally shot 16-year-old Joseph Haynes during a scuffle outside a juvenile courtroom on January 17. Haynes' death has raised questions about whether officers in juvenile court should be armed with guns in the first place.

The shooting happened when Scarborough got into a fight with members of Haynes' family after the boy's hearing. (Haynes had been charged with menacing with a gun.) Police claim that Scarborough was "somehow knocked to the ground where he came under attack"; family members say Scarborough grabbed Haynes' mother and Haynes stepped in to defend her.

The vice president of the local Fraternal Order of Police insists that Scarborough was in a "fight for [his] life at some point." The deputy had a black eye and other bruises and abrasions, and he was taken to the hospital for "non-life threatening injuries."

The sheriff's office initially withheld the deputy's name, saying there had been death threats against him. But it eventually released Scarborough's identity, along with video from the courthouse. The video does not include the shooting.

In a press conference earlier this month, the sheriff said investigators are looking for any cellphone footage that might have caught the shooting. They have talked to about 20 witnesses, but the sheriff claimed his office has had trouble collecting reliable information because the location of the fight changed during its course.

The executive director of the Juvenile Justice Coalition, Erin Davies, told the Columbus Dispatch she didn't know of any juvenile court in Ohio that had unarmed security personnel but said it was a "perfectly reasonable" question.

"I'd love to hear the answer," she said.

"Our feeling has been that we go to great lengths to screen everyone coming to court to make sure no one is armed," O'Donovan Murphy, director of marshal services for the Connecticut Judicial Branch, told the Dispatch. "If there's a problem, we don't want to be the ones introducing a weapon."

Courthouse deputies in both Connecticut and Massachusetts carry only pepper spray and batons. Scarborough's critics have asked why he didn't use his Taser instead of his firearm, and Haynes' family has called for an independent investigation.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There seems to be a remarkable lack of hard evidence here. I’ll withhold judgment for something concrete.

    1. Yeah, I’d at least like to know what the outcome of the hearing was and what transpired during the discussion.

      I’m predisposed to the kid’s favor but I could see a scenario where he was placed under house arrest and threatened the officer’s family for doing this to him, in which case, IDK how much my heart bleeds for him.

      1. Um, the cop shot the kid during a physical scuffle. What does the hearing or anything the kid ever did or would do outside of that confrontation have to do with how the cop acted?

        1. What does the hearing or anything the kid ever did or would do outside of that confrontation have to do with how the cop acted?

          It’s sad that, given so few facts and details, you don’t have enough imagination to come up with even two equally likely scenarios where one party is just as guilty as the other (and neither deserving a beating and/or shooting).

          I’m sure the hearing had nothing to do with any of it. 6 mos. ago, 6 mos. from now in a completely different time and place, the officer, invariably would’ve shot him. Not that we know the cop to be a murderous prick, because no details supporting it were given, but without that it’s not unreasonable to assume that he had a mission to kill this kid. He’s probably a T-101 and just struck the decisive blow against humans on behalf of Skynet. That’s probably the most reasonable assumption about what happened.

          1. What the fuck are you talking about? The issue is not whether the kid had it coming, but how the cop (who is presumably trained) handles a scuffle. Lethal force is a legitimate response in a very narrow range of circumstances, and it doesn’t sound like a fight where the cop is the only one who’s armed is one of them.

            1. Anyone who kills someone else in self-defense typically needs to prove a threat and the homicide was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

            2. The issue is not whether the kid had it coming, but how the cop (who is presumably trained) handles a scuffle.

              2 Things;

              1. I don’t know what the officer was doing at the courthouse (I hadn’t seen the video and even then it doesn’t clear things up much) if the officer was testifying against Haynes and then shot him, he should probably fry. If he just happened to get hit with the door and told to watch where he’s going as Haynes was coming out, I’m less than sure of his abject guilt.

              2. What sort of punishment are we calling for for the officer? Lose his job? Sure. At the drop of a hat. But, as I indicated, even if he were just a civilian, you’d be hard pressed to show he wasn’t defending himself.

        2. An armed person is under no obligation to allow an unarmed person to beat the shit out of them.

          I am thinking the cop was likely in the wrong, but I’m simply withholding opinions until ANYTHING comes up concrete about the incident.

          1. We are not talking about an “armed person”. We are talking about a government employees. Government employees should be under strict rules of engagement and under strict liability for their actions. Yes, I do expect a cop to get the shit beat out of him instead of shooting a citizen.

  2. Looks like Andrew McCabe has just stepped down, and all the bitching, moaning, and whining from Dipshit Dave Weigel, Welchie Boy, and all the rest of their butt buddies in the JournoList won’t change the simple, basic fact that the shit is about to hit the fan at the FBI big time.

    1. If the FBI has a partisan agenda against Republicans, maybe you ought to question what the fuck went so wrong with Republicans.

      Jesus Christ, you FOX News tit suckers are going to destroy this country.

      1. Jesus Christ, you FOX News tit suckers are going to fundamentally transformdestroy this country.

        Sound familiar?

        1. Sounds vaguely Nazi-ish.

      2. If the FBI has a partisan agenda against Republicans, maybe you ought to question what the fuck went so wrong with Republicans.

        If the FBI has a “partisan” agenda against anyone, the FBI is in the wrong…

      3. Keep crying those salty ham tears, bitch.

        Rod Rosenstein is probably the next to go, and I’ll be sitting here laughing at and mocking all your Mofo asses.

        1. Will you be laughing when the Ds take overwhelming control of Congress in November? Most people in this country are not enthralled by Trump’s insane conspiracy theories. Firing the guy he appointed (and remember Trump “only with the best and most serious people”) will only further demonstrate how nuts these theories are.

          1. Democrats are clearly on their way out so there will be no takeover of anything in 2018 nor 2020.

      4. Yes, that’s how it works.

        If the FBI has a partisan agenda against black people, maybe you ought to question what the fuck went so wrong with black people.

        If the FBI has a partisan agenda against anti-war protestors, maybe you ought to question what the fuck went so wrong with anti-war protestors.

        1. I don’t want to imagine a worldview where the FBI is the measuring stick of correct by which all else are judged.

          1. Harsh criticism of law enforcement agencies is usually the one issue where Tony agrees with libertarians. Maybe he finally noticed that said criticism was undermining the foundation of the rest of his worldview.

            1. I also have a fucking brain. Republicans haven’t suddenly become skeptics of federal law enforcement because they’ve discovered their inner libertarian. Dipshit.

              I guess picking a side between one authoritarian lawbreaking twat on one side and the investigators on the other might be difficult. But that’s one big orange fucking lawbreaking twat.

              1. Tony, if you had a brain, you would have realized that you don’t have to pick a side in a shoving match between two sets of dumb assholes, and that doing so makes you a dumb asshole too. Dumb asshole.

                Anyway, i didn’t say anything about Republicans. I was just pointing out that you’re willing to sacrifice the closest thing you have to a principle in order to tantrum about Trump.

          2. The Left has become jock sniffers for authoritarians.

            …who am I kidding, they ALWAYS were that.

      5. Tony couldn’t arrive at a valid conclusion with a map and a GPS. I guess the IRS targeting of conservative groups means the conservative groups were at fault, too?

        Get your nose out of MSNBC’s asshole, Tony.

      6. Tony couldn’t arrive at a valid conclusion with a map and a GPS. I guess the IRS targeting of conservative groups means the conservative groups were at fault, too?

        Get your nose out of MSNBC’s asshole, Tony.

    2. Lock her up.

    3. Crazy how all these people like Rosenstein and Wray that Trump appointed are out to get him.

      1. It’s ingratitude, is what it is!

    4. While McCabe will leave his position immediately, he will remain on paid leave until March, when he will be eligible for full retirement benefits.

      And at the ripe-old age of 49. How selfless of him.

      1. Evidently a level III position in the executive schedule. According to the Office of Personnel Management as of 2017, that should have an annual salary of $172,100.

        Federal retirement:
        Your basic annuity is computed based on your length of service and “high-3” average salary. Special Provision for Air Traffic Controllers, Firefighters, Law Enforcement Officers, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, or Nuclear Materials Couriers
        1.7% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your years of service which do not exceed 20, PLUS
        1% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your service exceeding 20 years

  3. Teach police to defend themselves and only using guns as a last resort?

  4. Lol white kid beats up a police officer, gets killed for it and all of sudden there is serious talks about disarming police a juvenile courts. Where was your article about disarming Zimmerman types after he killed Trayvon?

    1. you mean disarming citizens?

      you lefty types should love guns as they are the great equalizer.

      1. They’re fine with equalizing people. The fact that it equalizes them with government that sends them apoplectic.

      2. Im not even leftist im just pointing out the fact that you only care cause this kid was white

        1. You must be a lefty. You are the only one bringing up race.

        2. Hatred of police is like the only thing that unites people on this site. Hell, the first post shows people being unusually even-minded about this right now.

          1. Yep. Hatred of the police is one of the two issues that brings forth a near unanimous consent. Do you know what the other issue is?

            1. Hatred of all other self-described libertarians?

            2. Women are too choosy?

            3. Toleration of sock puppets like Butt?

            4. Deep-dish pizza?

    2. That is some decent selective outrage trolling. B-

    3. “Where was your article about disarming Zimmerman types after he killed Trayvon?”

      …in self-defense.

      1. So this cop killed this kid in self defense too.

        1. Got the evidence?

          If so, cough it up.

          1. Black eyes bruises and abrasions. He got beat up worse than Zimzam.

            1. “Black eyes bruises and abrasions.”

              Without context, irrelevant

              1. Lmao i knew I would trigger the altright idiots on here. In what context did Trayvon deserve to be shot more than this white boy? Trayvon was unarmed, Trayvon was minding his own business, Trayvon was not in juvenile court for menacing with a GUN, and Trayvon didnt leave Zimmerman with a black eye.

                1. Sympathize, “due process” and “trail by jury” are difficult concepts for some…

                2. Trolling.

                  Boring.

                3. In what context did Trayvon deserve to be shot more than this white boy?

                  There is only one person who has information enough to answer that question, Zimmerman himself. So there is reasonable doubt, which means he isn’t criminally liable.

                  If this cop went on trial with only the information presented in this article as evidence, I’d say he should not be convicted of anything either.

                  1. There is two levels of consideration here:

                    1) Is this criminal?
                    2) Is it fireable?

                    The latter I do not know, in general I would lean on considerably higher standards for police officers though. And that firing a cop should have a lower threshold than full criminal liability.

                    Though, I guess I would be okay with many cops being held to EVEN criminal liability levels. Rather than now where they get considerably more leeway than a private citizen.

                4. Lmao i knew I would trigger the altright idiots on here. In what context did Trayvon deserve to be shot more than this white boy?

                  He was on top of Zimmerman, on a road, punching him repeatedly. That was more than sufficient cause to shoot him.

                  This kid? We know literally nothing of the altercation? He might have ALSO warranted shooting. I’m disinclined to think so as police have a bad rep in these regards, but we know nothing.

                  Trayvon was minding his own business

                  His “business” being punching a dude on the ground in the road.

                  Trayvon was not in juvenile court for menacing with a GUN, and Trayvon didnt leave Zimmerman with a black eye.

                  Zimmerman had worse injuries than that and the gun is the only reason they weren’t even worse.

    4. Disarming citizens? Another gun grabbing sock puppet.

      Boring.

      1. Disarming a person who acts like a cop because he has a gun is actually a pretty good idea. Tell me what is the difference between this cop and zimmerman? The only difference I see is the race of their victim

        1. Disarming a person who acts like a cop because he is a cop has a gun is actually a pretty good idea.

          FTFY

          1. So your saying I as a citizen I can buy a gun and harrass ppl like the police do (what zimzam did to Trayvon) and then shoot that person and its fine because Im not a cop.

            1. Fuck. He kinda has a point.

              1. No he doesn’t. Trolls never do.

                1. If the guy wasn’t a cop, we would all defend him and say he acted in self-defense. I agree that cops should be held to a higher standard, but may be civilians should as well. Killing should be a last resort, and you should be able to demonstrate you exhausted all lesser options.

                  1. Cops are civilians.

            2. Zimmerman may well have behaved criminally on the night he shot Martin. But without specific evidence, there is nothing to convict him of and no basis to stop him carrying a gun. If he had been a cop and the same thing went down, I’d want to see him lose his job as a cop. But there would still be no basis to convict him of murder or take his gun rights.

              For the most part, harassing people with a gun like police do is in fact a crime (if you aren’t a cop). Brandishing a weapon if you don’t have cause to use it is illegal in most or all states, I believe.

              1. I agree with all that.

            3. “So your saying I as a citizen I can buy a gun and harrass ppl like the police do (what zimzam did to Trayvon) and then shoot that person and its fine because Im not a cop.”

              No. If that were the case, Fl syand your ground law would not apply.

              1. SYG law wasn’t relevant there either. The defense to the charges was that he was defending himself from an immediate threat, which justifies homicide even without SYG.

                1. “SYG law wasn’t relevant there either. ”

                  This is incorrect. The SYG law was invoked, and it is included in the description of what constitutes Self defense.

                  “which justifies homicide even without SYG.”

                  Unless, as I stated, he was harassing people. Because you are clearly the kind of person who posts without knowing things, THE SELF DEFENSE STATUE AND THE SYG STATUTE ARE THE SAME STATUTE. THE CONSIDERATION IS THE SAME, EVEN IF SYG IS INVOKED BUT RULED AGAINST IN COURT.

                  So, now that you’ve embarassed yourself by being very wrong abput a subject you only have a cursory understanding if, you can go.

        2. Luckily, the 2nd Amendment sees no difference. All Americans are protected in their rights to keep and bear arms.

        3. One is a public official and one is a citizen. If the difference is immaterial to you, than you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          1. I smell another parody account. I’m starting to wonder if Reason is hiring them for the lulz.

            1. NYT did a funny article on the “Follower Factory” about people hiring thousands of bots for various reasons on social media.

              I am sure it applies to Reason too. It can mean the difference between a few bucks and thousands of dollars.

              1. Yeah the bots are hard to differentiate from altright idiots

                1. Define altright there bot.

          2. Lmao i knew I would trigger the altright idiots on here. In what context did Trayvon deserve to be shot more than this white boy? Trayvon was unarmed, Trayvon was minding his own business, Trayvon was not in juvenile court for menacing with a GUN, and Trayvon didnt leave Zimmerman with a black eye.

            1. Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, who then shot him in self-defense. Whether or not “this white boy” “deserved” to be shot when judging the situation as if it happened on the street, it is reasonable to expect the sheriff to have procedures and tactics in place to control unruly people in the courthouse without having to resort to shooting them dead.

              1. Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, who then shot him in self-defense.

                This white boy attack the cop, even left the cop with a black eye. So i guess the shooting is should be justified by the logic you used against Trayvon. To be clear no one knows exactly what happened between Trayvon and Zimzam except the Zimzam. It could be that zimzam attacked him first.

                1. The physical evidence and witness testimony made it clear what happened between Martin and Zimmerman. Whether or not the courthouse shooting was justified, it should not have been necessary in the controlled environment of a courthouse. If the officer was forced to defend himself with deadly force in that situation, then the tactics and procedures for maintaining order in the courthouse are deficient.

                  1. There was no witness to the fight between Zim and Trayvon. No when it started and not after. Nobody witnessed the shooting either. So stop acting like there isnt doubt that Zim started the fight. He got away with it because no one witnessed it.

                    1. There was no witness to the fight between Zim and Trayvon.

                      Yes, which is why there is reasonable doubt about what exactly happened (as you more or less say). Hopefully in this case, sufficient evidence will come out that if the cop acted inappropriately or criminally he can be held liable.

                    2. >Yes, which is why there is reasonable doubt about what exactly happened (as you more or less say)

                      Actually thats pretty much what I said
                      ” He got away with it because no one witnessed it.”

                    3. So what you’re saying is that there’s a Hispanic privilege that places them higher on the progressive stack of victims than black people?

                      I get that you’re trolling, but Zimmerman wasn’t white so you’ve already failed at this. ‘White Hispanic’ is one of the most ridiculous monikers the media has published.

                    4. “White Hispanic” does mean something demographically, but unless the media is also specifying whether people are black Hispanics or Asian Hispanics or Mestizo Hispanics, it is pretty ridiculous. And Zimmerman looked like he probably has some non-European ancestry, so it’s likely not even accurate.

                    5. Never did I say Zim was white. The one who has failed here is you. You failed to properly read my statements. Stop assuming your arguing with an.identity politics loving progressive

                    6. Am I the only one who can see this is obviously Tony? He’s not smart enough to change his writing style.

                    7. I don’t see it. Is it really so hard to believe that there is more than one person in the world that wants to argue with libertarians about stuff?

                    8. Well, you’re very stupid as evidenced by you being wrong about the Florida SYG/Self defense law.

                    9. I don’t see it either. But don’t let me stop you from declaring every non-libertarian and even probably some of the libertarians here to be Tulpa / Sock Puppets.

                    10. There was a witness. And he testified that Martin was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.

        4. In what context did Trayvon deserve to be shot more than this white boy?

          Probably not too much. Neither should be a police officer. Unless either is convicted of a sufficiently serious crime, neither should lose their right to bear arms.

          1. None actually think about. Zim went after Tray as if he was a cop following suspect. Why? Because he had a gun and it made him feel like he could harrass ppl like the police do. Any person who wants a gun for that purpose should not own a gun.

            1. Maybe. But he probably could have done more or less the same thing with a baseball bat.

              1. A coward like Zim would not have harrassed Tray with anything less that a gun at the ready.

                1. That may be. My impression was that Zimmerman is kind of a stupid asshole, unprepared for the situation he got himself into. But that really shouldn’t be the basis for stripping someone of important, constitutionally guaranteed rights.

                  1. After what he did I honestly would not let him carry gun. Can he have a gun in his home? Maybe but he should never be allowed to carry while out in public.

                2. What exactly are you arguing for? What kind of law do you want that would have prevented Trayvon from getting shot?

                  1. Will maybe a law that forbids you to harass law biding citizens while carrying a weapon. You know make it illegal for you to act like a cop just because you have a gun.

                    1. It is.

                    2. Given that such laws already exist, I think that they would not have prevented Trayvon from getting shot.

        5. Tell me what is the difference between this cop and zimmerman?

          So far, but this is subject to change, George Zimmerman was charged for murder, tried, and acquitted.

  5. Scarborough’s critics have asked why he didn’t use his Taser instead of his firearm

    Something something no consequences something something paid vacation.

    1. And I fully expect this killing of a teenager to garner national national news coverage regarding police abuse. ///JustKidding ///TheKidIswhite

  6. Two things here.

    One, just because it’s a juvenile court doesn’t mean shit about how dangerous the person actually is. If you’re going to disarm police at these courts, ask yourself if it makes an equal amount of sense to disarm them at all courts. A 17 year old can shoot you dead or beat you to death just as easily as a 30 year old. That isn’t an argument for or against, just pointing out that it’s amusing that there are only calls to disarm these police because of the age of the perp, not at all related to the crime itself. Notably, in this instance it appears to be because this kid pulled a gun on someone else.

    Two, it’s amazing that the officer was so poorly trained that they were ‘forced’ to shoot someone in court. That’s just one step away from someone taking this cops gun away and shooting them with their own firearm. Someone this incompetent should have been fired long ago. Especially when they were armed with a tazer.

    1. Two, it’s amazing that the officer was so poorly trained that they were ‘forced’ to shoot someone in court.

      This is a key detail that’s missing from the story. I got the impression from “family after the boy’s hearing” as opposed to “immediately after the boy’s hearing” that the altercation/assault/shooting occurred in the parking lot or on the steps or something. The proximity to the courtroom makes this almost look sorta Jack Ruby-esque.

    2. “A 17 year old can shoot you dead…just as easily as a 30 year old.”

      Which is a great reason to not have firearms in the courthouse.

      1. Which is a great reason to not have firearms in the courthouse.

        Because armed gunmen would never thing to attack a gun-free zone?

        1. *think*

          1. Have you been in a courthouse since 9/11? A citizen getting inside with a weapon is extremely unlikely.

            1. I’m near certain I’ve heard of at least a dozen courthouse shootings since 2001. I vaguely recall a shooting where a convict lifted the sidearm off a bailiff and more than a couple (one here in Cook County) where someone outside the courthouse was armed and waiting for their victim, who they knew would be unarmed, to leave the building. I’m unaware of the ebb and flow of the rates of these sorts of accidents except to say that it’s been happening with relative consistency (as in, not solved or stopped) since Lee Harvey Oswald was shot.

              1. You probably don’t want to have no one with a gun in the courthouse for the reasons you state. But that doesn’t mean that bailiffs and every cop who happens to be there should necessarily be armed. You could, for example, have armed (and well trained) guards outside of each courtroom, and armed security for the whole building, but disarm bailiffs and cops who are there to testify.

      2. Bullshit. In the town I lived in before Dallas there was a shootout on the courthouse steps that led to a high-speed chase. He was there to kill his wife after a custody hearing at the court.

        Gun free zones just mean that lawful people can’t bring guns there. Those who are out to break the law are free to bring as many guns as they can carry.

    3. We just need better trained cops who are tougher without needing to use guns as a first resort.

      Unfortunately, chip-on-their shoulder wimps tend to be cops.

      I would much rather go thru an Internal Affairs investigation for punching people in the face during a mob attack on me than shooting some kid dead.

      1. We just need better trained cops who are tougher without needing to use guns as a first resort.

        Sounds like the officer didn’t use it as a first resort but, yeah, if you’re in a courthouse and working on your last resort, you’re on the wrong side of the law.

      2. Yea every cop should be just like Bruce lee and know how to kick ass. Oh wait Bruce was killed in a fight as well. There maybe a lot of idiot cops out there but I’m not one to take their guns away. not yet anyway.

  7. Just got a call from some charity for law enforcement to get money to make sure police have all the equipment they need.

    I told him that police get plenty of money, there’s massive corruption with police plus a problem with other officers covering it up, I do not support the militarization of scaredy police officers murdering people, and there are too many police and many should be fired.

    He said “have a good day”. I said, “thank you good luck getting suckers to give you money”.

  8. He went after the cop. Family was trying to get involved as well. Not the first time the kid has done something like this. I think at most you could say is that there should have been more chips in the courtroom. Of course that cost money, which is why they carry guns. Because who is stupid enough to attack someone with a gun.

    1. More cops . Spell checkers suck.

    2. He went after the cop.

      Evidence? Link?

      1. It was a local story here.

  9. So your saying I as a citizen I can buy a gun and harrass ppl like the police do (what zimzam did to Trayvon) and then shoot that person and its fine because Im not a cop.

    Answer me you altrightl bots

    1. Boring.

      1. Boring is your “cops needs to be trained bettter” lame ass virtue signaling response.

        1. You be boring.

    2. You know, they pay trolls over at The Federalist…

      1. Paid trolls are you altright idiots. Why are you here? Reason supports open borders we dont need to read your boring as fuck altright anti immigrant spamming in every pro immigrant article written on this site.

        1. Gotta keep the web traffic count nice and high. Good job.

    3. Yes, if someone assaults you on the street (what Martin did to Zimmerman) you may shoot that person in self-defense. It’s fine if cops use firearms in self-defense, too. It’s not OK for cops to shoot people just because they’re scared.

      1. The cop has injuries you moron. He was beaten by this kid. He didnt just shoot him cause he was scared. This kid beat the cop up worse than trayvon did zimmerman.

        1. You’re an idiot.

        2. Zimmerman had injuries, but whatever. Zimmerman was the one that started it. He picked a fight. When the fight escalated he shot Martin. To me that sounds like manslaughter.

          I doubt this cop picked a fight with this kid. This kid here shouldn’t have been shot and killed, but he shouldn’t have started a fight with a cop.

          1. “Zimmerman was the one that started it. He picked a fight. When the fight escalated he shot Martin. To me that sounds like manslaughter.”

            It would have been if that is what happened.

            Do people actually think it’s legal to harass people while armed then shoot them? You do understand that is specifically discussed in the law, and it is very illegal.

            1. And honestly, you really need to stop with the obvious side taking when there is a dearth of evidence. It makes you sound like an asshole who ignores facts.

              1. Who are you talking to? Seems like you agree with what I said. I think?

          2. “Zimmerman was the one that started it. He picked a fight.”

            That’s not what the evidence and testimony shows.

            1. you’re wasting your time, he did the same shit throughout the trial, and threw a tantrum any time you pointed that out

            2. Depends on what it is he is supposed to have started. The entire interaction was initiated by Zimmerman as far as I know. The actual violence seems likely to have been started by Martin, but no one can really know (except Zimmerman).

              1. “Depends on what it is he is supposed to have started.”

                Nope. The law is very clear here.

                Why do you keep posting when it’s clear you are totally ignorant of what the law actually says?

              2. Actually, if you listen to all the 911 calls–some of which have the incident happening in the background of the call, you can hear what happened pretty well.

                But it boils down to this–Zimmerman saw someone he thought looked suspicious. He called the police–NOT 911. He described the situation and decided, after the person who looked suspicious to him headed deeper into the subdivision, to follow. The dispatcher tells him that’s not necessary, but he goes anyway and stays on the phone.

                He does not encouinter Trayvon for that entire time. And it’s all on the call.

                According to what has been reported about Trayvon’s calls he went back to his Dad’s house and came back out again

                It was after this that the actual interaction happened.

                It sounds, based on the 911 calls, as if Trayvon stepped up to Zimmerman.

                Until Zimmerman got his hands on his gun, Trayvon was beating the hell out of him.

              3. Exactly. But “we all know” that Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed and that confrontation became physical very quickly and ended up with Martin dead. That’s manslaughter all day.

                1. Well, since it’s not nested, the above is in response to:
                  Depends on what it is he is supposed to have started. The entire interaction was initiated by Zimmerman as far as I know. The actual violence seems likely to have been started by Martin, but no one can really know (except Zimmerman).

                  Exactly. But “we all know” that Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed and that confrontation became physical very quickly and ended up with Martin dead. That’s manslaughter all day.

                2. Exactly. But “we all know” that Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed and that confrontation became physical very quickly and ended up with Martin dead. That’s manslaughter all day.

                  A lot of this is up for debate. The claim of the “witness” who was on the phone with Martin is that Martin spoke to Z (or confronted him) first, demanding to know why he was being followed, that Z asked Martin what he was doing and then it escalated.

                  You’d be hard pressed to say Z confronted the kid. And of course, if someone has you pinned on the ground and is beating your head into a slab of rock they are using lethal force you can’t very well just leave. So responding with lethal force would seem justified at that point.

                  1. Martin spoke to Z (or confronted him) first, demanding to know why he was being followed

                    Which is perfectly reasonable.

                    Z asked Martin what he was doing and then it escalated

                    When Martin told Zimmerman to fuck off, which is highly likely, Zimmerman should have fucked right off.

                    You’d be hard pressed to say Z confronted the kid.

                    We can’t really say who made the first physical contact. All we can say is that none of it would have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t been stalking someone while armed.

                    And of course, if someone has you pinned on the ground and is beating your head into a slab of rock they are using lethal force you can’t very well just leave. So responding with lethal force would seem justified at that point.

                    But the whole situation came about by your willful actions, so that’s why manslaughter is justified at that point.

                    1. We can’t really say who made the first physical contact. All we can say is that none of it would have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t been stalking someone while armed.

                      Nope, we can’t say. Hence reasonable doubt.

                      But the whole situation came about by your willful actions, so that’s why manslaughter is justified at that point.

                      You know, if you hadn’t been walking down that dark alley…

                      This is why it’s good to have people criticize the hell out of Z for doing what he did, while not making it illegal. Because now you’re engaging in prosecuting the victim of a crime because they should have known they’d have been the victim of a crime and not let themselves be the victim of a crime.

                    2. Nope, we can’t say. Hence reasonable doubt.

                      There’s no doubt about who started the whole thing by stalking someone while armed.

                      You know, if you hadn’t been walking down that dark alley…

                      …stalking someone with a gun. Should Martin have retreated?

                      This is why it’s good to have people criticize the hell out of Z for doing what he did, while not making it illegal.

                      Pretty sure starting shit with someone and that shit ends up with that someone dead is illegal. It’s called manslaughter.

                    3. Like it or not, it is legal to walk down a public right of way, even if you are following someone else at a distance. Like it or not, it is legal to carry a firearm in public, on public rights of way. These are not “aggressive” acts constituting a right to assault someone.

                      With Martin dead, all we have is the word of Zimmerman, some neighbors, and that of the girl who was on the phone with Martin when the horrible incident occurred. Z’s claims are corroborated. This doesn’t fall under manslaughter. It is a justified homicide.

    4. That would be illegal in Florida.

    5. So your saying I as a citizen I can buy a gun and harrass ppl like the police do (what zimzam did to Trayvon) and then shoot that person and its fine because Im not a cop.

      No. What is being said is that you can follow someone, openly, down a public right of way whether they like it or not, and whether you are armed or not. If said person being followed turns around and attacks you, puts you on your back on the ground, and starts beating your face in / bashing your head on the concrete, you are within your rights to use your gun–or other lethal force–to stop them.

      I don’t know if the kid above deserved it or not. There’s no actual video of the altercation.

      TL;DR: For Trayvon, if you don’t want to be shot dead like a thug, don’t assault people walking down a public easement like a thug.

    6. Answer me you altrightl bots

      Fuck off, slaver!

  10. So, in this thread, some clown named Zeb who is obviously not a lawyer said very wrong and stupid things.

    1. I think you misunderstood Zeb upthread. I’d calm down a bit my dude.

  11. This is why, no matter how many letters they send you, you don’t go to court, ever.

  12. Government employees while on duty should have a reduced right of self defense. The life and health of a citizen are more important than the life and health of a civilian. Civilians are government employees not in the military.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.