Why shouldn't we kill the bad guy after defeating him

[fanboy2000]

never assume any of the crazy ideas suggested by me in these threads as something that I personally would pursue.

I never thought you would.

Mostly, I watch a show, and ponder "why the heck is this premise valid"

Now I really want you to watch Rainbow Bright!.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Mostly, I watch a show, and ponder "why the heck is this premise valid"

Now I really want you to watch Rainbow Bright!.

 

[Janx]

I have been following this story it is big news here in Florida. There are a lot of outraged people who are wondering why Zimmerman is not in custody for killing a teen who only had on him a little cash, skittles and ice tea. And it is not like the boy was trespassing he was heading home to his father who lived there.

But no Zimmerman was a big man with a gun who took the law into his own hands and now a teen is dead over it.

Not to dredge up this whole thread, but I read a few articles on this incident.

Your phrasing shows a distinct bias and assumption about Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's lawyer says he has wounds to his face and head, that he got them from the confrontation with the boy.

Generally, a man with a gun does not get touched by a boy with a bag of snacks.

One thing I don't mention with my crazy proposal is that I fully expect an investigation after any kind of incident. I think they call that a Grand Jury. that is what SHOULD be going on in this case.

Technically speaking, this is the logical flaw with interpretting Florida's "stand your ground" law. Pre-confrontation, neither participant was committing a crime. Therefore, technically both were standing their ground when their paths intersected. The winner of the case should be the dead man, because the other person misjudged the situation and caused the escalation. Causing an escalation against an innocent should be a crime.

there was apparently a similar case in Florida over a boy in a car, who suddenly got surrounded by armed men who were private security. He took off, they shot him. From my perspective,he was defending himself from an attack by unrecognized armed forces. The guards escalated, the boy is dead, they lose.

In the Texas Horn case, 2 bad guys were leaving a house WITH LOOT. They were obviously guilty and in process of a direct and obvious crime. Shooting someone in the act of a direct and obvious crime is not vigilanteism.

Furthermore, what always gets forgotten in these cases, is the lawyers. After EVERY criminal incident, there should be a civil suit. OJ may have dodged the criminal case, but he lost the civil suit because the requirements for a jury decision are lighter. At that point, the attack strategy is to make the other person suffer financially and socially by dragging them throught he court system until they lose their job, home, and their community shuns them for the jerkhole they are because of all the negative publicity from the case.

This is the corollary to "you get to search and shoot bad guys" you also must suffer harsh consequences for making the wrong call.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not to dredge up this whole thread, but I read a few articles on this incident.

Your phrasing shows a distinct bias and assumption about Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's lawyer says he has wounds to his face and head, that he got them from the confrontation with the boy.

Generally, a man with a gun does not get touched by a boy with a bag of snacks.

One thing I don't mention with my crazy proposal is that I fully expect an investigation after any kind of incident. I think they call that a Grand Jury. that is what SHOULD be going on in this case.

Technically speaking, this is the logical flaw with interpretting Florida's "stand your ground" law. Pre-confrontation, neither participant was committing a crime. Therefore, technically both were standing their ground when their paths intersected. The winner of the case should be the dead man, because the other person misjudged the situation and caused the escalation. Causing an escalation against an innocent should be a crime.

there was apparently a similar case in Florida over a boy in a car, who suddenly got surrounded by armed men who were private security. He took off, they shot him. From my perspective,he was defending himself from an attack by unrecognized armed forces. The guards escalated, the boy is dead, they lose.

In the Texas Horn case, 2 bad guys were leaving a house WITH LOOT. They were obviously guilty and in process of a direct and obvious crime. Shooting someone in the act of a direct and obvious crime is not vigilanteism.

Furthermore, what always gets forgotten in these cases, is the lawyers. After EVERY criminal incident, there should be a civil suit. OJ may have dodged the criminal case, but he lost the civil suit because the requirements for a jury decision are lighter. At that point, the attack strategy is to make the other person suffer financially and socially by dragging them throught he court system until they lose their job, home, and their community shuns them for the jerkhole they are because of all the negative publicity from the case.

This is the corollary to "you get to search and shoot bad guys" you also must suffer harsh consequences for making the wrong call.

Mu bias towards Zimmerman is this. He was not an official member of any neighborhood watch program but had appointed himself as the neighborhood protector.

I belong to a neighborhood watch we were taught not to carry weapons, to call the police and to stay away and not confront anyone to let the police do their jobs.

In the last year Zimmerman had made a total of 37 calls reporting suspicious black youths.

The police found no weapons on the boy all that was found on him was candy, tea, cell phone and cash.

He told his girlfriend that he was being followed and that he was scared.

If he did have a scuffle with Zimmerman it was because Zimmerman confronted him. How was he supposed to know who this guy was? The kid weighed 140 pounds and Zimmerman was bigger than him.

Even if the kid hit him it is a reach to say that Zimmerman life was in mortal danger from a scrawny kid with no weapons.

Zimmerman who was the self appointed neighborhood guardian carrying a gun and not listening to police has all the earmarks of someone wanting to be a hero.

 

[Kaodi]

A related question: You have taken justice into your own hands, and executed a man in a back alley whom you knew was a murderer who had gotten away with his crime (before he met you). Now what do you do?

 

[Janx]

A related question: You have taken justice into your own hands, and executed a man in a back alley whom you knew was a murderer who had gotten away with his crime (before he met you). Now what do you do?

By the protocol I outlined, you're out of bounds. You didn't directly witness the immediate crime event. If the cops can't show up and see how obvious that the guy was a crook, you're now looking like a crook.

At this point, assuming you have a few minutes and hopefully no witnesses, you need to make it look like a proper crime scene if you're going to get away with it. That's going to be tricky, because he's dead, and you need to make it look like he owned your gun if he didn't have one. Then you'll need to fake a scuffle, by yourself, yet still get some scuffle wounds on him. Don't forget fun powder residues on yourself and him in the right places, and bloody splatters.

I should hope if you planned this execution, you had the foresight to think of all this.

Mostly, what I see is a cascading list of all the things I wouldn't think of that could crater the plan.

My suggestion is don't do it. You might be able to fake the scene superficially, but if ANYBODY insists on a proper investigation, things will stand out and you're hosed.

 

[Argyle King]

By the protocol I outlined, you're out of bounds. You didn't directly witness the immediate crime event. If the cops can't show up and see how obvious that the guy was a crook, you're now looking like a crook.

At this point, assuming you have a few minutes and hopefully no witnesses, you need to make it look like a proper crime scene if you're going to get away with it. That's going to be tricky, because he's dead, and you need to make it look like he owned your gun if he didn't have one. Then you'll need to fake a scuffle, by yourself, yet still get some scuffle wounds on him. Don't forget fun powder residues on yourself and him in the right places, and bloody splatters.

I should hope if you planned this execution, you had the foresight to think of all this.

Mostly, what I see is a cascading list of all the things I wouldn't think of that could crater the plan.

My suggestion is don't do it. You might be able to fake the scene superficially, but if ANYBODY insists on a proper investigation, things will stand out and you're hosed.

You're assuming a gun was used at close range. That's not the only option to take someone out.

 

[Janx]

You're assuming a gun was used at close range. That's not the only option to take someone out.

I believe you're missing my point. It's not about a specific murder weapon.

Watch a bunch of real murder shows on the Murder Channel (investigation discovery?). You'll see a general trend that the forensics catches bad guys because various methods of murder leave prints, claw marks, blood splatter, gun powder, tissue under fingernails, post mortem injuries versus pre-mortem injuries, etc that can contradict what ever story you make the scene appear to be for when the cops get there.

Once contradictions appear of what the scene appears to be and what the evidence says, the cops will dig in deeper and that unravels the plan.

To get away with the crime, you'd need to get the guy killed in a fashion that is consistent with the evidence the cops will find. If the cop sees a straight forward crime scene with no obvious contradictions, they won't inspect deeper. I do not believe this would be a trivial thing to stage without a lot of planning, prep and excellent secrecy.

Take the Trayvon Martin case that [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] brought up. The shooter claims he was attacked. If there's not obvious evidence supporting his claim, that looks fishy to a cop. If the cop calls in forensics, and they verify that there's no evidence of a scuffle on either party, then the shooter has been caught in a lie.

Like the "Don't talk to cops" video says, once a cop catches a whiff of a lie, their guilt meter goes off and they usually drill in deeper.

I have no idea why Zimmerman was let go. There must be more to what happened in his interview with the police (remember, he was cuffed and hauled in).

For me, taking both parties at face value of how the incident started:
black kid in hoodie coming back from a snack run while talking to GF
hispanic guy keeping a watchful eye on his neighborhood

Ending with an interaction between the 2 and one guy is dead, I'm inclined to think the guy who lived should be in trouble. Because neither party would have been involved in any wrongdoing had they kept their distance (which sounds like Zimmerman initiated contact by approaching the boy). Furthermore, 2 innocent parties who are wary of the other are both going to claim "Standing their ground" Once that happens and neither party was in prior act of engaging in crime, that defense is out the window as feasible. The case should be investigated as 2 men who meet and things escalate into a terrible outcome.

This is why school-aged children insist that "who started it" is important. Because the whole problem stems from an instigator, not the final outcome.

 

[Argyle King]

My point is that -if I were planning to assassinate someone- I would choose a method where the problems you listed would not be issues.

 

[Elf Witch]

If you are going to kill someone and get away with it you had better hope you don't have anything in your background that the cops or the media can get fixated on.

Also it might be a good idea if you are going to become a vigilante that you carry a weapon that can not be traced to you to plant on the bad guy after you shoot so you can claim self defense.