I can’t find four paragraphs in the article that tell the story sufficiently, but Claudius Smith noticed the man, Ricardo Sanes, walking around his yard and began chasing the unknown man after he had jumped a fence into a neighboring apartment complex, then…
So once again, we have a man causing a confrontation then shooting the other man in “self defense” when the other man fights back. He’s being charge with second degree murder. This is uncomfortably similar to the Trayvon Martin case.
Well, as described, the dead man appeared to be trespassing. That’s a greater justification for a call to the police than Zimmerman had, as I understand that case.
The references to a hoodie and pants-falling-down… dog-whistly, wot?
A greater justification to call the police, sure, but following and confronting the man with a gun? That’s just asking for trouble.
I should point out that both men are black, so there isn’t the same racial component as there was with Zimmerman / Martin.
Well, according to your article:
So, this sounds fishy all around. This guy was armed (so, not exactly like the Zimmerman case), but the wounds reported here don’t seem consistent with a struggle/fight…again, unlike the Zimmerman case. Upper back and back of the neck almost seem like the guy was fleeing or something along those lines, and the fact that he was armed seems to indicate that something was going on here.
Basically, while I’m sure it’s a knee jerk reaction, I’d wait until more facts come out before jumping to conclusions and beating your chest about stand your ground.
I said nothing about stand your ground. Stand your ground was not in play in the Trayvon Martin case (although it could be argued that Martin stood his ground).
And, according to that same article, Smith has stated that he didn’t know that Sanes had a gun until the police told him.
Smith created a dangerous confrontation purely because of unproven suspicions of burglary.
But, you know, the reality is that the guy DID have a gun. Again, I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions here until some additional data comes out.
As to stand your ground, it’s right there in the title of the article you used as the basis of the OP, and is pretty obviously what we are actually talking about here, since this doesn’t seem to have anything really related to Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman except that it’s another shooting in Florida, a state where violence is practically unknown…
…er, no, not really.
It sounds like Smith was making a citizens arrest.
Further distinguishing this case from the Zimmerman/Martin matter, Smith has been immediately charged with a crime.
Not going to opine on the merits of the self-defense claim at this time, but this is a killing that did not have to happen. Fucking stay inside and call 911. That’s why we have police officers.
Yeah, it’s a killing that didn’t need to happen (seemingly, if we take the article at face value and make some assumptions about what actually happened). Fucking don’t go into other peoples yards and peer into other peoples windows. It’s perhaps not the best idea. And, I agree, if someone does that, don’t confront them yourself but call the police. There seems to be a lot of stupidity out there, however, so I’m sure we shall see this same thing repeated over and over again in the future, as it has been in the past.
Yes, the article mentioned stand your ground, but I was accused of beating my chest over syg when I never mentioned it. I didn’t write the article.
As far as parallels to the Martin case, both that and this were instances of an individual playing vigilante, creating a dangerous situation, and then shooting in self defense.
You mentioned it by implication, since you mentioned Trayvon Martin (and the supposed similarities which I’m failing to see) AND linked to an article where it’s right there in the title.
But ok, fine…you never thought of stand your ground and it has nothing to do with this OP. I won’t mention it again. What’s the similarities between this and the Trayvon Martin case?
I’d say the guy slinking about the apartment complex with the .40 cal hand gun might have had something to do with creating the dangerous situation as well, but again we just don’t know enough about this. That’s why sometimes it’s best to let some time go by and some additional data come to light before rushing off to beat a dead horse. Could be that this was a drug deal gone wrong, or maybe a jealous ex-boyfriend or something.
What was he arresting the decedent for?
Who knows. Certainly not me. Maybe attempted burglary? Trespass, peeping tom-ism (is that a crime?) The fact that Smith grabbed the guy by the shirt and was trying to hold him for police (so he claims) is what leads me to think he was arresting him. Whether or not a citizens arrest was justified is unknown.
I’d say it’s generally a bad idea to attempt to confront a person you believe is in the act of committing a crime. Of course, depending on the crime I would hope that bystanders would intervene.
Add me to wanting more information before coming to any conclusions, but you know what else is just asking for trouble? Punching a man with a gun in the mouth and trying to grab his gun.
Not a lot of information to go on (for instance, Mr. Smith claims he was punched in the face, but there’s no indication of whether he showed any evidence of this), but where there isn’t doesn’t look good for Mr. Smith:
Also, not to start a tangent, necessarily, and though it seems more likely than not that Mr. Smith will plea bargain or be convicted, this is the sort of case that made me change my mind on the duty to retreat. If we can stop these kind of confrontations from occurring in the first place, then we don’t have to sort out who was justified when they shot and who wasn’t. Just stay in your house, and don’t chase prowlers across apartment complexes.
This is just like the MZ/TM case. In both instances, a person was killed.
The only evidence we have that the victim was ‘peering into other people’s windows’ is from the guy that shot him in the back. Also this:
Righteous kill, sure.
I’m not sure that the “duty to retreat” plays a factor in this case, or these types of cases more generally. My guess is that the question is going to be the reasonableness of drawing his weapon in the first place (and whether that waived the right to self-defense).