when you pay rent, this entitles you use to the property. even the landlord can not just come in without proper notification to you.
this common area is part of the property of the tenents. he has every right on it and to ask any stranger that comes there the purpose. a gated community is suppose to restrict access. this young boy maybe didn't understand what 'gated community' means and also what it means to be a guest. he seems to think he has rights there to free access anywhere,he doesn't.
I was attacked once myself at nite. the guy had a knife. I know I would never think to try to wrestle the knife away from the person. if this boy is as scared as you claim, I can't imagine him trying to wrestle a gun away from zimmemran. it defies common sense. so I doubt it happened this way where zimmerman confronts the boy with gun and the boy decides to attack out of fear. armed people don't usually end up the ones on the ground unless they are surprised themselves in an attack. which fits zimmerman's version.
Was it not his place of residence? So now just because someone is renting they don't have the right to protect that property? Is this what you are saying?
I think she is arguing that because he paid rent with unemployment insurance, that this money is coming from taxpayers such as trayvon, so in a sense trayvon is paying his rent for him.
its a stretch,but to claim a renter has no property rights is where we now are at. zimmerman has no right to ask any stranger on his property or the joint property their business. to do so now is considered wrong or illegal I guess. how dare him ask a stranger his business on his property, he is only renting.
that's what all the zimmerman defenders are using to explain away his lies on the witness stand while under oath. he first identified martin as "in his late teens" and later claimed he thought he was in his mid-to-late twenties. why the discrepancy? "because it was dark."
is it really your belief that the boy was scared and ran and then cornered by zimmerman? zimmerman has a gun,the scared boy decides to wrestle it from him? this is really waht we are to believe?
no- illini keeps trying to drag "the castle doctrine" into this case, because it would most likely exonerate zimmerman. if you haven't noticed, illini has been twisting himself into pretzels for weeks trying to defend zimmerman.
wrong, i never used this doctrine. what I did say was this common area is considered jointly owned by the tenents. it is prvt property and zimmerman as part of his rent has rights to this. so for him to ask a stranger why he is walking in a restricted access area is not really strange to envision. it is odd you think this is something not allowed. really? I have had guests stopped and asked their puprose many a times in this sort of situation. they don't attack or feel insulted,they understand it is restricted and they are guests.
would you risk your life to "protect" someone else's property that you're renting?
i sure wouldn't................
frida, his family lives here. he is protecting his family and his belongings. he has a right to question any stranger in the restricted area. what then does it mean to have restricted access if any stranger can just walk in it and no one has a right to ask them their purpose?
I never understood this logic, that zimmerman is wrong to ask a stranger their business on his property. doesn't require the castle doctrine,that is useful if this boy was actually inside his home, here the boy is only on his property outside it.
My opinion?? Zimmerman assumed that Martin was not innocent. Here are Zimmerman's words.
"This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something." "these a--holes, they always get away"
last year I saw a car parked in front of my house at 2am and a guy just standing outside smoking. I assumed he was up to no good and rushed outside, as soon as I got outside,the car sped off. the next day I noticed the propane tank of my grill that is on my deck was missing.
I may have been wrong to try to confront them and it could have turned violent. they were not on my property when i saw them, just in front of it,but I knew they were up to no good. I guess i was wrong to try to confront them since I am not a police officer ,but I still assumed they were up to no good, was I wrong to act? or was I acting bad to try to confront them?