‘Trayvon' shouted as group attacks Good Samaritan

[R&R Express]

why is in common sense?

so if im on top of somebody, all I have to say is "he stole my wallet" and everybody should be fine with what I am doing?

But this was a homeless guy being tackled....so he must of been guilty of something!

You forgot the part about several other witnesses trying to calm everyone down. You also keep conveniently leaving out the part where they were saying "Trayvon".

[Dolphins9954]

Tacking a guy and then restraining him is police action

breaking up a fight is not putting anybody in restraint, just taking guys off one another. Happens in all sports, all school playgrounds, etc. When you see a scuffle, you separate the people, get between them. You are not holding anybody. Not putting anybody under citizen arrest, etc.

Sorry my opinion is unpopular here. A kid died because of somebody thinking they were a cop when they were unmarked.... I am not going to take kindly for civilians taking things into their own hands. What if the robber here was armed? What if an actual fight broke out and harmed the people around the fight since this was a busy area? Let the cops do their jobs, who have uniforms and a badge to show third parties they have authority. Dont take matters into your own hands no matter what moral authority you do have.

Ganging up on one person and stomping him while yelling Trayvon = Breaking up a fight. I get it.

[WSE]

Are you purposely deleting the part where they were screaming "Trayvon" as they ganged up on one guy? (Which by the way is a coward thing to do) You're totally contradicting yourself. On one hand you say it was wrong for this guy to chase a criminal. But then on the other hand defend a mob from beating up on one guy. Which one is it?? The man did the right thing and chased down a freaking douchebag criminal that stole his friends purse. The mob was wrong to beat him up while screaming "Trayvon". Even if they were trying to "break up a fight" yelling Trayvon's name while gangbanging a person defeats your whole arguement.

the mob did not beat up on anyone according to what I read....they stomped on hands to break up a scuffle. Whether the scuffle was warranted or not is irrelevant.

As far as yelling Trayvon, I don't know or care about their intentions, which is why I have not mentioned it (and probably is the only reason it is posted here....so conservatives could get their shots in). Its a popular case and maybe they saw a citizen going beyond their duties and reacted poorly to it. Maybe they did not take kindly to a quasi "citizens arrest".

[WSE]

I don't know about Florida laws, but there is this thing called Citizen's Arrest. You know, where citizens restrain criminals until the proper authorities arrive. So yes, he probably does have the legal right to tackle.

only under reasonable suspicion of a felony. Purse snatching is usually petty theft, though the contents inside could equal over the amount to make it a felony. Either way, bystander probably did not know this unless he had knowledge of what was inside of the purse, and the other bystanders if they did not see the crime did not know this.

I have no moral problem with what this guy did. He was right. He still was an idiot to create a dangerous situation.

[R&R Express]

only under reasonable suspicion of a felony. Purse snatching is usually petty theft, though the contents inside could equal over the amount to make it a felony. Either way, bystander probably did not know this unless he had knowledge of what was inside of the purse, and the other bystanders if they did not see the crime did not know this.

I have no moral problem with what this guy did. He was right. He still was an idiot to create a dangerous situation.

The bystander who made the restraint was a friend of the victim. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to think he knew she had an expensive phone in there, worth $500, which does indeed make this a case of felony theft, which did give him the legal right to restrain the thief until police could arrive. I'd also say snatching a purse in such a public place is a breach of peace, which gives him even more right to make a citizen's arrest. And after doing a little research it seems chasing down a purse snatcher is perfectly legal regardless if it's a felony or not.

And the thief was charged with felony theft, as well as misdemeanor battery.

[ohall]

There wasn't much he could do, except say nothing. Obviously, as POTUS, that's impossible considering how big of a thing this turned out to be. Personally, I think he handled it the best way he could. He made an innocuous comment about Trayvon looking like his son if he had one, and left it at that. It shows he is sympathetic, but he isn't entrenching himself one way or another. If he said anything more, I'm not aware of it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You have to look at this politically, he is eliminating votes if he takes a hard stance one way or another. I know what you're going to say, but every politician would have to do the same thing. You simply can't fault the man for not wanting to alienate anyone. It's not worth losing potential votes by taking a side. I would have preferred if he came out and condemned the media for their behavior, but I can understand why he chose to stay on the sidelines. Honestly, if he did this with our foreign policy, we'd be in pretty good shape...

Sorry he made it bigger, even though it was big when he made his comments. But he could have chose to not say anyhing other than the entire thing is a tragedy. He said what he said, because he is a politician and stirring up his base is good for him.

He either knew it would cause controversy or he is an idiot. Your choice. Personally, I don't think he's an idiot, he knows exactly what he's doing when he stirs crap up.

[WSE]

The bystander who made the restraint was a friend of the victim. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to think he knew she had an expensive phone in there, worth $500, which does indeed make this a case of felony theft, which did give him the legal right to restrain the thief until police could arrive. I'd also say snatching a purse is a breach of peace, which gives him even more right to make a citizen's arrest.

I just looked up the law actually to make sure I was right on this. There is no section specifically for citizens arrest, but it is included under the section for police arresting out of district. It needs to be on suspicion of a felony, and the citizen needs to act with the same restraints and laws under which a cop would. Breach of peace means nothing here really. I dont know where you got that language

I could see the companion having knowledge of what is in the purse (he probably did not know the law though), but how could the other bystanders if they did not see the robbery? The guy was telling them what the guy did, but is that enough for them to beleive it when they see a fight?

Also, I take exception to this mob "attacking" the guy from what is in the article. Attack sounds bad, when the article really says this

GPD spokeswoman Cpl. Angelina Valuri said some members of the crowd shouted "Trayvon!" and that at least three of members of the crowd began stomping on the hands of the woman's friend to force him to let go of Babb.

to me, that sounds like trying to break up what was going on rather than trying to hurt somebody as the word attack would indicate.

[Dolphins9954]

Pretty sad day when doing the right thing is considered wrong. Like the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished".

[R&R Express]

I just looked up the law actually to make sure I was right on this. There is no section specifically for citizens arrest, but it is included under the section for police arresting out of district. It needs to be on suspicion of a felony, and the citizen needs to act with the same restraints and laws under which a cop would. Breach of peace means nothing here really. I dont know where you got that language

I could see the companion having knowledge of what is in the purse (he probably did not know the law though), but how could the other bystanders if they did not see the robbery? The guy was telling them what the guy did, but is that enough for them to beleive it when they see a fight?

Also, I take exception to this mob "attacking" the guy from what is in the article. Attack sounds bad, when the article really says this


to me, that sounds like trying to break up what was going on rather than trying to hurt somebody as the word attack would indicate.

The man commited a felony. The guy witnessed the crime. He had every right to restrain him. That's all there is to it.

As for the other bystanders, they could of, and should of used common sense. Why would a bunch of people with no affiliation to the victim claim the man stole a purse. And then I would assume this man still had the purse in his possession when he was tackled. No common sense. They seen a white man restraining a black man, and instantly started chanting Trayvon and allowed their bigotry to consume them.

[WSE]

Pretty sad day when doing the right thing is considered wrong. Like the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished".

I may be in the minority here, but I have a problem with all forms of "citizens arrest"

These are unmarked people going after other citizens. Who no training, no identification. How does it look to people who did not see the crime? How dangerous is it to the person making the citizens arrest, with no training and who knows what the criminal is thinking? How is it for the robber... the citizen has no training, and therefore may or may not use excessive force? Is stealing something worth your life being in danger from a person applying force with no training?

Its a legal mess imo, and more dangerous that what it is worth. Its gets people arrested who may or may not of been caught later, but is that worth these previous problems?