If you have a gun and the other guy doesn't . . .

[Brigid]

Who carries the primary responsibility to make sure a confrontation doesn't turn deadly? To my mind, if I have the gun, the onus is on me. What say you?

[madashelltoo]

1. I would think that too.

[dkf]

2. Is he expected to just keep being beaten up?

I'm curious what people expect he should have done.

[dkf]

5. Too late. What is done is done.

What should he do when he is being beaten up?

[dkf]

10. Even if it resulted in death huh?

[dkf]

25. Maybe because he shot TM.

You don't know where it would have ended if he had not done that.

[dkf]

75. Yeah I am a coward...I would have shot someone who was slamming me into the ground too.

I'm not brave enough to think it will all be fine. Although bravery turns into stupidity at some point.

See some people say Snowden is a coward too. I think he is SANE.

[dkf]

104. Obviously that wouldn't be right.

Honestly it wouldn't occur to me to do that.

I don't understand why someone would deliberately get themselves into this situation even if they thought they were such a genius to get away with it. For the purpose of killing a stranger? Sounds demented.

[NoOneMan]

110. Why are you assuming this man thinks like an average person?

Strapped, scared, and constantly calling 911 about black people?

I don't understand why someone would...

There are so many things Zimmerman did that night that "I don't understand". We all know that. So why assume he wouldn't do something else beyond your ability to understand? The dude is not your average neighbor.

[dkf]

113. He makes more sense to me than everyone who would let their head be repeatedly slammed into sidewalk

Now that I absolutely do not get.

[NoOneMan]

116. The very fact a 160lb kid with 1 free arm could do that means he was letting it happen

Most sane people wouldn't of let it come to that. What was he just lying there like a scared ragdoll until he decided to grab his gun? WTF? Again, I don't care if he is a bitch and if he is a paranoid lunatic. Average normal people wouldn't of created the situation and they wouldn't let the one armed-free person repeatedly slam them until the gun is the only plausible means of escape (but it never was the only)

[Scootaloo]

142. Just wondering, have you ever had your head slammed into a sidewalk?

'Cause I promise you, if Zimmy had this happen to him, he would have been fucked up beyond recognition.

But you go ahead and keep accepting his action hero nonsense story as gospel. I look forward to your tears of rage when the jury sends him to prison.

[NoOneMan]

149. I have. I have a hard head though. Quick blackness for me

I dropped another kids head on concrete once on accident. Just one time. They had to go to the ER because they collapsed immediately afterwords (this was tough guy BTW...national champion, DI wrestler).

I don't think the average person could reasonably take more that 2-4 real slams and hold onto consciousness.

I do not believe for a second Zimmerman was playing ragdoll and letting Martin ping pong his head with 1 arm up to 20 times. Its fantasy. Its not reasonable.

[Scootaloo]

161. Exactly

And it doesn't matter how "tough" someone is... the human head is pretty much the same for all of us. The scalp is fragile, the skull itself is pretty strong, but the contents slosh around. Someone smacking your head against the concrete once is going to do damage beyond the little rugburn Zimmerman apparently had. At the very least, a split scalp and concussion. More than once and we're looking at damage not just to the head - severe damage at that, cracked skull and that sort of thing - but also extensive damage to the neck, and with hte grip needed to do this, your face is going to be pretty fucked-up too.

If this had actually happened, the sidewalk would be smeared in Zimmerman's blood. Zimmerman would have gone away from the scene in an ambulance. And Trayvon Martin would be alive and facing trial for assault and battery.

Instead we have a clean sidewalk, a perfectly healthy Zimmerman, and a dead teenager with no Zimmerman DNA on his hands, and no dirt or grass on his clothes.

I have to assume anyone who can't put this picture together is either grossly ignorant of what a fight really looks like, or they have some vested interest in Zimmerman being found innocent.

[anomiep]

163. I don't necessarily disagree

because I don't have strict experience having my head hit against concrete in a street fight.

However, I used to street skate, with no helmet. I've come down pretty hard, hit my head on concrete, and *not* had 'a split scalp and a concussion'. Basically, I know I didn't have a split scalp. I don't think I had a concussion* but hey, maybe, I was a 15 year old kid and not a medical doctor.

What I did have, for certain, was a pretty good lump.

On the other hand, I've had my helmeted head slam against the side of a wooden transition (caught a chip of wood between the wheel and the flat) and had the bottom of my visual field turn into T.V. snow - with no skull damage and no lump. (and was I ridiculously glad I was wearing that helmet? Yes, yes I was.)

I don't know that it's as cut and dried as 'this level of damage will always occur'. This is solely a point about my experiences with head injuries and should not be construed as a statement that anything did or did not happen re. Zimmerman and Zimmerman's head.

*part of why I think that is I kept skating with no apparent impact on my balance. I could be completely wrong, though, and given that the skating consisted of just rolling home because my head hurt, it's possible I didn't do anything where I would have noticed anything off.

[TheKentuckian]

219. Not true. I was in a fight where I was doing the head slamming

and while I haven't a clue what the fucker looked like the next day, he didn't seem much phased at the time and even started the shit right back up after he was told that I'd gladly stop trying to see his brain if he stopped his attacks.

As far as I could tell in the moment the rock skull didn't take a ding and this was dead on the pavement and I am not a small kat and was significantly bigger then.

Now, I did see a guy get curbed and that was ugly enough to make one queasy decades later.

[1monster]

217. Show the evidence that his head was repeatedly slammed. He had a couple of lightly bleeding

scratches on the back of his head.

Where are the bruises from having his head "repeatedly slammed" on concrete?

I once fell and hit my head on a concrete floor and I had horrific bruises for several weeks after that -- and a hairline fracture of the skull. All Zimmerman had was a couple of scratches...

One incident of having one's head slammed on concrete would have most people seeing stars at best, let alone repeated slams.

If I take everything else GZ said as Gospel (and I don't), this alone would give me serious pause.

[NoOneMan]

83. Assuming he was being slammed into the ground repeatedly without miraculously getting a concussion

By a single arm, because the other was covering his mouth while the third arm was reaching for Zimmerman's gun.

I've tripped and injured myself worse

[dkf]

109. Yet. You don't know it would have ended

Without serious bodily injury or death

[NoOneMan]

111. If I was a nut enough to get into that situation why give a fuck about what I thought in the moment?

I'm a nut. Do we cater to crazy now?

Its about if the average person would of reasonably felt potential of great harm/death. The average person wouldn't of created that mess.

Though, I know my body well enough to know when I have a boo boo, an injury or a major injury. If I didn't know that, I shouldn't get my sissy ass out of my car to play hero.

Most people know when they bang their head or stub their toe, its not fatal. For the love of God, he knew the cops were coming. This wasn't going to go on all night

[dkf]

115. Obviously he didn't know what he was getting in to.

[NoOneMan]

117. He doesn't know what he got himself into still

Because he isn't all there. This isn't your average Joe. Its a paranoid, scare, frantic man who spends his time patrolling the neighborhood packing heat and calling 911 about black people (when he isn't consoling victimized women who are also afraid of black people). His psychosis runs deep. Thats why I still don't trust much of what his claims are, as his mental state is questionable to begin with (thereby leading to this entire situation).

Good thing we let people like that carry guns, eh?

[frylock]

134. you would have been well advised to stay in your fucking truck as well

[Travis_0004]

176. You are correct, we (and the jury) don't know what happened

What that means is there is reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

I didn't say he is innocent, I don't think for a second the state has proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. No full grown man - even one in the midst of an ass kicking - thinks for a second he will be

beaten to death.

And you can turn whatever piddling sophistries you want on that, but it's just plain fact. George Zimmerman didn't think he was going to be killed or even suffer grave bodily harm, even under the most favorable scenario to him (i.e., his bullshit racist story that can only be believed by racists or idiots). It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.

It's ridiculous.

[pipoman]

54. Really?

Complete nonsense..how many strikes of a person's head against the concrete does it take for one to realize one's head can't take too many strikes against the concrete?

[Lex]

63. Zero, evidently.

[Just Saying]

68. Are people seriously trying to justify murder

Based on injuries that required a bandaid? My kids have had worse injuries running into a door jam.

[Lex]

70. Yes, because they are cowards

who can't go to the bathroom without a gun strapped to them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. Yeah, really

You can believe Zimmerman's absurdist narrative because it fits your gun nut predilections. What the fuck ever. I've already said what I think of people who believe such nonsense, and I stand by that. But in general, yes. Of the thousands of fist fights that take place across the United States on any given day, almost nobody believes they are going to be killed, even in the midst of it, and they're almost always right. It's exceedingly rare to be killed in a fist fight. Only stupid gun nut assholes dream up scenarios that they are in danger of being killed in a fist fight sufficient to murder their opponent. And I'd submit that even the most fanatical gun nut shithead doesn't really believe it, and neither did murdering fuck George Zimmerman.

[pipoman]

82. Just can't discuss this or anything else civilly, eh?

Only a complete imbecile would make a statement like this..

"No full grown man - even one in the midst of an ass kicking - thinks for a second he will be beaten to death."

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. Hit alert

I have zero respect for your posts or opinions. Take it up with a jury. I don't care.

[pipoman]

86. I like to let silliness (in the clinical sense) remain for all to see..

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. keep posting then, buddy

[Skittles]

210. you think the right to self defense only applies to gun humpers

and you think HE is silly?

[Lex]

93. +1

[NoOneMan]

99. Maybe if we didn't let any insecure men strap a gun on them.... (or any at all)

They would either have to learn self-defense and know they aren't being killed when their head gets some boo boos, or they would keep their sissy ass in their car and not play hero.


I used to have this coach who would look at kids being wimps (holding their heads/arms) and say "are you hurt or are you injured!". Injured means you go the hell to the trainer and leave everyone alone. Hurt means you suck it up and get back to practice. Either way, you don't wine and you don't freak out. Its not such a horrible thing for people to learn the difference, especially if they are going to kill people when their little man brain freaks out about being injured.

[NoOneMan]

102. 26.

25 wont give you a concussion. But 26 will kill you dead

[Just Saying]

64. This ^^

You rock!

[anomiep]

189. Whether he thinks so or not

it happens.

5.7% of the murders in the U.S. are committed with 'hands, feet, fists, etc'. (Which includes being pushed off of something, but the stats don't break it down enough to tell how much is that vs. someone being beaten to death).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls


Nothing here should be construed as defense of Zimmerman. I'm merely pointing out that people do in fact die by being beaten to death by bare hands.

[alcibiades_mystery]

207. Of course it happens

But it is very, very rare for somebody to be killed in a fist fight.

It is a rare form of murder at 5.7%, though that's not the correct gauge of its rarity among fist fights, since that includes huge variations. Of that 5.7%, however, just shy of 20% are victims under the age of 4 - in other words, not people engaged in a fist fight, but victims of child abuse; add those over 70, and the category begins to break down significantly. But that's just the percentage of all murders. The real number, probably unknowable, is the number of fist fights that end in death relative to all fist fights.

How rare it must be among all fist fights, reported and unreported, severe and otherwise, stranger and known. I'd suggest it is far less than .01% of all fist fights end in a death. Maybe it's more, but I doubt it. Which is precisely why very few people in fist fights ever imagine that they are in the midst of being killed: they are right to think that; it is a severe statistical anomaly.

[anomiep]

212. Sure

I do in fact agree that the likelihood of death is not enough to justify fearing it.

However, that's only one side of a use of deadly force justification in Florida (and many other states, as well). The other side is a reasonable fear of great bodily injury. 29.9% of aggravated assaults used 'personal weapons' (again, fists, feet, hands, etc, also including pushing someone off something as I noted before) in 2011. ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/aggravated-assault-table ) (2011 was chosen by the sole criteria of it being the most recent I easily found in a google search)

Aggrevated assault is defined for the purpose of those statistics as "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury."

So yes, it is unlikely you will die in a fistfight. That does not mean it is *never* reasonable to fear great bodily injury just because your opponent is not using a weapon.

Again, I must declaim that I am not claiming anything in particular about Zimmerman and Trayvon. I am simply noting that restricting the fear to 'fear of death' is not actually the legal standard.

[Just Saying]

8. Learned a valuable lesson

Not to start shit next time.

I don't believe he was ever in grave danger and in fact believe it was Trayvon who was defending himself. He has that right too.

[RedCappedBandit]

13. Seriously, these people think..

that you can just walk around starting fights and then deciding to kill your target if you start losing. What kind of twisted thinking is that? I don't get it.

[dkf]

18. Then you disagree with the law. You don't believe in a right to self defense.

[Just Saying]

21. I don't believe only an armed person has that right. N/t

[dkf]

32. No they both had that right.

There is no physical evidence or evidence of any kind thay Z hit or physically attacked TM prior to the gunshot.

[Just Saying]

38. There's no evidence that TM hit Z either.

Wounds don't prove what happened. Besides, you don't just get to kill people because you're a pussy who can't fight. There has to be a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm. A bloody nose and some scratches on the head just don't indicate that and medical experts called Z's injuries minor and said he needed a bandaid.

I believe Trayvon was defending himself and I don't believe a word of Zimmerman's story. Too many lies and people lie because they're covering their own ass. Zimmerman is a murderer.

[Jenoch]

39. How did Zimmerman know that Martin was unarmed?

How did know that Martin did not call his buddies for backup? Just as it is likely that martin did not know Zimmerman was armed, Zimmerman did not know that Martin was unarmed. We have the benefit of hindsight, they did not.

I am not a Zimmerman supporter. I think he should get the manslaughter conviction. A neighborhood watch guy should not be armed with a gun. It's not their job to inter ene if they see a crime. It's their job to report what they see to the cops.

[Brigid]

47. Zimmerman was breaking the rules by carrying the gun on neighborhood watch duty to begin with.

And this tragedy shows exactly why this rule is there.

[Just Saying]

49. Why would he follow Trayvon at all?

That would be the best way to avoid both your scenarios. All Zimmerman had to do was what he had been instructed by neighborhood watch AND police dispatch and all could have been avoided. But he got out of the car because HE knew he was armed.

I think he's guilty of murder. He saw Trayvon as a "suspect" from the first moment, he instigated the altercation probably trying to detain TM for the cops and he shot him because he was screaming and trying to get away. We'll never know for sure because Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is a damn liar.

No idea what the jury will decide.

[Jenoch]

57. I don't think Zimmerman

intended to kill Martin, I think he panicked. Also, Zimmerman was not instructed by the dispatcher, she did not have the authority to give instructions, only suggestions.

[Just Saying]

62. Mmmhmmm

I didn't say they gave an order, they gave an instruction which had he followed a kid would be alive. I assume you're splitting this hair because you know that's the truth. And again he was also told by neighborhood watch that he was not supposed to follow and not supposed to carry a gun.

Second degree murder doesn't require intent.

[Jenoch]

85. I too believe Zimmerman

should not have been carrying a gun. (Did I write that on this thread? I'm on a phone so I can't jump around from post to post too easily.)

There is a huge difference between an instruction and a suggestion. The dispatch said "We don't need you to do that".

I realize that intent is not necessary for murder 2. There are many on these threads who seem to believe Zimmerman committed 1st degree murder.

[anomiep]

119. A manslaughter conviction doesn't make sense to me

It should be either full murder 2, or not guilty.

The only way it's manslaughter under the Florida law is if he *wasn't* acting with a depraved mind, and wasn't acting in self defense.
If he wasn't acting in self defense, how does he not have a depraved mind?

I don't think the prosecution made a murder 2 case, especially with the self defense reasonable doubt instruction, but I don't see how the jury can, under the instructions given, not find murder 2 if they don't find reasonable self defense.

[anomiep]

121. I mean

Of course they *can* find manslaughter, it's just not logically consistent imho.

[Jenoch]

122. It sure is confusing.

If what you write in your post is true and I understand it correctly, I think Zimmerman is likely to be aquitted.

[anomiep]

125. It's only my opinion on the logical implications of the jury instruction as written

They could come back with manslaughter, they're going to come back with what they come back with.

All I'm saying is, the elements of Murder 2 in the jury instructions are this (these are the three things that need to be proven to come back with murder 2)

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
3. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

1 and 2 are a given, if 3 holds.

For 3 to hold, you have to have a) imminently dangerous (which I think is given) and b) demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

You also have to have c) unlawful killing.

The only way it was lawful is if it was excusable, or the defense of self defense applies.
The excusable bits, all require 'accident or misfortune' and I think it is a no-brainer that he intended to shoot when he shot.
That leaves self defense.

I don't see any other way for it to not be murder 2 - he either defended himself, or 1, 2, and 3 apply.
If he defended himself, manslaughter can't apply because self defense is also a defense to the manslaughter charge.

The instructions have the following in that regard: "It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force"

This is partly me saying that I don't think it can possibly be considered as not 'demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life' if the self defense part is not met. The jury could possibly come back with manslaughter by saying it wasn't done with a depraved mind without regard for human life, and it wasn't self defense, but that makes no sense logically to me, unless the conclusion is that he shot with no ill will but it wasn't self defense (the depraved mind bit has to meet three things, but it boils down to ill will or not, and I don't know how you get to 'not self defense' and 'not ill will' at the same time when you're talking about an entirely intentional pull of the trigger and the evidence given)

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf <-- it's all in there.

[anomiep]

133. and, of course, now I think of a way.

Say he believed he was defending himself, but that belief was not reasonable. That leaves an opening for their not being ill will, and not meeting the justifiable use of force.


So that's three cases:
a) no ill will, reasonable belief of bodily injury -> acquittal
b) no ill will, unreasonable belief of bodily injury -> manslaughter
c) ill will, no belief of bodily injury -> murder 2

The prosecution's case is not b, but it's an option open to the jury.

[dkf]

158. Me neither. I am stuck on this question also.

This would be pure jury nullification.

[frylock]

136. he knew because he got out of his truck..

do you honestly believe he would have pursued someone if he thought they were armed. WOULD YOU?

[displacedtexan]

181. The kid still had the bag of Skittles in one of his perfectly clean, dead hands.

hOw many kids wearing Khakis in a gated neighborhood do you think are carrying guns at 7:00pm on a Sunday evening?

[Jenoch]

185. I don't know.

I've never been to Florida. I also try not to assume anything and would prepare for the worst. Of course, I do not believe any neighborhood watch program should have members with guns. Nor should they intervene with anything but a phone call.

[RedCappedBandit]

22. Lol, I disagree with many laws.

However, I'm not sure that starting a fight, losing, and subsequently murdering your target constitutes self defense, legally speaking.

[dkf]

42. No proof Z initiated physical contact.

Do you know that beyond a reasonable doubt? On what evidence is that based?

[RedCappedBandit]

46. Did I mention Z?

[dkf]

55. Actually that's not even the law.

You can start a fight and still shoot someone in self defense under certain circumstances.

[RedCappedBandit]

60. What would those circumstances be?

[dkf]

65. I believe it is of you attempt to retreat but are unable to do so...

I.e. pinned to the ground. If you are then in fear of your life or seriously bodiy harm you can use deadly force. Read the jury instructions re: Zimmerman. The self defense part starts at the point you are in fear of your life.

Here:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

This is specific to Florida of course. Every state has its nuances.

[all american girl]

175. Just one question....

How did Zimmerman get the gun? Remember, Trayvon Martin was on top of him. Trayvon Martin was at his waist and up to his arm pits, per Zimmerman's police statement. Zimmerman said that his weapon was located in a holster, inside his pants, at his waist....so how could he get it with Trayvon Martin's legs in the way?

There is no direct evidence that Trayvon Martin was "raining" blows down on Zimmerman. Mr. Goode said he could see arms moving around, but did not see or hear hits. Zimmerman having a blooded nose and some injuries on his head does show that something happened, but the injuries do not seem to support MMA or "ground and pound" was nessecarily going on.

Why can't it be that Zimmerman had his weapon out. Trayvon Martin saw it and was afraid...do you run or fight. He fights. They roll around, maybe that's how some of the head injuries could have happened. The arms moving around the Mr. Goode saw was trying to get the gun off of Trayvon Martin.

Here's the biggest problem with the everything, Zimmerman has proven to be a liar. Zimmerman is the shooter. Zimmerman is the only one alive to tell the story. I think we have to take his explanation of events with a grain of salt. He will tell his story with him being the hero and the 17 year old kid being scary.

Zimmerman story does not make sense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. he's a scary black teenager...that's the high and low of it

Oh, we're not supposed to say it to certain fucking assholes we interact with, but that's the high and low of it. Racist shitheads, the lot of them.

[FloridaJudy]

162. I'm an elderly white female

Who lives in a high-crime neighborhood with scary teenagers of all races. If I see one who appears to be "up to no good", I lock my doors and call the police. They're trained to handle it. I'm not.

That's what a reasonable citizen does. That's what a "neighbor watch" is told to do. Anything else is bizarre and inappropriate.

[dkf]

51. He did. If they tussled over he gun and he shot z

I would say that is self defense too.

[Just Saying]

59. Trayvon must have super vision

If he saw a black gun, in a black holster, down Z's pants towards his back (as HE indicated on reenactment) in the dark.

Zimmerman is a liar. Oh and he murdered a kid.

[dkf]

74. Possibly a justified murderer though.

[frylock]

137. no TM dna on gun..

try again.

[Kingofalldems]

26. Does Trayvon Martin have a right to self defense?

[FloridaJudy]

107. Self Defense

Would have been to stay in the freaking car! That way if the bad, bad dude attacks you, you can just drive off.

You know, like a sane person would.

[dkf]

151. You are making up your own rules.

That's not how the law works.

[Just Saying]

20. They're just convincing me they shouldn't be carrying guns at all.

Taking another person's life shouldn't be taken so lightly.

[dkf]

152. Every state has self defense laws.

No state expects you to let yourself be killed or seriously injured.

[Just Saying]

183. Right

Tryvon didn't have to let Zimmerman hurt or kill him so he fought back.

[dkf]

188. And if he had killed Zimmerman he could have claimed self defense.

[Just Saying]

192. You do realize how messed up that sounds?

Only one who kill can claim self-defense? Last man standing?

[dkf]

193. Yes. In a deadly fight.

Self defense is a legal argument for a person who is alive. Obviously a dead person won't be charged.

[Just Saying]

194. It wasn't a deadly fight

Until Zimmerman pulled his gun.

[dkf]

195. You don't know that. No one does. Was it impossible for TM to have done enough damage

for Z to have been killed or to have experienced serious bodily injury? On what do you base your conclusion?

[Just Saying]

197. I base my conclusion

On Zimmerman being a liar who needed a bandaid after the fight. I don't believe it happened at all as he said nor do I believe he was justified pulling a gun on a kid and killing him.

Was it possible Trayvon was fighting off a man he didn't know who was trying to physically restrain him? Yes. Was it possible Z pulled the gun before the altercation? Yes. I don't believe he pulled his gun when he said because as the prosecution showed it wasn't even physically possible. Numerous lies in Z's story and I just don't believe his version.

Let me turn it around for you: Was it impossible for Z to have done enough damage for Trayvon to have been killed or to have experiences serious bodily injury? The answer is no. Because he killed him.

But the standard isn't what is possible, but what a reasonable person would do beyond a reasonable doubt and that one word "reasonable" is why I think Zimmerman will be found guilty.

Would love to know why you feel the need to defend this guy. At best, he's a stupid man who made bad choices that caused the death of a child. At worst, a cold-blooded killer who followed and shot a kid just because he was black in his neighborhood.

[dkf]

198. I'm not defending the guy I am applying the evidence to the law.

And letting the chips fall where they may.

When it comes down to it the law is a rigid checkbox examination looking for evidence that fulfills each element of the charge. It is entirely possible to do this in a purely analytical way.

[RedCappedBandit]

11. Run away.

I don't believe for one instant that he was being beaten to the point where an escape was impossible.

Frankly, I don't believe he attempted to escape. Thus, his use of deadly force was not justified.

[pipoman]

77. What you believe is meaningless in this context..

Do you know it?..beyond a reasonable doubt?

[RedCappedBandit]

169. Really? Here I thought our discussion would impactthe jury's decision!

We've all been wasting our time!

[pipoman]

179. For as many people hereabouts

who decry the tragedy of innocents in prison..it is amazing to how many want the standard for conviction lowered to something like the "I believe" standard which would result in even more innocent and otherwise people in prison in a country which already has lapped most of the rest of the world in incarcerations..astounding..

[Blackford]

17. He was told stay put

He is 100% responsible for everything that happened after he ignored that.

If I was on the jury, I'd vote to convict in a heart beat and would never alter that.

[Carlpatrick]

81. Not really

Zidiot was told we "don't need you to do that"..no authority if you know Florida law.

[CokeMachine]

112. You wouldn't make it to the jury.

See here in the US there is a presumption of innocence. He was never told to stay put (unless you have more info than the rest of the world). What happens to your 100% after you incorrectly made your statement.

I do believe Zman should be found guilty of MS but 2nd degree murder is just silly.

[Kennah]

159. Might be too late to undo it, but ...

... when you pursue it changes things under the law. Having the right to stand your ground is NOT the same thing as having the right to pursue someone. Trayvon Martin also had the right to stand his ground. Under those conditions, one must look at whether one or the other did anything to aggravate the situation.

Consider the scenario where TM and GZ are taunting one another with barbs. They escalate to profanity and start calling each other "Motherfucker!" Push, shove, kick, punch, and they are fighting. A gun comes out, TM is dead, and GZ is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Mutual combat is one of the classic examples of voluntary manslaughter. The real situation, according to all press reporting and court testimony shown to date, does not bear ANY resemblance to that. If TM contributed to escalating the fight, it was slight. I don't see how GZ escapes with anything less than a conviction for manslaughter, although he really deserves murder two.

If TM had stalked and attacked GZ, then it becomes a clear cut case of self defense when GZ was getting his head bashed. In pursuing TM, GZ changed everything. He shattered his mantle of innocence, turned into the aggressor, and became the archetype of a criminal defending "his turf".

[onenote]

167. Not really

Following someone and even confronting them with a demand that they explain their conduct is not illegal and does not constitute provocation that would negate a self-defense claim. While Zimmerman's decision to pursue Trayvon was inappropriate and stupid it wasn't illegal.
As for their respective "stand your ground rights," when Trayvon was confronted by Zimmerman, he had several options: ignore him and keep walking, respond to him, engage him in a physical confrontation. If he had done the latter, he would not be protected under the stand your ground provision, because only a person who is being attacked has stand your ground rights. So, ultimately, it really does come down to a question of who threw the first punch. And as far as I can tell, the evidence presented to the jury on that question is not particularly clear.

[krispos42]

23. If he initiated the physical confrontation...

...then he had no right to defend himself unless Martin could respond with disproportionate force.


And since Martin was not armed with either an improvised or designed weapon, nor was a martial-arts expert, I don't see how he COULD respond with disproportionate force!

So, that leaves Zimmerman in a pickle. He's losing a fight that he (presumably) started. Suck it up; it's the risk you take when you start a fight.

[dkf]

127. But there is no evidence of that.

[krispos42]

143. The stalking (while armed) might well be the evidence needed

Martin was being stalked by a guy that actually got out of his vehicle to pursue him, so he might well have decided that his best option was pre-emptive self-defense against an imminent threat that he had no reason to believe was capable of being avoided.

"Initiate" can mean the very act of stalking, not necessarily Zimmerman getting pushy with Martin first.




We know a guy armed with a pistol left his vehicle to pursue somebody on foot, there was a scuffle that ended up with the guy flat on his back and drawing and shooting the guy he was chasing. The dead guy that did not have a designed or improvised weapon, nor was he possessed of advanced martial-arts skills.

[dkf]

148. What he did was not "stalking" in the legal sense.

Nor was it illegal.

[krispos42]

180. I know. I'm not using it in the paparazzi sense

But in the hunting sense. Martin may well have decided, based on Zimmerman's actions in hunting him, that an attack was inevitable.

Zimmerman's moves that night might have, individually, been legit. But in context and in totality could be interpreted as a clear and imminent threat to Martin.

Will a jury see that?

[dkf]

182. But that's not illegal.

You can't legally punch someone for doing that.

[krispos42]

184. You can if you think the person is about to attack you

Martin was an adult male of athletic build. Not done kind of physical lightweight. To have another person stalking him would reasonably mean that the other person not only meant him harm, but that he had the means to do it with a good chance of success.


Either the pursuer had a weapon, or the pursuer had an as yet unseen accomplice.

[dkf]

186. Really? How would you establish that fact to the police?

That sounds like a good way to get arrested.

Do you have a law citation?

[krispos42]

190. Not a lawyer.

But the evidence is right there in this case. Martin was well aware he was being followed by a mysterious stranger. When given the chance to move on, the stranger did not, but attempted to relocate Martin on foot.

After the fact, we have the documented evidence of the 911 call Zimmerman made, the testimony of Martin's girlfriend of the phone call Martin made in parallel to Zimmerman's call, and Zimmerman's own testimony , of his actions after the fact.

Did Zimmerman, perhaps unconsciously, check his gun in its holster during the stalk? Did he advertise to Martin that he had a weapon of some sort on his belt?

I don't know. but that is something else to consider. Martin may have seen Zimmerman get out of his truck and adjust his holster while making on the phone.

[dkf]

191. Speculation. I wondering if it was legal for TM to punch Z in the face if that was first contact.

[krispos42]

221. I guess now it doesn't matter, does it?

[onenote]

168. under florida law, the right to stand your ground requires

that the other person either be engaged in unlawful activity or have initiated an attack. What makes this case difficult is that following Trayvon, even with a gun in one's pocket, is not unlawful. And the evidence of who initiated the physical confrontation -- who threw the first punch as it were -- is not terribly clear.

[NoOneMan]

34. I think so

1) There were people within earshot. He knew this. He knew police were being called. This fight wasn't going to go on all night. Regardless, humans don't have the stamina for that anyway

2) You lay in the bed you make. If that hurts you pride to the point of needing a gun, don't carry one or don't pick fights. Otherwise, be a man and take the punishment you deserve

3) Why do you assume Martin would keep beating them? That assumption assumes the very worse in Martin. He isn't on trial. He never killed anymore.

[Jenoch]

50. IF Martin was beating

on Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not know how far Martin would go.

Like most trials such as this, which side had the most plausibly story with evidence and testimony to back it up will likely win.

[NoOneMan]

61. A schizophrenic psycho killer doesn't know how far his victims will go. God told them they are satan

But you know, I don't care what a freak mentally perceives in a crazy situation of their own creation. I care what a average person would reasonably think when a skinny 160lb teenager is wrestling with them, when knowing a man nearby said he is calling 911 and the police are already on their way, and they weren't even hurt bad enough to have a concussion the next day.

It is not our responsibility to let people roam the street who are in such dangerous mental states that they kill in fright.

And that's all assuming poor little Zimmerman was in fact scared. Unfortunately, the other witness doesn't get to tell his story.

[Jenoch]

71. I was unaware of Zimmerman's

diagnosis of schizophrenia, where did you learn that?

Of course I wish Zimmerman to be convicted, however I prefer to discuss the case based on the evidence presented at the trial rather than all the hyperbole I have also seen.

[NoOneMan]

79. Its a comparison. We cannot set the bar at "crazy" and cater to it

We have no more reason to accept a mentally ills person perception of a "justified" killing as we do Zimmerman's. We must instead look at what an average person would reasonably perceive in that situation. But an average person would not have created that situation to begin with.

Here was a man who was obsessed with security to the point of needing a gun, driven by fear and racism (calling the cops 50+ times about black men), in a neighborhood full of people scared of the "fuckn punks" (African Americans) who break into homes, who put himself in the position of a savior as the neighborhood security man. No. He wasn't fucking normal. He wasn't average. His perception means fuck all.

[Jenoch]

89. I'm not disagreeing with much of your post.

I do believe that calling Zimmerman schizophrenic is hyperbole.

I also have never heard before this case that the term 'punk' is raxial in nature. I always thought it meant either a young person up to no good or it's a stick with dried horseshit stuck to it and when lit on fire, glows with enough heat to light the fuses on fireworks.

[NoOneMan]

94. I am not calling him schizophrenic. I am comparing him to a mentally ill individual

We do not accept fear of bodily harm or death from unreasonable, mentally unstable people as a reasonable justification for killing. Zimmerman is not your average turnip.

I also have never heard before this case that the term 'punk' is raxial in nature.

Zimmerman called 911 50+ time about "fucking punks" and "assholes". They were all black, including Trayvon Martin. "Punk" is not a racial term. Assuming a 17 year old kid walking back from the store at 7:00PM is a punk because they are a black kid in a hoodie is racist.

[Jenoch]

96. I was positive I

read the term schizophrenia in an earlier post you wrote.

I'm still not buying the punk thing.

I don't know what was going on in Zimmerman's head at that point. I prefer less speculation than most, I guess.

[NoOneMan]

97. Or course you did

It was mentioned to set an extreme for an unreasonable mind that could have "reasonable" fear of death or harm (which is not reasonable to a normal mind). This illustrates that mental state is an issue when we talk about perception of harm.

It is only important if the average person would reasonably fear death. Zimmerman is not average, nor would a schizophrenic be. We do not have to be concerned about their actual perception. Our society does not cater to crazy.

I'm still not buying the punk thing.

Those aren't my words. Those were his, applied for no other reason to Martin than how he visually looked (as well as to the other black people he called 911 about).

I prefer less speculation than most

Zimmerman didn't afford such a luxury to Martin. He assumed the worse, while chasing him in a frantic, scared, paranoid act.

[Hoyt]

204. He was on psychotropic prescription meds, making him an "irresponsible" gun owner.

[dkf]

130. Well why didn't TM stop?

TM could have withdrawn and left. No?

What would be messed up is if he did and Z shot him. But no evidence so cannot be proven.

There simply isn't enough hard evidence to prove 2nd or even manslaughter.

[NoOneMan]

135. Because he was shot in the heart and killed

When I am chased down by a paranoid racist and am fighting for my life, at what point do I either stop or can be justifiably killed? Am I not allowed to fight back for more than a few seconds before instant death?

TM could have withdrawn and left. No?

1) We do not know that he wasn't trying to when shot
2) Why would he leave before the initial threat was neutralized or police were present?

There simply isn't enough hard evidence to prove 2nd or even manslaughter.

I don't think this shooting occurred in a 2 second vacuum that you suggest, which we have zero evidence of. We know for a fact that Zimmerman's negligent behavior led to a fatal shooting. We know for a fact he was malicious in pursuit of the "fucking punk" that he knows always get away. I don't honestly care what a mentally unstable man felt in that vacuum of his creation, blinded by the psychosis of hate and racism, before killing a teenager.

People have been convicted of far more heinous crimes with far less evidence (normally you just have to provide a motive and put them at the place during that time). This isn't even your typical "reasonable doubt" case, as we know he killed him. This is just: what would the average person have felt in that moment if they created a scenario that only a crazy paranoid racist could have created, and then laid like a rag-doll as a 1 arm boy slammed them (but not enough to hurt them). I'd probably been giggling a bit if some guy barely hurt me after purportedly banging my head 20 times (bullshit, bullshit, bullshit). I don't give a fuck what a looney gun toting sissy nut was thinking.

[doc03]

58. He should have stayed in his car. He shouldn't have pursued Martin.

He shouldn't even have been carrying a gun in the first place if he was on a neighborhood watch. Just what law did Martin break? Why did he even confront him, he wasn't doing anything but walking down the street. Tryvon Martin also had the right to defend himself.
He refereed to Martin as a suspect, SUSPECT OF WHAT? Zimmerman deserved to get his ass kicked. In addition I didn't see serious life threatening injuries on Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a wannabe COP wanting to make himself a name. Why couldn't Zimmerman defend himself from
a 17 year old after taking a year of MMA training and police training? He had all the COP lingo
like the (suspect)he claimed Martin said you are going to die (so he could claim self defense),
then claims Martin went after his weapon but there was none of Martins DNA blood or anything on the weapon. Then martin says you got me like in a John Wayne movie. How did he un-holster the weapon behind his back, aim it and shoot another person that was supposedly sitting on his chest beating the fuck out of him?

[lolly]

141. Assumes he WAS beaten up, unprovoked

We only have Zimmerman's version of that story.

[dkf]

160. He has documented injuries.

DiMaio says he sees 6 separate bangs.

[complain jane]

144. "Beaten up"

He had some scratches on his head. He was trained in martial arts and instead went for his gun and chose to fire a fatal shot straight into his heart.

Something tells me he should be held accountable for that. Not even to mention the fact that he shouldn't have been harrassing and stalking this kid in the first place.

[TorchTheWitch]

146. First, he wasn't being beaten up

And both the photographs of his insignificant injuries as well as the testimony of two doctors (one of whom was his own) along with no evidence on Martin's hands that he was beaten up show that he was not beaten up and most certainly not to the extent that he claimed.

Other than that, the LAST LAST LAST thing he should have done was fire his gun. Zimmerman trained for over a year in MMA style defense. Even without that, what would anyone do if they DIDN'T have a gun? Zimmerman by his own admission did NOTHING to stop the physical confrontation he went looking for and started other than fire his gun. By his own admission the only thing he did in trying to stop what he claims was a horrific beating was nothing more than wiggle his head off the pavement. That's it.

Further, Zimmerman had two opportunities to defuse the situation at the outset and didn't. Despite his being the neighborhood watch dude at no time did he ever even attempt to reassure Martin that he was just the neighborhood watch dude and not some creepy nutter desiring to do him harm.

Zimmerman went hunting for Martin. He profiled him as a criminal showing malice and ill intent, got out of his car, chased him down and confronted him defying everything he was taught and knew about what as a neighborhood watch person he was not supposed to do. Had he merely minded his own fucking business and stayed in his damn car Martin would have just continued home and Zimmerman would just have continued to his shopping trip at Target. But no, Zimmerman wanted to play vigilante cop wannabe and everything that occurred afterward was solely HIS responsibility. And after he killed Martin not because he was in fear of his life or great bodily harm after not taking ANY of his other opportunities to either diffuse the situation, keep himself from encountering Martin in the first place nor use any other physical means other than his gun, he killed Martin and then chose not only to lie about it but go on national tv and tell the world he has no regrets, would do it all over again and that is was God's plan.

You know what you can do with your gripe about what Zimmerman was expected to do. What any normal thinking reasonable person would have expected him to do is minded his own fucking business and not gone out of his way to see suspicion in a black teenager walking home in the drizzling rain and never even bothered to call the police in the first fucking place never mind everything that HE did after.

It was Zimmerman's gun that gave him the guts to get out of his car, pursue Martin, confront him and everything that came after as well as everything that came before the very moment he got out of his car was because of his gun. And any reasonable person is expected to accept "oops, sorry" as an excuse for profiling, pursuing, confronting and murdering a child over a couple of little booboos in a fight HE was responsible for starting? Bullshit.

Your constant defense of this murderous fuck makes me sick.

[kestrel91316]

153. You've got Zimmy's back, I see.

[dkf]

155. I can read and comprehend the law.

Unlike others who think they can create their own law and convict people based on flawed interpretations and assumptions and connecting their own dots.

[Skittles]

203. what about the right to walk a public road

without being confronted by a paranoid gun humping cop-wannabe loser? You seem to forget - or more likely DO NOT CARE - that Trayvon Martin had rights too and one of them was THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF

[justiceischeap]

170. There is a crucial amount of time that no one but Zimmerman and the now dead Martin knows

what happened. If Zimmerman was carrying the gun behind his back like he explained in the video and Martin was sitting on top of him, slamming his head into the pavement and smothering him at the same time (quite a feat if you ask me). How did Zimmerman get the gun?

I suspect what really happened is that Zimmerman had his gun out when he approached Martin again and that's when the "fight" broke out. Martin was fighting for his life, he was defending himself and when Martin got the upper-hand in said scuffle, Zimmerman shot him.

Everyone that defends Zimmermans' actions seems to forget there are two people in the scenario and don't seem to consider that Martin may very well have been defending his own life and not the other way around. It's something to consider and with Martin's record of non-violence, as opposed to Zimmermans' record towards violence, I'd tend to believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was "standing his ground."

[dkf]

171. That is entirely speculative with no evidence.

The jury will not be able to consider nor use your theory.

[justiceischeap]

173. I understand that but as a non-jury member and a person participating in a discussion

I like to think about both sides of what may have happened. We're to take the word of a man whose story changed how many times? We're not to even consider that Zimmerman could have been the aggressor? There's really no evidence that Martin was the aggressor either, other than the word of a man who seems to have a penchant for lying.

[Kingofalldems]

174. So, in your opinion Zimmerman should walk free

and was unjustly charged?

[Skittles]

209. his opinion is the right to self defense only applies to gun humpers

[Kingofalldems]

211. Can't stand these Zim people beating around the bush

And you're right, Trayvon had no apparent rights according to the Zim fans.

[complain jane]

200. He shouldn't have started this whole incident is what he should have done.

[Skittles]

201. LOL

poor widdle Zimmerman, he had no options!!!

[krispos42]

4. I agree with you

Not only that, but the various gun magazines that deal with handguns and self-defense ALSO agree with you.


"Handguns" magazine deals with (hold on to your hats, now) handguns and using them. Since self-defense in public and in private is a big reason for owning guns, articles about the using them are fairly frequent.

The legalities and consequences of using deadly force are a regular theme of such articles.

I know it is fashionable to portray people that carry concealed as Bruce Willis wannabees just itching for the chance to legally kill someone, but it's a fact that the rantings of internet "tough guys" on anonymous message boards should not be confused with reality.

[anomiep]

15. Well said.

I lost my hat, though.

[Hoyt]

28. Yes, Zman was well versed in legalities. I wish gun owners

would quit studying the law to determine when they can shoot people.

It would also he nice not to see threads in gungeon on what to say and not say when you call 911 after screwing up and shooting unarmed kid.

The whole gun situation has gotten out of hand, and Zimmerman is a good example of the problem.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. "I wish gun owners would quit studying the law to determine when they can shoot people. "

That might actually be the single most idiotic thing on the entire internet.

[Hoyt]

37. Well, Zimmerman is a good example, and the gungeoneers sure spend a lot of

time discussing when they can blast away. Worse, gun folks back legislation like stand your ground that is clearly designed to make it easier for yahoos to shoot minorities.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. The counterpoint, though, is that anyone electing to have a gun for self-defense MUST know the law.

Anything less would be irresponsible, in my estimation.

[Hoyt]

206. A little morality -- and sense of right and wrong -- would be better knowledge.

[Lizzie Poppet]

215. They're not mutually-exclusive.

I can only speak for myself in this regard, of course,but I'd be surprised if most CCW permit holders didn't have at least a basic comprehension of all these things.

[Just Saying]

40. +1

[krispos42]

45. So you want to whine and bitch about ignorant "Rambo wannabes"...

...while also whining and bitching about studying and knowing the law?


FYI, "Handguns" magazine just had an extensive article discussing what to do in the immediate aftermath of a self-defense shooting, including how to describe your attacker, yourself, and your situation; what to expect from the first-on-scene police; complying with the police; and expecting to be handcuffed and shoved in the back of a police cruiser.


Naturally, you'll be against disseminating such information. "Miranda" warnings must really tick you off.

[Hoyt]

56. Do they run articles on why yahoos should not carry in public?

As you point out, the articles are designed to keep the toter out of jail. Why should I respect that gun nuttery?

You guys rally around your gun culture, insist on NRA certified instructors who coddle gun owners, promote more guns in more places, etc.

I do give you credit for being one of the few gungeoneers who did not support Zman, another bigot with a gun.

[krispos42]

78. Their articles stress the seriousness of being armed in public.

Since you don't define "yahoo", I can't directly answer your question.


And since you implicitly state that all "toters" should be in jail, regardless of guilt, innocence, or dues process, why should anybody take your position seriously?


I've been generally consistent with my opinions regarding Zimmerman for some 15 months now, and nothing I've heard contradicts it.

Absent of an imminent threat to innocent lives, CCW permittees don't go chasing after trouble. Zimmerman lost any claim to self-defense when he left his truck and began stalking Martin on foot.

And since Martin was not armed with either a purpose-built or improvised weapon, and he was not a martial-arts expert, he could not disproportionally respond to Zimmerman's attack (which WOULD let Zimmerman use the gun).

In fact, it's not unreasonable that Martin could legally, in the face of imminent threat from a mysterious stalker, strike first without having to first try to run away or letting Zimmerman land the first blow.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. I strongly agree.

I am a CCW permit holder, and am very often carrying. I consider it to be my responsibility to do everything I can to avoid letting a conflict escalate into physical violence. I'm ill-suited to hand-to-hand combat (I'm a shrimp...), so I'd have little choice but to resort to the weapon if things got physical. Thus I believe ethics demand that I do everything I can to diffuse such a situation before it turns violent.

[Honeycombe8]

9. I don't think there's a legal duty for "responsibility to make sure a confrontation doesn't turn

deadly." There might be. But I didn't hear that.

I'm talking legalities, not common sense.

[Hoyt]

29. And you are not talking morality either, but gun folks seldom are.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Indeed...in this case in particular, the so-called liberal gun nuts are all hiding behind supposed

legalities. "Oh, I hope for verdict X, but blah blah blah, and the law says..."

Fucking trash.

[Honeycombe8]

88. This is a legal case. The law is what matters. Nothing either guy was doing was illegal,

as far as I know.

[Hoyt]

178. Yes, gunners are always most interested in how laws are written to protect their use of guns.

Maybe if gin nuts cared about morality, we would have the gun issue, or a dead kid.

[anomiep]

12. The onus is definitely on the person with the gun

There's a saying I read somewhere: You can have an attitude, or you can carry a gun, but you can't do both.

Conflict avoidance is definitely a must, where possible. There shouldn't *be* confrontation if it can be avoided. The other side of that is, sometimes it is actually impossible to keep a situation from turning deadly.

[bushisanidiot]

14. Apparently, as long as the only witness is killed, the shooter should be able

To get away with it... Unless the shooter is black, of course.

Stand your ground was never meant for black folks to use.

[MrSlayer]

19. This is kind of a horseshit setup.

If I have a gun and I'm minding my own business and someone attacks me with a baseball bat, I don't have any responsibility to make sure the confrontation doesn't turn deadly. I just shoot the guy chasing me with the bat.

I see that you're trying to apply this to Zimmerman but what should be done in that situation does not apply in all situations.

So your premise is off. The onus is not on the person with the gun as a rule.

[krispos42]

31. That's true, but that's not how most conflicts start

If you're carrying a gun, you can't go around provoking people with words or actions so you can then legally shoot them "in self-defense" as soon as they shove you.

[MrSlayer]

69. Agreed.

I was just saying that simply having a gun doesn't mean you have to make sure the situation doesn't escalate to the murderous level.

As far as the Zimmerman case. I really hope they don't let this guy off scot free.

[krispos42]

90. Then we're in agreement.

[Brigid]

35. Actually, in that case . . .

The other guy also has a deadly weapon. It is not really that hard to kill someone with a baseball bat. There would be littIe opportunity to respond with less than deadly force if someone attacked you like that.

[anomiep]

52. That all depends

It actually is sometimes reasonable to fear death or great bodily injury from an unarmed opponent. There are at least a couple of no-billed cases that I know of where someone started pounding the crap out of someone else through a car window and the person being beat up shot.

In one case, the attacker had mistaken the car the defender was driving for a different car, so the guy getting beaten had absolutely no idea why the attacker was attacking. It was literally, from his perspective, just that some guy came up and started pounding on him, he was belted in, couldn't drive away (due to other cars), and really couldn't do anything else. He was starting to black out, if I remember correctly, when he shot.

I suppose it helped that in that case, the attacker (the person who was shot) didn't die (if I remember right), but deadly force is deadly force.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Trayvon Martin had the sidewalk: that's how the analogy makes sense

In racist gun-fucker land, anyway.

[Major Nikon]

67. Shoot first laws are horseshit to begin with

Prior to these ALEC/NRA written laws a person with a gun had certain responsibilities regarding the use of deadly force. Now that responsibility has been whittled down to practically nothing. Z is the exception to the rule. Many people are getting into bar fights, road rage, and all sorts of shit, pull a gun and kill someone and then pull their ALEC/NRA granted get out of jail free card.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

[MrSlayer]

73. No doubt.

I agree 100%.

[anomiep]

98. Well

"In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free."

I don't see it in the Florida law, but in Texas, if you started the fight, it falls back to what is essentially duty to retreat.

It seems to me that the Florida law at the very least needs that added.

The Texas law reads as follows:

TPC 9.31 (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

That is the relevant 'stand your ground' for force (you also have to meet the parts I did not quote from 9.31 - you have to meet 9.31 in full, it's just that 9.31(e) is the statement of no duty to retreat). Deadly force has similar law (and for deadly force, you have to meet all of 9.31 and 9.32, I am just quoting the part that states the law re. duty to retreat):

TPC 9.32. (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Basically, in Texas, if you're minding your own business and not doing anything criminal and someone uses force against you, you can respond with like force without having to flee until you can flee no longer.

If you started the fight, you don't necessarily completely lack the ability to defend yourself, but you are subject to a requirement to break away and you have a duty to retreat.

I am basically ok with how Texas deals with it, if the law is applied as it is written. If in Florida a full 1/3 of the stand your ground cases going free are the people starting the fight I think language like 'not provoked the person' and 'not engaged in criminal activity' should be inserted.

[Major Nikon]

103. Here's the problem I have with these laws

Prior to these laws, the cases where people were being prosecuted for the reasonable use of force were few if any. So basically you have a solution in search of a problem. I'm not even comfortable with the responsibility for use of force that police have and now you have every gun toting bumpkin imaginable with even less accountability and training than the police have. So for zero benefit you have laws that encourage vigilantism and other assorted dumbfuckery that makes everyone else less safe. Guns don't make society more safe. Guns make society less safe. We are absolutely going the wrong direction with these laws.

[anomiep]

114. It is not zero benefit

If you are in public, minding your own business, and breaking no law, and I assault you with either nonlethal or lethal force, are you comfortable having to run, even if I keep coming after you, until it is literally impossible to run anymore, before defending yourself?

If you are, well, fine. Me, I think that if someone tries to hit me with a tire iron I shouldn't have to run away before I can defend myself. I have the option of running, and I'll take it, but imposing a duty to retreat is not reasonable, because it places the defender at a *huge* disadvantage, as it completely removes all use of force options that would end things more quickly by making them illegal if the defender can retreat.

Example: Guys swinging a tire iron at you but you can retreat. Say it's going to take ten minutes of you running before the guy corners you. Now you are a) in a corner and b) have been running for ten minutes. Whereas if, perhaps, you just kicked him in the nads 9 minutes ago when he opened that up to you after you've been backing off for only a minute, the whole thing is nine minutes shorter.

As for vigilantism, I disagree that merely defending yourself with force, in a situation where you were minding your own business, did not provoke the attack, and weren't involved in the commission of a crime is vigilantism, if that's what you're claiming - and actual vigilantism is illegal under the law because you're involved in the commission of a crime, so you'd lose the protection to begin with.

This is, of course, if the law as written is being correctly applied, and if it's not, that's a problem and it should be fixed - but you don't fix it by removing innocent people's options.

[Major Nikon]

124. Reasonable use of force means exactly that

If the option to retreat exists and you are not in your own home or place of business, that's the option you should take. Period. If someone is going to pursue you relentlessly, then retreat is not a viable option.

Gun proliferates love to come up with all sorts of screwy scenarios to justify these laws. It's bullshit. Always has been. Always will be. A solution in search of a problem is circular logic and no matter how many hypothetical situations you come up with, you will never change that. If you can't demonstrate a need for these laws based on shit that actually is happening, then you can't demonstrate a need for these laws. Furthermore the gun proliferates completely ignore the societal harm that these laws create, as if their imagined threat somehow trumps real ones.

It's no different than North Carolina banning "Sharia Law".

State Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) told WRAL.com that he does not know of any instances of foreign law being used in his state's courts but that a statute is needed to prevent it from happening.

This kind of shit is stone hard dumbfuckery.

[anomiep]

128. Relentless pursuit is not an exception to a duty to retreat

It's either a) not being able to retreat or b) the retreat poses a danger, and do you really want to let someone float on whether or not a prosecutor and/or jury considers the length of time you'd have to retreat as posing a danger or not?

If you do - then hey, we disagree. I just wanted to point that out.

[Major Nikon]

139. Hogwash

The duty to retreat only applies if the person can retreat while not increasing their own risk. There is no duty to retreat if it makes you less safe.

[anomiep]

145. Not hogwash

But what is 'less safe'?

If you can run away from a guy for ten minutes without getting hit at all, you and I appear to agree that this may, depending on circumstances, be 'less safe'.

Someone else can think 'Well, if you're not increasing the risk of getting hit, you're safe'. That allows for relentless pursuit.

If you're not the attacker, why should you even have to worry about it? You shouldn't, the law should just have you covered. You should be able to just make the decision, and the fact that the other guy attacked you is on him, whichever way you make it.

If you're the attacker, well - then don't attack to begin with.

[Major Nikon]

154. More hypothetical, less substance

The duty to retreat is based on common law going back for hundreds of years. The idea that somehow people are going to jail for reasonable use of force is ALEC/NRA generated nonsense based on "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" sloganeering claptrap, not reality. If you are making reasonable use of force, the law does have you covered already and always has.

I'm not going to argue bullshit NRA talking points. I'll leave you with the following link for further reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[anomiep]

157. I would suggest to you

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:26 AM - Edit history (9)

That claiming it's all NRA talking points rather than what I really think based on what I've read in the law in the various states that I've lived in, and claiming that I'm begging the question, is not the best of ways to get someone to change their mind if your position is actually correct.

And on that basis, I ask you: when a law is actually codified in a statute covering a particular situation, what happens to the common law that applied to that same situation?

I'm fine with statutes that have language like 'complete safety' - as long as the courts, etc recognize that in an actual, justifiable self defense situation there is rarely, if ever, complete safety, at least at close quarters. If there's solid case or common law in a duty to retreat state that essentially boils down to, if you're not the aggressor and you didn't provoke an average person's probable going to be fine, I'm OK with that, too. What I don't want is passage of laws that would require someone under attack to literally flee until they're put in a corner if they can - or don't actually require that but put someone who has actually, reasonably defended themselves in a position where a prosecutor is prosecuting anyway. Perhaps that is a fear that's not currently going to actually happen, but some of the laws, you read them, and it looks like that's what they say - and prosecutors are not judged by getting the law right, they're judged by getting convictions or plea deals.

I am not worried about the Texas law because it clearly delineates that you have to have three things: a) the right to be where you are, b) not be committing a crime, and c) you did not provoke the conflict. This is *on top* of a reasonable person standard for use of force or deadly force.

The Texas law, enforced as worded, addresses most if not all of the objections in the article you posted. Drug dealers are committing crimes, people provoking the conflict fall back to having to disengage with a duty to retreat, etc. If you still think the Texas law isn't reasonable*, well, then I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to leave it at that. If you remember, I stated the Florida law was not, at least in respect to the examples in the article, and should be changed.

*I should clarify here that I mean reasonable in respect to the self defense portions. There are certain portions that I am not at all as comfortable with and honestly, even though they make certain conditions legal, I'm going to make damn sure I never fall under them - if someone wants to spray paint the outside of my house at night I'll call the cops and let them deal with it. However, those portions are not the language that removes a duty to retreat.

[anomiep]

132. and

I agree that if you can safely retreat, you generally should.

But when it gets into the details of specific situations I'd rather have the law clearly let the person who is defending, defend.

[dkf]

150. How do you retreat if you are pinned down and calling for help?

He couldn't retreat. Therefore he was entitled to use self defense.

[Kingofalldems]

33. I think the lie he told on Sean (Hero of the gungeon) Hannity show

might get him convicted. He claimed he never heard of Stand Your Ground while he actually took a course on it. And got an A.

[Lex]

66. SO many lies by Zimmerman.

[Adsos Letter]

118. That, and the screaming ending immediately following the sound of the gunshot.

Combining that with the lie about SYG convinced me that Z is lying about what went down that night. And he's lying because he knows he fucked up, and I hope he goes to prison fora long time for it.

[anomiep]

123. There's no information there

Case 1: Zimmerman lying about being the screamer
If Zimmerman shoots and it was Trayvon screaming then Trayvon stops screaming because he was shot.

Case 2: Zimmerman telling the truth about being the screamer
If Zimmerman shoots and it was Zimmerman screaming then Zimmerman stops screaming because Trayvon stops attacking (If shooting stops him screaming than it logically would stop him attacking, too)

Am I missing a case? I would have to be for the screams stopping to provide information other than whatever was happening stopped at the shot.

[Union Scribe]

36. I think you are 100% right.

There's an obligation to be especially careful, and Zimmerman was the opposite. Someone with a gun can't act like someone without a gun, because any conflict they get into may wind up deadly.

[PD Turk]

76. I own guns

Sometimes I carry one for self defense. I can tell you what I wouldn't have done. I wouldn't have gotten out of my car and followed that boy when I had no business doing so. GZ was just another citizen with no authority to be chasing down anybody with a gun. He was playing John Wayne and got himself in over his head. That boy wasn't doing anything wrong and had every right to walk down the street at 7pm.

A citizen carrying a weapon for self defense means exactly that, it doesn't make them a cop. GZ tried to take the law into his own hands and somebody wound up dead for it. He needs to go to jail for a long, long time.

[brewens]

91. I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they also had a gun or charged me. Including if someone was in my

house. They run out the door with some of my property, MAYBE a warning shot to get them to stop. It really wouldn't be worth shooting anyone for. I know guys that think the "make my day" situation would prove something. Maybe they wouldn't really shoot someone but they think they would if they had the chance. By chance I mean good excuse. I think that's what we had with Zimmerman.

[anomiep]

100. No warning shots

Never, never, ever fire a warning shot.

If you're not shooting because you're actually defending yourself in a situation where you are justified, you shouldn't be shooting, period. Deadly force is deadly force and firing a 'warning shot' off can legally be (and in my opinion actually is) reckless, etc.

Warning shots are hollywood make believe. They don't belong in the real world. The only circumstances I would fire a warning shot is if some law legally required it, and imho that law would be stupid beyond belief.

I agree on the 'make my day' bits. I never, ever want to be involved in a shooting. If I have to, that's one thing, but looking for it is entirely another.

[spin]

120. My advice is that warning shots are never a good idea. ...

I would also be hesitant to shoot someone just because they rushed me. I could probably legally do that as I am an handicapped elderly citizen. I would if I was absolutely certain that he intended to put me in the hospital for a long time or six feet under and was strong enough to do it.

[Old and In the Way]

92. A very salient point.

If both have guns.....only the eyewitnesses know. If one party has a gun and the other one doesn't.......I'll always support the Rights of the Unarmed.

[flvegan]

95. The participant who doesn't fear for his/her life.

[customerserviceguy]

101. In the South and the West

you have the right to use the gun to defend yourself. In the Northeast, you are morally required to shoot yourself just for owning one.

[spin]

105. That's why I am extremely polite. ...

I have a carry permit in Florida and I carry on a regular basis.

Believe it or not but I not a bloodthirsty vigilante, a cop wanna-be or a excessively paranoid individual who fears to leave the house without carrying a gun. I know that many who post on DU believe that everyone who has a concealed carry license must fit into one of those categories. I am simply a elderly man with a bad limp who prefers to have available a means of self defense in the extremely unlikely chance that I am attacked by an individual who intends to put me in the hospital or six feet under and can do it.

But I realize that the last thing that I every want to have to do is to have to shoot another person even if it is in legitimate self defense. The legal and psychological hassles are considerable. I don't want to spend the money I saved for retirement on attorneys or psychologists and counselors.

Therefore I never act in an aggressive manner nor do I argue with strangers. If I get into a disagreement with a person and there is any chance of it turning violent, I will calmly leave the scene even if it makes me look like a coward.

That's why I fault Zimmerman. He called the police and should have continued on his way as they suggested. Martin presented no direct threat to him as long as he was in his vehicle. I suspect that if Zimmerman had a chance to relive that night he would simply drive on although apparently he told a reporter that he had no regrets.

[Zoeisright]

106. Fuckin' A.

No question at all.

[Old and In the Way]

108. Only One Party had a gun - only one had complete control of the situation.

Only one could have have withdrawn from the scene under complete security....because he had the gun. Mr. Martin did not have that option.

[anomiep]

140. The premise that having a gun means having complete control of the situation

is false. Not just false, but *wildly* false.

Nobody has complete control of a confrontational situation.

[The Straight Story]

126. Well, if you are a cop it doesn't matter. You shoot first for your own safety

[anomiep]

138. Fortunately

In that case it is fully documented that the guy followed them for something like 25 minutes - and the video is pretty clear.

Jail time, stat.

[complain jane]

147. I'm a female. If some random guy starts following me home

... and is calling me names into his cell phone, and I turn around and mace him, does the guy with the gun have the right to put a bullet in my lungs because he then got scared of the situation he created?

The guy with the gun has the responsibility to make sure a confrontation doesn't turn deadly. Absolutely.

[spin]

165. No. You are not threatening his life or his health. ...

If after you spray him, you pull a collapsible police baton out of your purse and start beating him in the head with it, it is possible that after a few strikes he may have reason to fear for his life or health and it may be viewed as reasonable for him to use force to stop your attack. That could possibly include lethal force.

[complain jane]

199. Okay.

So a random guy can follow me home. I can ask him why he's following me, he doesn't respond. I'm scared and don't want him following me to my home, so I pull out a collapsible baton because I'm fearing for my life. He doesn't like that I did that to him and now "fears for his life" so he can put one in my chest and kill me.

And that's alright, because that's self defense on the part of the stalker? O.o

[anomiep]

213. It depends on the circumstances

It really boils down to whether or not your initial use of force was reasonable at the time and whether or not you stopped when the threat presented to you stopped.

There are plenty of cases where what may have well been a justified *initial* use of force turned into an aggravated assault.

So, if you pull out your collapsible baton and you actually reasonably fear for your life or of great bodily injury, and you start hitting him, and he hasn't stopped being a threat and pulls his gun and shoots you - well, hmm. I am not sure about Florida law, but in Texas, his shooting of you would be a criminal act. I would argue that it *should* be a criminal act, because he never stopped presenting a threat and your initial use of force was justified.

If you pull out your collapsible baton, and you actually reasonably fear for your life or of great bodily injury, and you start hitting him, and he stops, starts yelling for you to stop, tries to retreat and can't because you are hitting him in a position where he can't actually retreat - then yes, at that point, it is possible that he could be justified in pulling out a gun and shooting you. (again, not entirely sure about Florida).

Justification for an initial use of force doesn't mean you get to go all out forever. If the threat stops being a threat, you have to stop using force.

This is not legal advice, and the exact requirements will differ depending on where you live. If you actually carry a collapsible baton or OC spray I would recommend making sure you know what the law is in your state by some means, so if something happens you know when you can use it, rather than merely hoping that the decisions you made line up with what the law in your area states.

[anomiep]

214. Also -

You should be really, really sure the guy is a stalker in the first place.

This is purely hypothetical and statistically unlikely, and I'm really just stating it for the purpose of something to think about, but -

Let's suppose we take your hypothetical situation. You think a guy is following you, he's talking on his phone and you're hearing him yell obscenities into it (I am assuming here that you meant he was on the phone and saying stuff about you in it - if you meant that he literally called you and started yelling stuff, while he's also following you - just go with me for a minute for the purpose of illustration).

You pull out your collapsible baton and start swinging. And whatever happens, whether you stopped when he stopped or not, you later find out that he lived down the street, it was just coincidence that he was "following you" because he was just walking home, he was on the phone with a friend of his, and he had Tourette's.

Like I said - purely hypothetical and statistically unlikely. But whenever there's a use of force, there's a possibility that what either side, and possibly both sides, think is going on is not what is actually going on. (I say that as 'whenever there's a use of force' but actually, I think this is just generally true in any interaction between two or more people).

[Skittles]

216. how about if you attack someone because they pull a gun on you?

FOR NO REASON???

[spin]

220. If that happens you have good reason to fear for your health or your life. ...

I have often heard instructors who teach concealed weapons classes in Florida say that you should never flash or draw your concealed handgun to gain leverage in an encounter. The only time you pull your weapon is when you plan to shoot it to stop an attack that threatens your life or health.

[Kennah]

156. If you wouldn't go somewhere WITHOUT a gun, make damned sure you don't go there WITH a gun.

That is the advice given to me more than once by any of several firearm instructors. Cathy Schlegel, Marty Hayes, Clyde Caceras, Dane Burns, Mas Ayoob, the late Jim Cirillo, half a dozen or so other instructors at the Firearms Academy of Seattle.

It starts to cross over into the "you of all people" standard. Because you had a gun, and obviously knew you had a gun, then you of all people knew that your actions could lead to something involving deadly force. As such, there is a greater responsibility--moral if not legal--to do that which mitigates the chances for a deadly encounter.

There are at least four things one can use BEFORE one gets to deadly force.
1) Avoidance - You just don't go certain places
2) Evasion - If you wander in somewhere you know you should not be, leave
3) Words - Depending on the situation anything from "Heh man, I don't want any trouble" to "Get the FUCK away from me!"
4) Objects - Whatever is close at hand, throw it.

[anomiep]

164. Truth

Although, depending on the object, throwing something could be deadly force.

I remember a (purportedly true) story in a book I read where a man was sitting at a stoplight and another car pulled up and someone in that car pointed a loaded shotgun at him. If I remember right his initial thought was related to how unbelievably stupid that was, since it meant lethal force would be justified as a response. Since he wasn't actually armed, the guy gave a thumbs up and said "Cool!", and the shotgun was withdrawn and everyone went on their merry way (which, given that he'd just had a shotgun pointed at him, included making a police report for at least one of those involved).

[spin]

166. You should add one thing to your list ...

5) Practice situational awareness.

Situational awareness merely means that you do not walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to your ear.

Being alert to your surroundings means that often you can anticipate bad situations and avoid them. It is also true that predators look for the weakest members of the herd to surprise and tend to avoid attacking alert victims.

[MrScorpio]

172. I think that it's a little bit more than that

The person with the gun shouldn't be actively looking for opportunities to use it when better alternatives are available.

He should have stayed in his car and let the cops handle his concern... After all, he called THEM and THEY were on the way. That also speaks to his absence of concern for his own safety. He had a gun, he knew that. But if he was pissed off and on the hunt, so woe to him if his target seemed to get the upper hand for a moment in a physical struggle that he actively sought and started.

Personally, and I admit that I have no concrete proof about this, but I think that Z's gun was already out before they started tussling on the ground.

I still can't see how he could have gotten it out of his holster while he was supposedly laying on it AND he was wrestling with Martin. How many hands did this guy have?

[geckosfeet]

177. Clearly. You are correct.

[hack89]

187. Depends who starts the confrontation. nt

[ileus]

196. The attacker always assumes responsibility.

If I'm attacked I will respond with whatever measure will stop the attack quickest with the least tissue damage to my person.


Assuming of course I didn't (like I've never) instigated the confrontation.

[liberal N proud]

202. But. but, but

The second amendment gives the gun owner all rights!

[Skittles]

205. isn't it something?

there are so-called PROGRESSIVE DUers who think Zimmerman's racism and fear trumps Trayvon's right to walk a public road minding his own business - now that is some sick shit

[B Calm]

208. If a gunfighter in the old west shot

and killed an unarmed man, they would string his ass up!