Zimmerman/Martin shooting

[jad0110]

Quote:
Posted by henschman: ...if you are carrying concealed and someone attacks you physically but without a weapon, at what point are you "sufficiently" in fear of death or serious bodily injury to draw and fire? I know it depends on a lot of things, but how long would you wait?
Generally speaking, one may not "draw and fire" in defense against an attack by persons without weapons* except under one of the following circumstances:
The defender is female, and the attacker male.
The attaker is fit, and the attacker, aged or infirm; size may enter into the equation.
The attacker is known by the defender to be hightly proficient in martial arts.
The defender is outnumbered.

Also depends on the state. In mine, regardless of whether or not the aggressor is armed with a weapon, if your life is in fact in immediate danger (or at the very least their is a very realistic threat of serious bodily harm), from the "reasonable person" perspective, deadly force can be justified in self defense. If the aggressor has a weapon he is employing against you, it makes your claim easier to support and harder for the state to prosecute you. Best bet is to stay alert and avoid trouble if at all possible to begin with though.

In my state, if an aggressor repeatedly slams a person's head into the concrete, that could be construed as a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Real life isn't like the movies, where the good guy and the baddie trade blows to the head with tire irons and hammers. In real life, such things can very easily result in death. But sadly, most people don't live in reality and they think .45s will blow a man 20 feet backwards and blows to the head with a lead pipe only cause superficial scratches to the hero.

Now in this case, we weren't there and we really don't know what happened. We don't know who did what to whom first, and what the subsequent chain of events was and in what order they occurred. Given the information that is out there, it really is clear as mud. The state of FL has the burden of proof, as always, and the standard for convicting Zimmerman is high (beyond a reasonable doubt). Unless they have an ace up their sleeve the public doesn't know about (which could well be), the evidence just doesn't convince me that it wasn't self defense. May not have been, of course, but I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt." Perhaps I will be as time passes.

I'll just wait patiently and see.

 

[Shoobee]

Atomd -- I don't think it mattered what Zimmerman did. Obviously the facts don't matter to plenty of people and the media as well. If you read police logs there's plenty of calls about "suspicious people" in them. A lot of those calls lead to valid arrests, stopping criminal activity. If I see a guy with a ski mask and a giant black duffel bag walking into a bank, I would most likely "profile" that guy as a bank robber and call the police.

Profiling gets mixed reviews, sure. Some people like it and use it, no doubt.

 

[Shoobee]

Jad 0110 -- Now in this case, we weren't there and we really don't know what happened. We don't know who did what to whom first, and what the subsequent chain of events was and in what order they occurred. Given the information that is out there, it really is clear as mud. The state of FL has the burden of proof, as always, and the standard for convicting Zimmerman is high (beyond a reasonable doubt). Unless they have an ace up their sleeve the public doesn't know about (which could well be), the evidence just doesn't convince me that it wasn't self defense. May not have been, of course, but I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt." Perhaps I will be as time passes.

The Anthony trial in Florida recently demonstrated that a mere accusation by the State, even when you have the remains of a body, does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Depending on jury selection, and the trial strategy, this case (Zimmerman) could also go either way.

Gun owners and gun non-owners seem to view the universe differently. How this sorts out in jury selection will be noteworthy. A jury of peers means Floridians, obviously. Not New Yorkers or Californians. The views across the nation will be vastly different from the views in the jury room.

 

[Shoobee]

Kleanbore -- Generally speaking, one may not "draw and fire" in defense against an attack by persons without weapons* except under one of the following circumstances:

o The defender is female, and the attacker male.
o The attacker is fit, and the attacked aged or infirm; size may enter into the equation.
o The attacker is known by the defender to be hightly proficient in martial arts.

So as a male 230 lb black belt I am dead in the water.

And all those videos and demos I made breaking boards will someday haunt me.

Because now anybody can just shoot me on sight.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Only if you attack them, they are armed and know you have a black belt. (You were going for irony, weren't you?)

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Shoobee: A jury of peers means Floridians, obviously. Not New Yorkers or Californians. The views across the nation will be vastly different from the views in the jury room.

The term "jury of peers" goes back to the Magna Carta and it was intended to address trials of accused members of the House of Lords. It does not apply in this country.

So as a male 230 lb black belt I am dead in the water.

And all those videos and demos I made breaking boards will someday haunt me.

Because now anybody can just shoot me on sight.

Are the legal constructs of a defense of justification in general, and of the concept of disparity of force in particular, new to you?

 

[JRH6856]

The term "jury of peers" goes back to the Magna Carta and it was intended to address trials of accused members of the House of Lords. It does not apply in this country.

Or more properly, the peers of the realm. The Magna Carta in its original form limited the authority of the king and extended the liberties of the feudal barons. It did little if anything for the common man until much later in history. And as you say, the concept of a jury of peers has no application in a nation where all men are created equal.

 

[Shoobee]

Don't worry, I have taken guns away from perps before. I am not likely to be shot by anyone.

And according to bushido, I do not attack the weak.

It's just too bad that the only trick in Zimmerman's bag was how to shoot an unarmed black kid.

But I am sure that will come out in the trial.

Although I am not sure how a jury of Floridians will react to it.

I was born along the Fla Treasure Coast btw.

And I grew up in Gainesville.

Moved to California soon after that though.

Even here, God did not create all men equal.

Samuel Colt did.

I admire the knowledge of Kleenbore and the wisdom of Microtech.

Even so, Zimmerman is lucky Floridians will be judging him, not Californians.

 

[justice06rr]

Generally speaking, one may not "draw and fire" in defense against an attack by persons without weapons* except under one of the following circumstances:

The defender is female, and the attacker male.
The attaker is fit, and the attacker, aged or infirm; size may enter into the equation.
The attacker is known by the defender to be hightly proficient in martial arts.
The defender is outnumbered.

The existence of one of those conditions does not give permission to draw and shoot. It simply provides the defender with a favorable element in his or her defense of justification. And it may not tip the balance.

*If the defender had reason to believe that the attacker was armed, that's another story.

what imaginary lawbook are you basing this on as facts? ARe you from FL?

Please state the statutes that clearly describe what you posted above. As far as I know, you only have to be in "fear of losing your life and limb" to justify a SD shooting.

A female can just as well inflict harm or death to a male.

and you don't need a weapon to kill someone. you can drown them, throw them off a cliff, in front of a bus, burn them... Get the point?

 

[Aikibiker]

If Zimmerman is lucky and smart he will get a judge that is close to retirement and does not need to stand for re-election and will request a bench trial so no jury will be involved.

Honestly how could he get a fair jury trial at this point? Everyone in the nation is biased one way or another.

 

[MuleRyder]

Don't worry, I have taken guns away from perps before. I am not likely to be shot by anyone.

OK tough guy...

It's just too bad that the only trick in Zimmerman's bag was how to shoot an unarmed black kid.

No racial bias here...

 

[atomd]

Profiling gets mixed reviews, sure. Some people like it and use it, no doubt.

So you would never profile anyone? Say you're walking down an alley at 2am (why? I don't know) and someone is following you. You're going to act the same exact way if it's a young 6'2" male wearing a hoodie with gold teeth as you would if it was a 90 year old lady with a walker looking for her lost cat? I don't think so. Anyone in their right mind would naturally profile that person due to the circumstance.

 

[Sam1911]

Profiling gets mixed reviews, sure. Some people like it and use it, no doubt.

So you would never profile anyone?

We all use "profiling." It is an innate and important part of situational awareness. Heck, it is an innate and important part of every novel human interaction. We look at people and watch them, listen to them, and try (even unconsciously) to figure out what they're up to, what they want, if they're sympathetic, if they're truthful, if they are a member of our group and likely to respond to us in familiar ways, or if they are an outsider to our group and their actions, intents, and thresholds are unknown and possibly dangerous. From a S.A. standpoint, "profiling" helps tell us if someone "fits" in this setting. Does his presence here make sense, do his actions fit some lawful common purpose that is appropriate here, or is he acting suspiciously? This is a vital facet of all of our early warning systems.

Where "profiling" has gotten a bad rap is in the use by agents of the government (aka, police officers, etc.) to arbitrarily stop, detain, search, and otherwise hassle members of the public based entirely on a racial profile. (As in the old line about being stopped for "DWB", i.e. Driving While Black.)

That's a matter of agents of the government violating folks' civil rights by treating them, in an official capacity, unequally due to their race.

As a private individual, you "profile" all the time, as part of your natural "Observe, Orient..." function and that's just fine. Ethically (and for practical reasons), you probably don't want to go acting overtly based entirely on your initial perceptions, but you profile every unknown person you meet.

 

[atomd]

Where "profiling" has gotten a bad rap is in the use by agents of the government (aka, police officers, etc.) to arbitrarily stop, detain, search, and otherwise hassle members of the public based entirely on a racial profile. (As in the old line about being stopped for "DWB", i.e. Driving While Black.)

Yes but the police didn't shoot Martin, Zimmerman did. I'm just saying that we all profile people so to say that Zimmerman was wrong for profiling is hypocritical. Law enforcement profiles people all the time....they even have people that are hired to profile as part of their job. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a totally different issue.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes but the police didn't shoot Martin, Zimmerman did. I'm just saying that we all profile people so to say that Zimmerman was wrong for profiling is hypocritical.

Right. He saw something he thought was "suspicious" and most of the rest is speculation. Anyone doing "neighborhood watch" type activities is going to be doing some sort of "profiling" because what they're looking for is anything that doesn't "fit." (Race may be a part of that picture, but isn't a very sound part and should probably be discounted.)

But there are many things that might not seem like they "fit" but which turn out to be of no concern. But you notice, you assess. You "profile."

Law enforcement profiles people all the time....they even have people that are hired to profile as part of their job. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a totally different issue.

Well, that's two completely different issues. A "Profiler" is someone trained in a certain kind of forensic psychology who develops a hypothetical concept of a suspect who is not known to the police. That's almost completely limited to the realm of attempting to identify and capture very nasty process predators. (For instance, observing a string of what appear to be serial murders and trying to guess what kind of person the investigators should be looking for. ... "Single white male, 30-45 years old, lives alone in a detached house, probably rural. May have been treated for the following ... etc.")

Racial profiling, which is what has gotten a bad rap, is totally separate, and merely describes a tendency (and occasionally, departmental policy) of some street cops to hassle, stop, interrogate, and/or detain folks they meet based on their race. (For instance, "What's that 20 year old black male doing driving a BMW? Let's pull him over and check him out.")

The two things sound somewhat similar, but they're worlds apart.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by justice06rr: what imaginary lawbook are you basing this on as facts? ARe you from FL?

The findings on what constitutes th ability of an attacker to inflict death or great bodily harm have their roots in the English Common Law, which formed the original basis for the laws of all of our territories and of all of our states except one. That one is not Florida.

Please state the statutes that clearly describe what you posted above.

Not everything in the law is contained in statures; don't forget the case law. The absence of something from the state code is not indication that is is not embodied in the law.

As far as I know, you only have to be in "fear of losing your life and limb" to justify a SD shooting.

That s part of it, but there's also the little matter of whether the actor had a basis for a reasonable belief, and that will be judged by others.

A female can just as well inflict harm or death to a male.

and you don't need a weapon to kill someone. you can drown them, throw them off a cliff, in front of a bus, burn them... Get the point?

The question is not one of whether one can kill without using a weapon, or how; it's a matter of what level of ability would, in the presence of all of the other necessary factors, justify the use of deadly force in self defense.

This is a pretty good read that includes a discussion of the concept of disparity of force.

This case should illustrate pretty well that, when it is necessary to cite a disparity of force in a case involving the use of deadly ofce against unarmed attackers (in this case, threee of them, in a stand your ground state), it can be an uphill battle.

Here is an account of a disparity of force defense that failed in Florida.

This paper, written by an attorney for attorneys on the subject of defending the self defense case, also addresses the subject.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Mayoral hypocrisy in NYC is not the topic here...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Back to strategy and tactics: profiling can be mistaken and may be unfair in the majority of cases.* However, previous criminal activity at Retreat at Twin Lakes RTL did involve black youths who appeared to be outsiders (using the walk through gate). So was the neighborhood watchman (appointed by the homeowners association) out of line in being suspicious of a unidentified black youth walking through the community in the rain?

---------------------------------
* "...they actually detained 82,200 of the people they stopped?" I believe most got written tickets.

 

[Shoobee]

Justice06rr -- A female can just as well inflict harm or death to a male.

Funny thing, they seem to do it quite naturally all the time. Not necessarily relevant to the Martin/Zimmerman issue, but true even so.

Sam1911 -- ... He saw something he thought was "suspicious" and most of the rest is speculation. Anyone doing "neighborhood watch" type activities is going to be doing some sort of "profiling" because what they're looking for is anything that doesn't "fit." (Race may be a part of that picture, but isn't a very sound part and should probably be discounted.)

But there are many things that might not seem like they "fit" but which turn out to be of no concern. But you notice, you assess. You "profile."

I completely agree with Sam, that the likely profile may or may not be relevant, and yes, we all do it. But acting on a profile by making a call to 9-1-1 (or directly to the dispatcher) based only on a profile makes no sense at all to me, which Zimmerman did. It is however mounds of evidence for paranoia.

I had a situation only recently were a car alarm went off around 2:30 a.m. At the same time I heard a metallic object drop onto hard pavement, as if the car alarm had startled someone who was doing some mechanical work at 2:30 a.m. Rather odd.

So I got up and put on some sweat pants and sweat shirt and tennis shoes, and a dark jacket, and grabbed my cell phone and a bruising flashlight (size of a club).

I noticed there were 2 lean tall black guys checking out cars parked in the open car garage across the street, and a big white guy parked in a car nearby. So I shined the flashlight on the guy in the car from about 20 yards away, at which moment he gunned the running engine and sped off, stopped about two blocks away, the two black guys got in, and they all sped away.

Since I got the license plate, I was tempted to call it in. But it would not have done any good. No probably cause for an arrest. No actual crime in progress witnessed. They fled the scene too fast. Up until the moment they ran, I had no direct evidence they were doing anything wrong. They could have been fixing a flat. They could have been dropping of their girlfriends. I did not recognize them, but I don't know everyone in the neighborhood. They could have just moved in. Profiling alone as a strategy or tactic does not work. Only someone very inexperienced or paranoid would be tempted to fall for it.

 

[RTR_RTR]

It takes a lot of malice, or inexperience, to aim center chest in this case, and blow someone away like that.

Are we still going on about shooting center mass?

 

[Neverwinter]

Only if you attack them, they are armed and know you have a black belt. (You were going for irony, weren't you?)

Correction: Only if they claimed he attacked him, and he is not alive and conscious to rebut that account.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

I had not seen any report that said that Martin was shot center mass !I would expect a shot at contact distance ! Kevin

 

[Shoobee]

CNBrown -- Back to strategy and tactics: profiling can be mistaken and may be unfair in the majority of cases.* However, previous criminal activity at Retreat at Twin Lakes RTL did involve black youths who appeared to be outsiders (using the walk through gate). So was the neighborhood watchman (appointed by the homeowners association) out of line in being suspicious of a unidentified black youth walking through the community in the rain?

I have never seen anyone committing a crime in the rain.

And I have been doing neighborhood watch for decades.

Perps seem to hate getting wet and cold in the rain.

They normally take that day off from crime and drink beer and smoke dope to stay warm.

People go out into the rain to run errands. And then only when they must.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Shoobee: It takes a lot of malice, or inexperience, to aim center chest in this case, and blow someone away like that.

I cannot understand how anyone could characterize aiming where all qualified self defense instructors teach their students to aim (unless COM is not the largest target presented) as something that takes either malice or inexperience. Anyone who aims at anyone else is simply naive.

However, it is not known whether Zimmerman did aim at all, or whether he had any choice in where to shoot Martin.

But acting on a profile by making a call to 9-1-1 (or directly to the dispatcher) based only on a profile makes no sense at all to me, which Zimmerman did.

Assessing whether Zimmerman based his suspicion on a "profile" would require speculation.

It is however mounds of evidence for paranoia.

Is that a qualified opinion based on psychological knowledge?

I have never seen anyone committing a crime in the rain.

I've never seen anyone shoot someone else in the rain or snow or during a tornado warning, but I won't base any conclusions on my lack of having experienced same.

 

[Alaska444]

If Martin reached for Martin's gun and could have used it against him, the second degree murder case will fall apart. In that case, the disparity of force issues are moot. If Zimmerman shows that he did not resort to deadly force until Martin tried to take the gun, then that would be justifiable homicide if Martin also first attacked Zimmerman as he claims. We will have to wait and see how the defense plays this out.