East_TN_Patriot

I'll stick with my Walther PPS. The Walther is one of my favorite handguns I have ever owned, and I've owned quite a few. 6, 7, or 8 rounds of 9mm in a slim and reasonably compact package, no external safety, and shoots like a dream.

That's what I was getting at. It is far too vague. A complaint affidavit is supposed to contain enough information to show that evidence exists to prove each element of the crime has been met. So for 2nd degree murder, the affidavit should at least somewhat spell out how he acted with intent to kill Martin with "a depraved mind regardless to human life.". I just don't see that in there. Does saying someone is an @$$hole show depravity? I've written complaint affidavits as long as that for some misdemeanor cases I made. In all fairness, I worked in the 14th Judicial Circuit in Florida, and each circuit does things slightly differently. Perhaps their standards for writing up a complaint are different than I was required to do. Also, it was common practice to be somewhat vague in the complaint so that you didn't lay out all of your evidence in the public document and kept it private in the actual case file. This is done for practical reasons so that all of the evidence doesn't get into the media and possibly damage the case, impede the continuing investigation, or taint a possible jury. Of course, the defense can get the entire case file through discovery (assuming the prosecution is ethical and does turn over all evidence as required by the law). I'm under the suspicion based on what I read that the prosecution plans to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante whose attitudes towards criminals and disregard for the justice system was so deep and spiteful that it raised to the level necessary to show a depraved mindset. I think this is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps there is some other evidence to back it up, but I think at most this act is a clear case of manslaughter - at most. I think it's pretty obvious that Zimmerman is a decent person who made a really dumb decision, put himself in a position that got out of control, and he responded with a bit too much force. Maybe the prosecution is hoping for a plea bargain. Perhaps the prosecutor charged high for political reasons and hopes she can pin any sort of acquittal or lesser conviction on an overly sympathetic jury. Or maybe she really believes this was a heinous crime deserving of life in prison. Either way, I feel as if the charge is over the top. Always remember folks, the CJ system is not our friend. It is a bureaucratic organization with it's own goals, ideology, and cultural mindset. Most of the time it works to our own personal advantage, but if you come into the focus of the system, you are now subject to their interpretations of "justice" and right vs. wrong. I think I have mentioned it on TGO before, but there is an excellent book chapter that talks about the ideals versus realities in our justice system (link to it below). In it, Packer points out that our system is founded upon the idea of "due process," but in reality it has taken on a "crime control" focus that relies on plea bargains and efficient processing of cases through the system. In the due process model, justice is measured by the process itself, regardless of the outcome. The crime control model measures justice by the outcome, specifically a quick and efficient guilty verdict. When Packer wrote this back in the 1960s, he suggested that we were returning to a "due process" system, which was a logical assumption based on the multiple SCOTUS decisions that came out during the Warren Court at that time. However, since then, it is clear that we have most definitely gravitated to the crime control model. I actually use this dichotomy to explain police misconduct, problems with the court process, and our current model of punishment. For those interested, here is a link to Packer's chapter on this: http://www.hhs.csus.edu/Homepages/CJ/BikleB/Packer%20-%20Two%20Models%20of%20the%20Criminal%20Process.doc

I don't agree with Dershowitz very often, but I do on this. I found a PDF of the complaint affidavit and it's absolutely pathetic. It does say that it does not contain all pertinent facts and evidence, but if I had ever turned in an affidavit like that, it would have been rejected. It doesn't speak to the elements of the crime at all. If they don't have much more of a case than this... http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

Are you so sure that your jury would be so sympathetic to you carrying a firearm? One could easily make the argument that your justification for using deadly force never would have happened had you not been carrying a firearm. Your scenario assumes that your jury sees your right to carry a firearm as legitimate. Just something to consider. How many times have your heard someone comment about the Zimmerman case "why was he carrying a gun in the first place?"

Generally, you have to prove two things: 1) that you believed your life was in danger, and 2) that your belief was REASONABLE based on the circumstances as you understood them to be. Ultimately, you have to convince a jury that had they been in the exact same situation that they would have believed as you. That can be tough to do. To put this argument in a different perspective, using your original point, if you can argue that deadly force is justified because they MIGHT beat you to death, then any physical assault would justify the use of deadly force. In essence, yes, you do need to be subjected to quite a butt-kicking before you can lawfully justify the use of deadly force. You have to be at the point where you genuinely believed that you were preventing your own death, not just trying to prevent being injured. It's not a pleasant thought to admit that you may just have to take a beating, but such is the nature of justifiable use of force. Like I said, you can take your gun and pistol whip them if it's justified, but a physical assault does not typically justify deadly force. Now, as you point out, situational factors play into this. Age, size, fitness level, the exact nature of the attack, number of attackers, the belief the person has a weapon, etc. all factor in to the determination of reasonableness. It's a "totality of the circumstances" situation.

Yes, it can, but does the evidence bear out that his head was being so violently bashed into concrete that he was legitimately in fear for his life? From the police video and Zimmerman refusing medical treatment that evening, clearly it wasn't that violent of a head bashing. Could Zimmerman have used his pistol to hit Martin over the head? Certainly, but once you pull that trigger, you have to be able to prove that you were facing the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury (and it is defined in Florida law what qualifies as serious bodily injury). This speaks to the multiple people I have spoken to and seen post on this very forum about brandishing their firearm when they are approached by a suspicious person in a parking lot or by a belligerent driver during a case of road rage. There's a lot of flexibility within the law regarding the use of physical force for self defense, but far less than for the use of deadly force. Zimmerman skipped a step or two on the use of force continuum and now he is paying the price.

I was a police dispatcher at the start of my law enforcement career (thankfully that job didn't last long before I moved on to patrol). Unless things have changed, dispatchers have no lawful authority to order a caller to do anything. In fact, they have so little autonomy, they are generally prohibited from giving any sort of legal advice or provide instructions that are outside of the scope of their training. For example, to give first aid instructions over the phone, the dispatcher must be specifically trained in "emergency medical dispatch" or a similar type of training. The reason for this is obvious. A dispatcher is not trained in the law and they aren't at the scene to see what's really going on. If they give bad info, they can be held responsible.

I forgot about that place.

That is correct. This will be just the start of a long process of legal challenges, hearings, and depositions. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, does anyone think he got off without a hitch? This is something too many permit holders don't think about when they carry every day. If you shoot someone, you WILL end up in court at some point. That is exactly why it's important to know the law, keep a low profile, and don't even remotely think of reaching for your firearm except as an absolute last resort.

Like I said earlier in this thread, his actions did not fit the justifiable use of deadly force requirements as laid out in Florida law. People tried to say I was wrong, but again, you simply can't shoot someone just because they physically attack you. It takes deadly force to justify the use of deadly force and someone punching you in the face just doesn't qualify unless there are very unusual circumstances. I told some people last night that I knew a charge was coming when the prosecutor opted not to send the case to the grand jury. No prosecutor is going to take the heat of this case by filing a no information on their own. For those curious, 2nd degree murder is under Florida State Statute 782.04(2): (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Now, as many of you already know, it's not uncommon for a prosecutor to charge as high as the evidence will allow with the hope of negotiating a plea bargain. My prediction is that this case will end either in a plea deal or a trial with a conviction for manslaughter. Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, but I still say that his actions were not legal based on the evidence we know through the media.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/old-west-re-enactor-sent-to-prison/article_e4cbd07c-82b0-11e1-a230-001a4bcf887a.html

OK, I'll check them out. I need to run by there anyhow. It's been a while. Thanks.

I've encountered a handful of people who prefer SOB carry and I have made a couple of SOB holsters for people, but my personal impression is that it's not the most practical or comfortable way to carry. I got in the habit of carrying my pistol strong side either in an OWB or IWB holster. Always in the same place, whether it was my duty holster or off-duty holster (and now my CCW holster).

If Stewart is our only hope, this country is seriously screwed. That douche can't make up his mind on whether he is a comedian, political pundit, or journalist. I strongly suspect that the only reason he cares at all is because he can shoot his mouth off about it and get ratings.

Does anyone know of a source that has US made mil-spec P-38 or P-51 can openers? I see several places on the web that claim to sell them, but reviews tend to suggest that they are very poorly made Chinese imports instead. I'd like to grab 4 or 5 to add to my survival gear. Does anyone know of a source around Knoxville?

From what I gather, the attorneys dumped him because he cut off contact, wouldn't return phone calls, disappeared, but did call Hannity and the prosecutor. Allegedly, the lawyers said they would continue to represent him if he chose to cooperate with them again.

I think that the basic principle you are looking for is one of harm versus intent. The law traditionally only punished people for doing intentional harm to one another. Over time, it has evolved to account for particular situations and changes over time. Now, the law tends to be used as a mechanism through which we try to eliminate all forms of harm in society, which is not possible. There are two competing perspectives on how "crime" is defined. The consensus perspective sees the law as a representation of the dominant values in society, what some call the "collective conscience." This perspective is a very democratic view of the law-making process. The other perspective is the conflict view that sees society as a collection of various groups with their own interests competing over limited access to resources and power. In this model, the law represents the interests of those groups who are most successful at having their goals and values advanced through the law-making process. As such, concepts of "right and wrong" are completely arbitrary and socially defined by people in power. I think in reality it is a combination of both. Hate crime legislation was a democratic effort to deal with a problem that has been pervasive throughout the history of this country. It became an issue because minority groups were successful in making their ideas heard, legitimized, and passed into the law. Now, as far as "mind-reading" goes, that speaks to intent. Take the Zimmerman/Martin case. The legal debate is not over whether Zimmerman shot Martin, but one of why he did it. Intent (or the mens rea) is one key component of the criminal law. Society tends to forgive mistakes. We punish intentional acts. So, yes, in a way mind-reading is exactly what our justice system tries to do. Justification is part of this. Our society says that intentionally taking another human life is wrong, unless... Then we have a list of reasons why we say it is okay to kill someone. These justifications reflect the values, morality, and history of the group constructing these justifications. For example, if you hit someone with your vehicle and kill them, intent - or lack thereof - is the main issue. Was it an accident? Did the person step off the curb in front of you? Were you driving recklessly and irresponsibly? These factors are important to understanding why you killed someone with your car. Taking this further, did you see the person and steer your vehicle to strike them? Was it intended to be a terrible joke gone wrong or did you plan to use your car to kill them? Even if you did intend to kill them, other facts are important. Did you kill the person with your car because the person was molesting your kid or banging your wife? Or did you kill them over a business dispute with hopes of collecting insurance? Was the victim a defenseless child? Or did you do it because the person was a random black/gay/Jewish/etc. person who did nothing to you at all, but you hated the fact that they were part of that group so you killed them. There are different levels of moral indignation within the same type of crime and it all goes to what was going on in the mind of the offender.

I tend to agree with many comments here. Although I am sensitive to issues related to race and "hate crime," I generally don't support hate crime statutes because I don't think they are applied fairly or equally. I also generally don't like the idea of a crime being more severe just because of the perceived racism of the offender. Is hate or anger based on race somehow deserving of a special designation over hatred or anger for some other equally arbitrary characteristic that is not embodied into the law? I understand the underlying logic, but I think that proposed solution is not the answer.

On an ironic side note, one of my students asked me to help with their "Justice for Trayvon" event planned for this week somewhere in Knoxville. I haven't drafted a response yet, nor have I read their ideas, but I definitely need to do that tomorrow. I'm curious to see if anything we have discussed in class has stuck.

Sure, I think what you are saying is accurate. In fact, when I teach my classes on race and crime, I start out by saying clearly that we all have biases in our lives, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Bias is nothing more than making an educated guess based on prior knowledge. When man first walked the earth, they had to develop some level of bias on what place would provide food, where water may be located, or which cave might have a bear in it. We all stereotype, and we all have some level of prejudice. Even I catch myself on occasion and I'd like to think I of all people would know better. The important thing to note is that virtually all of us have some level of prejudice in our minds and don't really realize it. As one person commented way earlier in this thread or a related one, many stereotypes and prejudices do have a kernel of truth to them. The problem is that we tend to take this kernel of truth that we have observed through some limited experience, expand it and apply it to others, and then develop general attitudes based on it. For instance, the hoodie issue in the Martin shooting is an example. Geraldo observed that gang thugs wear hoodies, so he made the leap of logic that if you see a black kid in a hoodie, they must be in a gang. Well, that on it's own seems absurd, but then think about how many times we all have made the comment, "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck..." In reality, it was this simple bit of what I would call prejudice, that many people were calling racism. They were trying to argue that Zimmerman saw a black kid in a hoodie and automatically assumed he was a criminal. I don't believe the evidence bears out this accusation, which is a pretty obvious case of prejudice on their part (they automatically assume because a white guy calls the cops on a black kid that means he's racist). For those in the black community making this accusation, their beliefs have a kernel of truth. Some white folks really are racist, but they make the mistake of stereotyping and making prejudiced statements against whites in general. Obviously this works both ways. Others seem to have gotten all wound up over my comments, but all I was trying to point out is that this issue is more complicated about people being racist or not. It's about our stereotypes and prejudices, many of which are unrecognized and are many times a bigger problem. It's also about taking a moment to step outside of our own worldview and trying to see the situation from their perspective. Whether we think their perspective makes sense to us, it's as real to them as our perspective is to us.

Good grief folks! A guy can't make any contribution to this thread without everyone going nuts and getting their panties in a wad. Go ahead and believe what you want about the law. If you don't want to listen to a guy who worked as a LEO in the very state this event took place, investigated several felony cases of battery, and trained new cops on the law, that's fine. We shall see what the grand jury says and that will be that. However, I assure you that in most places in this country, if you shoot someone just because they are punching you in the face, you are likely to be charged with manslaughter. Massad Ayoob runs down these sorts of scenarios all the time, and gun owners choose to ignore the reality of the law because they disagree with it in principle. If you want to take that gamble, have at it. If you want to consider my general comments about bias, prejudice, and racism as a personal affront, was not my intent, nor was it meant specifically as a criticism against anyone in particular. People are making blanket statements about race, wondering why others are getting wound up over it, then get wound up over my comments pointing out the problems associated with blanket statements and where they come from. If folks want to keep talking about "them" and how "they" are bad people because "they are all" the same, then enjoy the discussion. Just don't be surprised when nothing changes in this world when it comes to race relations. These comments are not any different than the ones made about whites by Sharpton or Jackson. It's simply inaccurate and nonconstructive to stereotype people in society.

What many people fail to realize is the comparison between blatant racism and it's cousin "prejudice." Seeing racism is easy to do and easy to deal with. Prejudice is not. It hides behind rhetoric and attitudes that people keep inside. It rears it's head in words like "they" or "them" when referring to a racial or ethnic group as if they are a monolithic group who all believe exactly the same way. This is the problem we see here. Sharpton and Jackson are talking about "them" when referring to whites, and many whites, including some here, are using the word "they" to refer to blacks in general. Let's be clear, should there be rioting or further violent behavior from members of the black community, it is "some" from that community. Many blacks are as outraged at this morbid circus as we are. We need to stop acting like all blacks/Hispanics/whites/etc. are all the same. Perhaps many people who use the broad labels of "they/them" don't really mean to put everyone in the same basket, but in times when tensions are high and emotions are on edge, these broad categorizations tend to be interpreted more literally (think about the argument with the spouse when "you always" or "you never" rear their head and it results in a bigger argument about how the accusation is inaccurate and unfair). My point is that words have significant meaning and whether we like it or not, we should be careful not to lump people together and criticize them as a group, especially based on an arbitrary label like race/ethnicity.

I was a police officer in Florida for 7 years that included the year when the SYG law was passed. Florida law justifies the use of deadly force in cases where an individual has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, which basically means catastrophic injury that could potentially result in death, serious disfigurement, permanent loss of bodily function like eyesight, etc., or to prevent a forcible felony such as rape or kidnapping. A kid punching you in the face hardly qualifies as any of these. Is it possible for an unarmed person to kill a man? Sure, but it's very rare and it's going to take a tremendous burden of proof to convince a grand jury that his alleged belief was "reasonable." As a LEO we were trained on how to deal with such a situation and it was made very clear that we could not use deadly force against someone who was pounding on us unless the beating was so severe that we were concerned that we were about to lose consciousness and/or risk having our firearm taken from us. I have personally been involved in cases where the victim required hospitalization following the attack and the SA's office and/or grand jury determined that the injuries didn't reach the level of "serious bodily injury" as defined in Florida statutes. It is my understanding that Tennessee law is very similar, and I am certain that Kentucky law is as well (I was a cop there for 3 years before moving to Florida). Seeing the video from the police department immediately following the shooting reveals that although he had injuries, they weren't even remotely close to reaching the level of serious bodily injury. If one would return a no true bill because they think the decedent is a dirtbag and deserved what they got, then they have no respect for the law. My point is this: if you are carrying a firearm, you can't simply shoot someone because they are attacking you. They must be presenting a very high level of force, a level so high that you will either be killed or the ramifications of the attack are so serious that physically you will never be the same again. You can't just shoot someone to protect yourself from harm. Deadly force can only be used in the face of grievous harm. This is a very important point that far too many CCW permit holders fail to understand at it will be at the risk of their freedom as Mr. Zimmerman is currently learning firsthand.

I believe he is referring to a fellow who was on the show (from Georgia IIRC) who made some pretty... um, let's say, interesting comments, and he has allegedly had his firearms taken away and was referred for mental evaluation.

I've not heard any complaints about Stag rifles. It seems that for the money they are good firearms.