Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[mikegideon]

I can't tell who is doing the shooting in the video. That happened way before my time.

The Klan.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I can't tell who is doing the shooting in the video. That happened way before my time.

Yup, Klan and American Nazi Party. I only discovered the event a few years ago. I was on the road playing music in 1979 and didn't hear about it. An interesting story because it more closely resembles science fiction alternate reality rather than "something that could really happen". It expands the range of events which a person might imagine "could really happen" in the USA. If asked if that could happen in 1979 USA then I'd have replied, "Nope, no way!"

Some accounts claim that commies returned fire. Some accounts claim a commie shot first. Open carry was legal and the commies would habitually open-carry. The commies had decided not to open-carry that day, which in retrospect was not a great idea. If the commies had been open-packing then maybe the klan would have finished the symbolic drive-thru and gone home to cook burgers, drink beer, and burn a few crosses. Or alternately maybe the body-count would have been more balanced.

Similar to the Z and M case, it is possible to arm-chair quarterback and assign different percentages of blame according to time-frame. Both sides had been antagonizing each other for months. The commies put on a "death to the klan" rally and dared the klan to show up and get their butts kicked. The klan didn't have to show up. But after being attacked while "peacefully" driving thru, they put up successful self-defense cases in court. You can blame each side for each alternate tit-for-tat which occurred over months. There are various gov conspiracy theories, some of which are not entirely impossible in light of undisputed facts.

Most online accounts are not from unbiased sources. Most online accounts are either published by commies or nazis. If you try to research from yer laptop on a filtered network such as a hospital emergency room or university network-- You will find the commie accounts because the commie accounts are not flagged as "politically incorrect or inflammatory". However, the balancing nazi accounts will be blocked by nanny filters!

To clarify my meaning-- For instance if a person desires to study a street war between the crips and the bloods. Though a person has no sympathy for either side, he would study accounts from both sides. If politically correct institutional nanny filters block crips websites but do not block bloods websites, then it would be impossible to find balanced understanding. Similarly if Google ranks all bloods-sympathetic hits at the top, but google returns crips-sympathetic hits starting at page 100, then it would be nearly the same as active filtering censorship. An amateur historian would have to read all the way to page 100 to find balanced accounts from both sides.

[tnhawk]

Hope so. That NBC edit of the 911 call was absolutely egregious. Completely took statement where Zim merely answered dispatcher's question of "white, hispanic, or black" and made it into a "by the way, I'm a racist" statement.

- OS

The New York Times reports that a NBC Miami based producer has been dismissed after airing deceptive audio recordings. Why didn't the "audio experts" catch the doctored recordings before now?

Edited April 7, 2012 by tnhawk

[Garufa]

The fallout is really moot at this point. The damage is done, the media has nothing to worry about and the ignorant are up in arms with no evidence. I wonder after all this time if anyone remembers what originally happened.

[Guest bkelm18]

It was the gunman on the grassy knoll.

[Mark@Sea]

Well, so far every accusation and complaint raised by the 'victims'* family has been shown to be groundless, and all the media hype has proven out as manufactured.

* A more descriptive word would be assailant; evidence and eyewitness reports have Martin beating Zimmerman into a pulp before the shot was fired.

[Guest lostpass]

very saddened by the us versus them mentality. On both sides. We are Americans, we should be better than that.

[RobertNashville]

very saddened by the us versus them mentality. On both sides. We are Americans, we should be better than that.

Us vs them?

What I think you are seeing is a predictable response to threats being made by one group against another...threats not based on rational thought or on evidence; but on hate.

[Mark@Sea]

Us being people who support innocent until proven guilty, right to trial, etc.

Them being people who think rioting is good exercize, support Judge Lynch, innocence or guilt determined by skin color, extortion is just how things get done.

The barbarians are inside the gates, and some people still want to debate the nature of the problem.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I'm pretty sure this is not a true statement, and I imagine that LEOs that post here could back it up.

We're talking about a fit, football playing, 6 foot plus male reportedly sitting on the chest of a man who's down, pounding on his face. If it were me, I would be afraid of significant bodily harm and be in fear of my life and I would shoot.

I can imagine a hulking 6 foot plus boyfriend beating a 100 pound, five foot tall woman with his fists, and if I was on a Grand Jury I would no-bill the woman if she shot him.

I can imagine a 6 foot plus teenager beating a frail 70-year-old man with his fists; If I were an officer, I would not arrest the 70 year old if he shot his attacker.

Actually, I can think of quite a few scenarios in which using fists would be considered deadly force, or put someone in fear of significant bodily harm, which is the test in many jurisdictions.

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.

Edited April 8, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot

[East_TN_Patriot]

Too funny! We know that Jackson and Sharpton have selfish motives whenever they get involved in social issues, but after reading a lot of these post I have come to realize that they are not alone in their racial hatred.

I know, I know. You are not a racist. You are just tired of all of the politically correct crap, the affirmative action, the social program and the overall general existence of the non-white humanoid. Good news for you. You are still in America and it's ok to feel that way, but eagerly anticipating a race war/riot. I'm at a loss for words.

I hope that a few years from now people are not talking about what a good sight this was for guns and debate before a bunch of like minded individuals high jacked it to serve their own selfish and hateful purposes.

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.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And prejudice comes from bias. Try to get rid of that. That's almost to the point of being genetic. It

also depends on the prejudice you are referring to. I don't think you're trying to justify hate crimes,

but prejudice can cause a lot of things, that is, it's cousin, bias can. It can cause you to do or not do

something also. That's how you differentiate one thing from another. It can keep you from making

the wrong choice in a situation.

Racism is a tool for a group to use to get something from another group, or an excuse to use for

their own behaviour. It's an invented word that is, all too often, used by a group to mask their own

attitude, and it's representation by that group is almost never exclusive for the whole group. In other

words, like Links said about some of his friends, I know plenty of hard working blacks that just want

their families to be left alone and respected. So I, too, know that there is a group of the mischievous

in their own group that are trying to stir things up, and is for totally different reasons.

The class or group known as "white" are put on a pedestal when it comes to junk law like "hate crimes"

and the thought of that is offensive, since it only appears to apply to one group or another. Laws

like that only cause more "prejudice" than they stop. People like Jackson and Sharpton are not even

necessarily racists. They are more opportunists and appear to be looking out for themselves and

how much money they can get their hands on, or power of some sort. If they really cared for the things

they say, why aren't they more concerned for the majority of black deaths caused by other blacks in

their own neighborhoods? Instead, they bypass a typical day in Chicago where they could actually be

helping to stop the slaughter of their own race. There's more to it that simple prejudice and you know

that, ET. I'm not even arguing with you, just bringing out the obvious that seems to be forgotten.

One case out of literally thousands that involved a non black killing a black and the word "racist" had

to appear. That's disingenuous and does nothing good to stop any problems. It is because the power

that some choose to extract from isolated events like this cause political mischief to keep the

problem going.

I don't accept being called a racist by anyone. In fact, I resent it.

When I and others used the term, "bring it on", you should note I also said, "if they want a race riot or

war", and that doesn't even closely mean I'm racist, so that would make an assumption a very bad one.

When someone uses the word "they" it is not necessarily a sign of hiding prejudice or whatever. It is

pointing out the subject of the topic. I have no control of what "they" do, but I do have control of my

actions and beliefs.

So, before anyone around here decides I or others are racists, you better do it by some other means,

like meeting me and finding out for yourself before you draw that poorly made assumption. You might

be surprised.

[mikegideon]

They doesn't have to mean all black folks. In this thread, it has meant Sharpton and all his friends. That excludes a LOT of black folks.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A huge number of them. But the thread has drifted, somewhat, and has included the

name calling of "racist" and "prejudice". I think this is the intended consequence of

these types of situations. They are used to inject what isn't there.

Edited April 8, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

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 always assumed this would be the basis of his defense.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And even though he's not a LEO, it is still reasonable to assume that defense if the "facts" and "witnesses"

indicate he was underneath and trying to defend himself, which some seem to think just doesn't fit the

narrative, but I do.

[mikegideon]

A huge number of them. But the thread has drifted, somewhat, and has included the

name calling of "racist" and "prejudice". I think this is the intended consequence of

these types of situations. They are used to inject what isn't there.

The story has drifted. Thugs threatening to riot, and Nazis showing up for some of the fun.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I know. I had to say a few things on my own defense because of that. Some that might accuse others

around here of "racism". Yeh, I saw the NAZI's down there. Irony is found in all biologic life forms, isn't

it?

[Sheepdog]

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.

Strongly disagree with you, there, ETP. When a "kid" is strong enough to get you on the ground, sit on top of you, and punch you in the face repeatedly, I can most definitely see that fear for one's life or of debilitating injury is reasonable. It doesn't matter if it's rare for people to die from it. When you're being attacked, you're not calculating odds. Statistical probabilities are not the point. The point is that you are getting your ass kicked. You might not know your attacker's strength, or his fighting skill, or how old he is, or his level of rage, or his reasons for beating you, or if he has a weapon, or if he'll be able to take your weapon, or if he's got friends who are coming to join in.

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.

As a LEO, you were trained to fight. You were given a number of non-lethal (pepper spray, taser) and less lethal (baton) options to improve your odds in a fight. You were given a radio which, with a single press of a big button, would connect you to someone who would summon aid far faster and in far greater numbers than would come for any regular citizen.

Zimmerman did not have that spectrum of options. He had fist, foot, tooth and claw, which were proving ineffective. And he had a gun, which was overwhelmingly effective. He was receiving head injuries which could have led to a loss of consciousness, which could have then led to him having his firearm taken from him.

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.

I agree. Conversely, however, if one would indict Zimmerman simply because he didn't get beaten enough, they have no respect for the inviolability of one's person.

The correct reason to return a No Bill is if it is reasonable to believe Zimmerman was attacked, brought to ground, and battered further. The correct reason to indict Zimmerman would be if there were reason to believe he initiated the physical altercation.

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.

Due to the lack of grievous harm to his face, you have indicted Zimmerman. So do you believe that deadly force can only be used in the face of grievous harm, or after it? As you've said, Tennessee and Florida law say that you may use deadly force when *you* are in reasonable fear of your life or serious injury. They don't say you have to actually allow yourself to be harmed.

According to the available evidence, I believe it reasonable to think Zimmerman was in fear of his life or serious injury. The lesson he's learning is not that deadly force can only be used in the face of grievous harm. The lessons are (A) life is not fair, and ( deadly force used against a member of a protected class will get you into a world of hurt, whether it was justified or not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think a problem in any argument made for or against a situation is the use of the term "reasonable" at

the time of the occurrence, as opposed to the classroom situation where you have time to tear apart all

the nuances that might not be apparent to the person in the situation. If you're the one getting the short

end of an ass whooping and fear for your life, you might not be able to reasonably determine otherwise.

Also, LEO's should be held to a higher level, due to their training and the tools at their disposal. It's really

not reasonable to compare a LEO to a civilian, is it? But a cop wasn't involved in this situation, so I'm not

sure of the relevance when comparing Zimmerman to Martin.

[CQB Elite]

I think a problem in any argument made for or against a situation is the use of the term "reasonable" at

the time of the occurrence, as opposed to the classroom situation where you have time to tear apart all

the nuances that might not be apparent to the person in the situation. If you're the one getting the short

end of an ass whooping and fear for your life, you might not be able to reasonably determine otherwise.

Also, LEO's should be held to a higher level, due to their training and the tools at their disposal. It's really

not reasonable to compare a LEO to a civilian, is it? But a cop wasn't involved in this situation, so I'm not

sure of the relevance when comparing Zimmerman to Martin.

Each situation is different from the next so you can't compare them. This is especially true in use of deadly force cases. Imagine you are sitting on a jury in the trial of a 32 year old construction worker who got in a fight with a 19 year old kid and ended up shooting & killing him. The defendant is 6'2" and weighs 225 lbs. He's in very good physical shape. The 19 year old is 5'11"/185 lbs. The trial starts and thru testimony you learn the "victim" had earned a Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and was in the U.S. Navy and a recent graduate of BUD/S and therefore in fantastic physical shape.... You got to hear all of the story before making a decision.

I guess in theory LEO's should be held to a different standard because of their training, but not all LEO's are trained to the same level. They are trained to the basic minimum but often its up to them to seek training beyond that. In my case- I wanted to become a firearms and vehicle operations instructor. I also wanted to be able to teach in the academy. To be able to do this I had to take a 80 hr instructor techniques course followed by a 44 hour firearms & a 40 hr driving instructor course. I also did a lot of shooting each month. Others I worked with came and did their quarterly qualifications and that was it. Their weapon was never fired outside of that. In my mind I consider all LEO's to be not much more than any other citizen, that is until I get to know them and their background.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wasn't intending to appear critical toward LEO's. The comparison was made as to what a civilian might

do compared to what a cop might do. I was only intending to separate them. I agree that variations will make

juries lean one way or another.

[TMF]

According to the available evidence, I believe it reasonable to think Zimmerman was in fear of his life or serious injury. The lesson he's learning is not that deadly force can only be used in the face of grievous harm. The lessons are (A) life is not fair, and ( deadly force used against a member of a protected class will get you into a world of hurt, whether it was justified or not.

Or ©: stay in your truck instead of pursuing someone on foot whilst armed, or at least have your HCP badge visible when you're playing pretend cop.

[TMF]

Also, LEO's should be held to a higher level, due to their training and the tools at their disposal. It's really

not reasonable to compare a LEO to a civilian, is it? But a cop wasn't involved in this situation, so I'm not

sure of the relevance when comparing Zimmerman to Martin.

And that's why LEOs are the ones tasked to approach/pursue "suspicious" characters.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's right, but read post 972 again. We're good

It's still not clear, anywhere, whether he was pursuing him on foot. I gathered he was trying to get a sight on him, or

reading the street sign and returning to his truck when possibly assaulted.