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

[Mike.357]

I am not sure at all how this is syg

[mikegideon]

If he does get acquitted based on SYG I expect we'll have a fight on our hands to keep No Duty To Retreat type laws from being repealed. Great, just what we needed.

We always have a fight on our hands. The anti's have cried wolf so many times, I'm not sure anybody hears them anymore. The only ones whining about the law are the same old gun hater's. Let 'em whine. It's what they do.

[E4 No More]

Bloomberg is a zit.

I was thinking that he's more of a boil.

[mikegideon]

I was thinking that he's more of a boil.

I think you're giving him too much credit

[E4 No More]

If he's acquitted we'll see riots just as we did in the Rodney King fiasco.

My estimation, (based on limited information), is that Zimmerman has just been roped into a huge legal debt just to temporarily appease the masses. I don't think that he could possibly get a fair trial, but if he's indeed acquited we all better be locked and loaded.

[RobertNashville]

I am not sure at all how this is syg

I don't think it is. As I see it, this is simple self defense or it's not.

If things happened the way Zimmerman has claimed then he was already leaving the area (at least heading back to his vehicle) and was attacked from behind...even in a stats (well, except for the commie ones) that dictates a duty to retreat you would still have a right to defend yourself.

Of course, the Mayor Bloomingidiots and Eric Holders of the world will use anything they can to their anti-gun advantage.

[E4 No More]

I think you're giving him too much credit

Well, a boil is a Staphlococcus Aureus infection filled with pus - which I think describes him pretty well.

Edited April 12, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[mikegideon]

Well, a boil is a Staphlococcus Aureus infection filled with pus - which I think describes him pretty well.

Pus is always an indication of some kind of bacteria. We're just debating the type and quantity. Bloomberg is a sawed off little twerp... the little zit that could.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bloomberg is not much different from Obama. He's in his own world of megalomania.

I think (hope) some fairness just entered the picture. Nobody wants Zimmerman to get away with murder. It's ALL gonna come out now. I'm sure we'll quarterback the whole thing

With all the electrons lining up in the coax, we have pages and pages left in this quarterbacking.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Stand your ground allows just that. You don't have to retreat from your attackers. I think having your head smashed into the sidewalk could eventually lead to your death. From all of the "leaked" reports, Zimmerman was attacked from behind. I think the charges are to try and keep a lid on the boiling pot of Sanford. Zimmerman probably won't go to trial within the next year, so this thing should die down by then.

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.

[mikegideon]

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.

Here's my question. What about just getting to the point of losing consciousness and losing control of your weapon? Did he have to be in fear that the head bashing was going to kill him?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How can you prove you are in fear for your life? At some point, his story has to be accepted or rejected. There can

be no witness to prove what's going on inside your brain, only the perspective your brain uses to determine fear.

A witness can affirm or deny the situation and by describing the scene, which is helpful, but as some have said,

witnesses can be faulty.

[Mike.357]

This whole situation should give pause to anyone who carries.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mike.357

[RobertNashville]

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.

If you are on the ass end of and ass kicking, how do you decide if the guy doing the ass kicking is going to stop before he kills you or causes you permanent and/or life threatening injury? Do you wait until just before you go from a mild concussion to near unconscious and then respond? I'd really like to know the answer to that one because I haven't been able to figure it out yet.

I can say that is some stranger who is a half a foot taller and 30 years younger than me decided to jump on me some night I'm probably gong to be in fear for my life...maybe I shouldn't be and maybe someone else wouldn't be but I probably will be and if I'm able to get to my weapon I'm probably going to use it.

And, if by shooting my attacker I stop the attack before he actually does cause serious harm which means I don't need a lot of medical treatment at the scene, does that mean I couldn't have been in legitimate fear for my life?

Do I have to prove my life was truly in danger or only that I had cause to think it was?

I'm not suggesting who is right and who is wrong...just trying to understand.

[Mike.357]

Robert your post was the same as mine just with the lot more words

[RobertNashville]

Robert your post was the same as mine just with the lot more words

I noticed that...in my own defense, I was responding to ETP before I read other responses.

[Mike.357]

i liked your in depth post.

[E4 No More]

If you are on the ass end of and ass kicking, how do you decide if the guy doing the ass kicking is going to stop before he kills you or causes you permanent and/or life threatening injury? Do you wait until just before you go from a mild concussion to near unconscious and then respond? I'd really like to know the answer to that one because I haven't been able to figure it out yet.

I can say that is some stranger who is a half a foot taller and 30 years younger than me decided to jump on me some night I'm probably gong to be in fear for my life...maybe I shouldn't be and maybe someone else wouldn't be but I probably will be and if I'm able to get to my weapon I'm probably going to use it.

And, if by shooting my attacker I stop the attack before he actually does cause serious harm which means I don't need a lot of medical treatment at the scene, does that mean I couldn't have been in legitimate fear for my life?

Do I have to prove my life was truly in danger or only that I had cause to think it was?

I'm not suggesting who is right and who is wrong...just trying to understand.

Pretty much it's all about how you, or your lawyer, convey your thought processes, and if a reasonable person would think the same way, For instance, I am 6'4" 295 lbs and look every bit as mean as I did as a Marine: however, time and life experiences have taken their toll on my body giving me several health issues that would prevent me from defending myself as I once would. If someone would just look at me they wouldn't buy a defense argument at face value, but when informed of the several health issues a reasonable person would conclude that it was self defense because I believed that I couldn't defend myself and was in reasonable fear of my life.

[QuietDan]

If I am flat on my back with an adversary sitting on me, pounding my face with his fists and bashing my head on the concrete, and if the adversary is struggling with me for my undrawn and now uncovered weapon, I am in fear of my life. I will shoot him before I lose consciousness and before he shoots me with my own gun.

If this is the scenario, then there is no jury that will convict.

If we have to go through all the play-acting of a trial to mollify everyone to get to this conclusion, I don't like it, but so be it.

Upon acquittal, I would file criminal and civil charges against those who attacked me and my reputation in the media. I am not a public person, and therefore the libel & slander, and fear for my life, and loss of freedom, and loss of income that arises from maliciously edited 911 calls and the wanted dead or alive bounty statements would be actionable to the tune of millions of dollars. There are plenty of lawyers that would be perfectly willing and eager to take 30 percent of that business.

Someone else can speculate upon a different scenario with different details; this one, I think, is relatively accurate in description and outcome. Time and a court trial will tell.

[Guest TnRebel]

I did hear that when the first officer rolled up, he noted that the shooter's shirt was wet and covered with grass on the back and that he had grass in his hair, as if he had been rolling on the ground in a fight. Still, the shooter should have followed the directions of the E911 Operator. This really smells IMO. The Shooter pushed it way, way further than it needed to go and a kid ended up dead. Obviously, none here knows the facts, just all the grandstanding crap being thrown out there by the news media. But I'd be real surprised if this guy isn't charged with something.

the dispatch has no law authority so he did not have to do as 911 said

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose

any officer as defined in s. 943.10

943.10

 Definitions; ss. 943.085-943.255.—The following words and phrases as used in sas. 943.085-943.255 are defined as follows:

(1) “Law enforcement officer†means

any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests

; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers

but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency

.

[mcurrier]

Curious, isn't it? She may have had to bring it to trial to get it over with to appease the angry masses. I'll bet there

is an acquittal coming down the pike, or charges being thrown out by the judge. Something like that. For one DA

to not charge and this one to charge, I'd really love to know what changed things. If it goes to a jury, he should be

acquitted if his lawyer is any good.

Yup. And then the local Dollar General will be burned to the ground and Walgreens looted.

This is how it will go, except reverse the character roles -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1s5sLY4hVo

I was a LEO in Virginia Beach, VA back in the 1980's and saw riots up close and personal. This stuff started wayyyy before 1989, that's only when it exploded.

http://www.wavy.com/...eports_20090902

I just 'love' (sarcasm) Mayor Oberndorf's comment starting at 1 min. 24 sec up to 1 min. 43 sec. "There was one young African American woman who had opened a Benneton store and the 'kids' (e.g. rioters) didn't realize who owned what, they broke in and tore it to pieces. And she certainly had not done anything that would have caused that type of behavior."

I take it by her logic then, that it was ok to trash, loot and vandalize white owned businesses and that they must have deserved it and that the white business owners must have caused and invited that type of behavior. That's just her talking p.c.-speak 20 years later.

There was no "racial tension" building as the reporter implies, the college students brought it with them, I was there, at the beach, for 20 years and saw it myself. When they first started having "Greek Week" in the mid-80's the college-aged thug element started acting like animals and randomly beating white tourists and looting small businesses at the oceanfront. VA Beach was a peaceful family beach resort up until "Greek Week" came there. After the first two years of hosting these thugs, Mayor Oberndorf and Police Chief Wall approved installation of video cameras on top of many of the 110 hotels at the oceanfront and the result was that the NAACP and organizers of "Greek Fest" flipped out and had a meltdown about it. The next few years it got a lot worse, building up to the massive 1989 riots. Interestingly, you can't go anywhere in the world today without multiple cameras on you at any given moment. VA Beach was one of the most advanced police departments in the country at the time and those who wished to behave criminally did not like the reactive preparations that we had taken to monitor and attempt to prevent future crimes.

[East_TN_Patriot]

If you are on the ass end of and ass kicking, how do you decide if the guy doing the ass kicking is going to stop before he kills you or causes you permanent and/or life threatening injury? Do you wait until just before you go from a mild concussion to near unconscious and then respond? I'd really like to know the answer to that one because I haven't been able to figure it out yet.

I can say that is some stranger who is a half a foot taller and 30 years younger than me decided to jump on me some night I'm probably gong to be in fear for my life...maybe I shouldn't be and maybe someone else wouldn't be but I probably will be and if I'm able to get to my weapon I'm probably going to use it.

And, if by shooting my attacker I stop the attack before he actually does cause serious harm which means I don't need a lot of medical treatment at the scene, does that mean I couldn't have been in legitimate fear for my life?

Do I have to prove my life was truly in danger or only that I had cause to think it was?

I'm not suggesting who is right and who is wrong...just trying to understand.

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.

[East_TN_Patriot]

If I am flat on my back with an adversary sitting on me, pounding my face with his fists and bashing my head on the concrete, and if the adversary is struggling with me for my undrawn and now uncovered weapon, I am in fear of my life. I will shoot him before I lose consciousness and before he shoots me with my own gun.

If this is the scenario, then there is no jury that will convict.

If we have to go through all the play-acting of a trial to mollify everyone to get to this conclusion, I don't like it, but so be it.

Upon acquittal, I would file criminal and civil charges against those who attacked me and my reputation in the media. I am not a public person, and therefore the libel & slander, and fear for my life, and loss of freedom, and loss of income that arises from maliciously edited 911 calls and the wanted dead or alive bounty statements would be actionable to the tune of millions of dollars. There are plenty of lawyers that would be perfectly willing and eager to take 30 percent of that business.

Someone else can speculate upon a different scenario with different details; this one, I think, is relatively accurate in description and outcome. Time and a court trial will tell.

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?"

[Guest Gwith40]

Even Dershowitz gets it...sort of sums up my take on the case so far.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

[mikegideon]

Good find