Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[amused]

Zimmerman didn't just follow Martin, he sought him out over a long distance, fabricated a confrontation, and murdered him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman didn't just follow Martin, he sought him out over a long distance, fabricated a confrontation, and murdered him.

It actually wasn't a long distance, and the audiotape doesn't bear out that he followed Martin for a long distance. What you are saying just ain't so. If you listen to the audiotape, Zimmerman starts to follow Martin, but when the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that," he stops and he loses sight of Martin.

There is also no evidence about fabricating a confrontation, is there? If there is, what is it?

Aren't you just starting with an assumption about Zimmerman's intent, and extrapolating what you think happened from there?

[Tero]

It's on the areal photo I posted. About 2 min walk directly, but they could have taken a longer route.

[Tero]

Yes, I am saying that in states allowing concealed weapons, following someone is a threat. If I see 2 following me, I need to stand my ground, turn, and shoot the both of them. To be on the safe side.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I am saying that in states allowing concealed weapons, following someone is a threat. If I see 2 following me, I need to stand my ground, turn, and shoot the noth of them. To be on the safe side.

That may (or not) be your view of it, but it is not the law in any State in the US.

If you did that, you'd very likely end up in prison for a long, long time.

[laklak]

All that "stand your ground" means is you have no legal obligation to retreat, that's all. Prior to SYG you had a legal right to use lethal force to protect yourself; however, in some cases the "duty to retreat" complicated matters. SYG doesn't give you the authority to shoot people for no reason, as this and other cases show conclusively. If it did there wouldn't be any charges against Z. Yes, people have tried to use SYG to justify their actions, it works in some cases and not in others. The courts are pretty good at determining which are valid cases and which aren't. That's why we have courts and trials, to determine the truth to the best of our ability. Do some people get away with murder? I'd imagine so, but people have been getting away with murder for centuries, that is bound to happen under almost any legal system. On the flip side, some people are wrongly convicted of murder, that is also bound to happen under almost any legal system.

[Coito ergo sum]

All that "stand your ground" means is you have no legal obligation to retreat, that's all. Prior to SYG you had a legal right to use lethal force to protect yourself; however, in some cases the "duty to retreat" complicated matters. SYG doesn't give you the authority to shoot people for no reason, as this and other cases show conclusively. If it did there wouldn't be any charges against Z. Yes, people have tried to use SYG to justify their actions, it works in some cases and not in others. The courts are pretty good at determining which are valid cases and which aren't. That's why we have courts and trials, to determine the truth to the best of our ability. Do some people get away with murder? I'd imagine so, but people have been getting away with murder for centuries, that is bound to happen under almost any legal system. On the flip side, some people are wrongly convicted of murder, that is also bound to happen under almost any legal system.

It is even more limited than that -- you have no legal obligation to retreat IF you have a right of self defense. If someone is following you, you do not, by virtue of stand your ground, have the right to initiate force to respond to the potential threat.

Stand your ground does not apply in a situation where you are not in reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm (ie when self-defense comes into play). In other words, you can't say "I thought that guy 100 yards behind me was following me, so I turned and shot him, just in case." That's not "stand your ground" because you weren't acting in self-defense.

[Seth]

Yes, I am saying that in states allowing concealed weapons, following someone is a threat. If I see 2 following me, I need to stand my ground, turn, and shoot the both of them. To be on the safe side.

You're ignorantly wrong. The laws on the use of deadly force in every state (except Texas so far as I'm aware) require much more than a "threat." Here's the Colorado statute:

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

As we can see, a mere "threat" is entirely insufficient to trigger the right to use deadly physical force.

Quit bloviating about things you have no knowledge of. You might try actually looking up a statute or two before you shoot your mouth off. (pun intended)

[Tero]

OK will go back to other thread. Your carrying a concealed weapon is more likely to lead to a confrontation when you start talking to me, after stalking me for five minutes. If you are unarmed, you will stay back and act to avoid a conflict. Even if I ID you as suspicious.

Seth: the Z trespassing. See photo above. Comments?

Im not talking out my ass as far as confrontations go. I can read body language and avoid the idiot 90% of the time. Less success with Finnish and Russian drunks.

[Seth]

from the wiki bible

According to investigators, while Zimmerman was speaking with police, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. She said that Martin was scared because he was being followed by an unknown male and didn't know why.Investigators said that Martin attempted to run home, but Zimmerman followed him, because he didn't want Martin whom he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime, to get away before the police arrived.When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and told him an officer would meet him.[29] Prosecutors stated that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher's instruction and continued pursuing Martin on foot. Investigators said Zimmerman then confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.The affidavit describes witness accounts of hearing people arguing, what sounded like a struggle, and yells for help that were recorded in the 9-1-1 calls to police.

An untrained volunteer community watch person pursues a stranger who has not been observed committing a crime.

So what? Anyone in the community has full authority to follow and watch someone they don't recognize in their neighborhood.

What part of his contract was he carrying out?

He was monitoring the community for possible criminal activity or trespass.

Z was trespassing on the property of neighbors, is that part of the contract?

Who cares? None of his neighbors objected.

He was supposed to watch, observe and report.

That's exactly what he was doing.

The community had not trained, hired or paid an armed guard. The gun was his idea.

And it turned out to be a very, very good idea, for if he had not been lawfully carrying a concealed handgun in accordance with the law, he would likely be dead or permanently brain damaged right now.

Zimmerman house
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/04/30/s ... ighborhood
that is what he owns. He can shoot there all he likes.

Doubtful. You can't generally lawfully discharge a firearm in a city or residential area except in self defense, even on your own property. But if you're using your handgun for self defense, you can discharge it anywhere, although you are responsible for each and every round you fire and the safety of bystanders.

The street and grass is not his personally.

So what? He was authorized to be there.

He and Martin entered another resident's back yard.

So what? The neighbor didn't complain so we can presume consent unless and until the neighbor does complain. Besides, in this sort of community, residents appear to be allowed to use the grass areas adjacent to the sidewalks, which are most likely part of the "common property" of the development, and are likely owned not by the occupant but by the homeowner's association itself. This is very common in these sort of condominium developments, where what the owner actually owns is a block of airspace delineated by the sheet rock on his interior walls, not the actual structure itself, which is owned by the association, which is responsible for its maintenance. You're just pulling this shit out of your ass.

I'll add the photo in a minute. From the clubhouse by the pool, Z followed M to the circled spot. There is no road, a common concrete walk. He can stand on the concrete, when he gets on the grass, he is trespassing on a resident's yard. I don't want any volunteer watchman running around with a gun on my property. I'll deal with the other trespasser.

Sorry, but I think it's pretty clear from the lack of fences and the construction of the housing that this is a condominium development where the lawn areas are not for the exclusive use of the occupants of each condo unit. Before you can draw a conclusion such as you did, you would need to inspect the homeowner's association rules for that community to see what rules apply to the common lawn areas. I'm betting you'll find that any resident (or guest) is lawfully able to use any of the lawn areas in a reasonable manner, and that it's maintained by the association.

[Seth]

No responses either. Z followed M quite a distance till they got in a fist fight in the lady's yard. I would not call it stand your ground. No contract for Z's trespassing and poking around duties was presented either.

He doesn't need a contract to walk around his condo community. He has every right to be there. You are deliberately and mendaciously misunderstanding what "stand your ground" means. It has nothing whatever to do with where you are or whether you have a "contract" with someone to be there. It's about your right to refuse to retreat from a criminal who is attacking you. These laws are quite common now, but in some states (like Illinois) there are still what are called "retreat to the wall" statutes that require that a victim of a criminal attack attempt everything possible to escape or retreat that they can reasonably do BEFORE being authorized to use deadly physical force in self defense.

These "retreat to the wall" statutes are largely disfavored now, particularly in the 40 states where concealed carry is lawful. Most have been replaced by "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws that allow citizens under attack to immediately respond to the attack without first having to attempt to retreat or escape. The laws have been changed because legislatures are recognizing that "retreat to the wall" statutes give far too much advantage to violent criminals, who can press their attack while the victim must not respond with lethal force until they have tried to retreat. In far too many instances in the past, people who legitimately used lethal force for self defense were prosecuted by anti-gun prosecutors because, in the opinion of the prosecutor, they didn't do enough to escape the attack before using lethal force. This has led to many miscarriages of justice caused by Monday morning quarterbacking by overzealous prosecutors with deliberate agendas to dissuade the public from defending themselves. In Colorado, our notorious overzealous DA was former Denver District Attorney and former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who was notorious for prosecuting any citizen who used a firearm in self defense, even when it was obvious that the shooting was justified. Ritter was one of the reasons that our concealed carry law was amended, because he was prosecuting permit holders in Denver using all sorts of excuses, including an off-duty State Patrol trooper, because he too is a gun-hating, criminal loving hoplophobe.

So, in a "stand your ground" state, it doesn't matter what ground you're standing on, you're not required to retreat AT ALL if you are unlawfully attacked, and may use reasonable and appropriate physical force, up to and including deadly force if necessary, without any obligation to retreat.

[Seth]

Z never identified himself. His act of following M was a clear threat. Arming yourself and following someone is a threat.

Zimmerman was armed with a CONCEALED WEAPON carried for self defense in full obedience to Florida law. I'm similarly armed every single day and have been for more than a quarter-century. I've not infrequently "followed" someone I thought might be engaged in criminal activity, at a discreet distance, and I've also directly confronted a large number of people while armed who are trespassing on my property. In none of those cases were my actions a "threat" to anyone unless they attempted unlawful violence against me.

It is not, contrary to your notions, illegal to follow someone you don't recognize through your community, and Martin clearly did not know that Zimmerman was armed, elsewise he likely would not have attacked him to begin with...if he had any brains at all.

[Seth]

Zimmerman didn't just follow Martin, he sought him out over a long distance, fabricated a confrontation, and murdered him.

Your ignorant opinion is noted. I'll wait for the jury's verdict before I bandy such charges around.

[Seth]

OK will go back to other thread. Your carrying a concealed weapon is more likely to lead to a confrontation when you start talking to me, after stalking me for five minutes. If you are unarmed, you will stay back and act to avoid a conflict. Even if I ID you as suspicious.

So what? Just because I feel more secure starting a conversation with an unknown and suspicious person in my community doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to carry defensive armament, particularly a concealed handgun which, by virtue of being concealed, will not in and of itself provoke any adverse response to the contact.

Since I'm not only not required to "stay back and avoid a conflict" but am fully authorized to initiate a reasonable inquiry regarding your presence whenever it pleases me to do so when you're in my community, your argument is irrelevant. I know you would LIKE it if nobody was allowed to question your presence or initiate a conversation, but since you have no right to be free from such contact, your complaint is just so much bilge.

Seth: the Z trespassing. See photo above. Comments?

Answered in detail in another post. In short, they both were at all times in the condo community's common areas, not on any particular resident's private property.

Im not talking out my ass as far as confrontations go.

You are in this case.

I can read body language and avoid the idiot 90% of the time. Less success with Finnish and Russian drunks.

But if the idiot persists in pestering you with a non-violent conversation, you don't obtain the right to initiate hostile actions, hit him, knock him down and try to smash his skull on the sidewalk while screaming that you're going to kill him merely because he persists in pestering you. If you did so, he'd be fully justified in pulling a gun and shooting you dead, just like Zimmerman did to Martin.

[amused]

Zimmerman didn't just follow Martin, he sought him out over a long distance, fabricated a confrontation, and murdered him.

Your ignorant opinion is noted. I'll wait for the jury's verdict before I bandy such charges around.

Like a moth to the flame...