Stand Your Ground in Danger

[PracticalTactical]

I guess that's the crappy thing about creating a threat about a topic people are so angry about.

Inevitably, somebody comes along and can't talk about it without pushing the thread into the dirt.

IB4TL :(

If it gets wiped, can I start it again and try to get it going more cordially?

[i8godzilla]

Wow.........

If I recall, there was all kinds of talk about new restrictions after Loughner went crazy in AZ. Have any real restrictions been put in place yet?

[PracticalTactical]

Wow.........

If I recall, there was all kinds of talk about new restrictions after Loughner went crazy in AZ. Have any real restrictions been put in place yet?

That one was pretty easy to dismiss as a nut. This time, they're trying to act like this is a normal concealed carry guy.

[Jusster]

Let's can the lynchmobbery and look at the law in Florida as it relates to the initial aggressor rule. You'll find similar statutes or jury instructions in most states.

“776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”

From what I've gathered here and there, it appears that Zimmerman gave some pursuit and got in over his head. Martin did something to bloody his nose, knock him down and wound the back of his head. At this point Martin should have realized that Zimmerman was disabled and stop using physical force. Because he didn't stop at this point, Martin became the aggressor and Zimmerman became the victim, thus restoring Zimmerman's self defense claim.

Sure, if some creepy wannabe cop was chasing me through a neighborhood, I would defend myself, but if I managed to disable him and he was laying on the ground screaming for help, I'd back off and call police to come pick the jack donkey up. Continued use of force after an assailant is no longer a threat is neither reasonable or necessary, and therefore not protected by self defense law.

Based on this eyewitness interview below, do you still think your theory holds water? And that 776.041 still applies?

Edit: The blood on the back of Zimmerman’s head could have come from Martin since he had his hands on his chest, then got up pacing with his hand behind his head…..Interesting. But that’s just a guess since we don’t know where Martin was shot, just like there are no claims that Zimmerman was treated for ANY injuries.

[youtube][/youtube]


Jusster

[speedsix]

...I questioned the sources for this part of his post:

"From what I've gathered here and there, it appears that Zimmerman gave some pursuit and got in over his head. Martin did something to bloody his nose, knock him down and wound the back of his head. At this point Martin should have realized that Zimmerman was disabled and stop using physical force. Because he didn't stop at this point, Martin became the aggressor and Zimmerman became the victim, thus restoring Zimmerman's self defense claim."

....when he originally posted it back on page 2, but no answer as to where he "gathered" it...we've had reports that Z had blood on the back of his head and his clothes were wet...the rest seems to be an opinion...for Z to have been standing over him soon after while he was bleating for help...where's the sources for the above theory???


...being seen sitting on the victim soon after the cries for help and the shot is a strong indicator of who the aggressor was...

[gdanaher]

Another twist on the issue. State legislatures have generally allowed cc after applicants were vetted and cleared. All or part of 5 states have 'constitutional carry' and that has been advocated for Texas here as well. In light of this case, what affect might this matter have on any future Texas legislation that would permit 'constitutional carry'?

[74novaman]

Another twist on the issue. State legislatures have generally allowed cc after applicants were vetted and cleared. All or part of 5 states have 'constitutional carry' and that has been advocated for Texas here as well. In light of this case, what affect might this matter have on any future Texas legislation that would permit 'constitutional carry'?

Considering the reports are that this guy had a permit, and Florida is not one of those states that has constitutional/permitless carry, I fail to see how your twist has any connection, but I guess I'll answer...

If any shooting comes up regarding permitless carry, it will be Laughner in Arizona. But once again, just like every other shooting by a mad man.....one more gun law wouldn't have mattered a lick anyway. He already lied on the 4473 to purchase the gun (are you a dependent user of any illicit substance...he checked no, when he was a habitual marijuana smoker), its not like Laughner would have bothered to go out and get an Arizona permit, THEN gone and shot people.

Criminals and murders do not obey laws. Not laws regarding purchase, ownership, or carrying of weapons. In this case, until we have all the facts....we simply do not know what happened. We know Mr. Zimmerman is a questionable guy, but we simply don't know all the facts.

A series of events and decisions led up to their tragic meeting. I truly don't think Zimmerman set out that night thinking "I may get to kill a bad guy today". Zimmerman seems to be the type that wanted to play cop without going through the hard work it takes to become one. While fulfilling his fantasies with the neighborhood watch, he saw what he thought was a suspicious person. If he'd had the sense to merely call the cops and report said person, instead of getting out of his car and confronting him, things would have ended very differently.

Unfortunately, past the fact he got out of a car against dispatchers advice to confront someone, we don't know with certainty what happened next.

Short of Mr. Zimmerman making better life decisions all around, I'm truly not sure what could have prevented this.

I certainly don't think the "stand your ground" law was the reason this happened, and short of the usual anti's bleating about lax gun laws being responsible for everything from colonial slavery to global warming and transfats, I don't think this will result in any legal changes regarding gun rights.

[VMI77]

By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.

First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.

Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?

Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.

[VMI77]

I have read in this forum many times that if you use your gun you will be arrested and a grand jury will decide. Although I do not believe all of that
in the case of Zimmerman there is enough evidence be it hear say or what ever that he should have been arrested and a hearing held.

They are allowing this guy to walk the streets and the "law" in that small town has done nothing. All that does is fan the flames of racism
and whatever.

He should be detained at the least.

If all what we have heard in the news is incorrect and in effect this guy had nothing to do with this I will be greatly surprised.

If anything threatens our right to bear arms is a few more loons doing this and a few more that defend his actions. We will then deserve to lose
our rights because we as a society have proven that we just cannot handle it.

That's the logic of the left --collectivism to be precise. Might as well turn in your guns because as long as there are people on this planet there are going to be loons, liars, thugs, thieves, frauds, psychos, sociopaths, and killers. Any "right" that depends on how other people behave is not a right you possess. Our Constitution grants rights to individuals, not groups. The logical extension of the dependence of rights on "society" means that any "right" is conditional on the behavior of others, including your right to life. That's the logic every communist tyrant has used to justify mass murder: the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one. It's the logic that justifies murdering an individual who stands in the way, or just doesn't fit in, with the collectivist Utopia. Simply put, I don't "deserve" to lose my right to self-defense even if 99% of society abuses it.

[Jusster]

By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.

First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.

Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?

Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.

While I do agree with you that the media has an agenda, and we do not hear enough stories about the good guys, where are those black kids who set the white kid on fire? Were they arrested for their actions? Or did they walk because they were defending themselves? That's the difference....justice is and will be served in that case.....this one for the first 3 weeks the guy was getting a pass.


Jusster

[matriculated]

The Miami Herald reports that Zimmerman told the police on the scene that he actually never pursued the teen. That is a blatant lie in light of the fact that on the tape he says that he is following the boy.

Miami Herald:

"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2 ... qus_thread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy"

Zimmerman told the police that the only reason he exited his car was to see the name of the street. We've all heard the tape by now. Sanford PD: "Are you following him?" Zimmerman: "Yes." Sanford PD: "OK, we don't need you to do that."

[VMI77]

By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.

First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.

Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?

Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.

While I do agree with you that the media has an agenda, and we do not hear enough stories about the good guys, where are those black kids who set the white kid on fire? Were they arrested for their actions? Or did they walk because they were defending themselves? That's the difference....justice is and will be served in that case.....this one for the first 3 weeks the guy was getting a pass.


Jusster

I don't know where they are, mainly because it's not being covered nationally. I don't think they've been caught, haven't found anything that says they were, but then, there is virtually no coverage. And that was really my point, it was a "hate" crime....they followed the kid, poured gas on him, and lit him on fire, because he's White...and there is no national media outrage as there would be if the races were reversed, while the race issue in this case is being hyped. And if the races had been reversed it's not too difficult to imagine national media attention and demands that the police devote more resources to catching them --since "justice" can't be served unless they're caught.

I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.

[gdanaher]

Considering the reports are that this guy had a permit, and Florida is not one of those states that has constitutional/permitless carry, I fail to see how your twist has any connection, snip

(I just heard that the Sanford PD Chief is suspending himself until the matter is resolved. Too bad. )

Where I was headed is this: Every group is going to have some screwballs. We know that. Heck, just read some of these posts, :-\ The process of cc licensing and vetting eliminates some of the risk of this but certainly not all. The constitutional carry folks run a higher risk of having folks in their group who are more risky, less well trained and prepared to deal with an emergency, and might have the potential to make headlines when none were really needed. Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc. So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation. The general public makes little or no distinction between a criminal 'brandishing' a handgun, a license holder shooting a defenseless person, or a constitutional carry citizen losing control. We all need to be aware that a single shot could impact millions of licensed folks nationally.

[74novaman]

Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc. So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation.

You, my friend, are stuck in the 90s. Then it was absolutely true that most Americans supported more gun laws. That trend, in no small part due to the almost complete lack of blood in the streets predicted by the antis following CHL laws passing, has been going the other way since at least 2000.

Here's some reading for ya.

Record low numbers of Americans support stricter gun laws: Gallop, 2009
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u. ... -laws.aspx

Support for stricter gun laws fell from 54% of Americans in 2001 to 39% in 2009, according to CNN.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/poli ... M:POLITICS

Another CNN poll taken after the Giffords shooting in 2011 SHOULD have shown a big swing towards stricter laws according to your statement, correct? Instead, the 2011 numbers looked near identical to the numbers from a CNN poll in 2009. In other words, the Giffords tragedy didn't sway anyone on either side to change their mind.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... shootings/


Am I saying that these types of terrible events are GOOD for us? Absolutely not. But, your statements I quoted are factually incorrect.

[matriculated]

I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.

Read my post above. The police have his statement and they also have the tapes.