17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[philip964]

The release of these details has caused some ripples in the fabric of liberalism. They have responded by going back to the "he caused it by confronting Trayvon" theory or the "people should not be allowed to have guns" theory. Here are samples of liberal thinking by friends of friends.

"there are no details. only the devil. the man with the gun, who shouldn't have had the gun or been empowered with the gun, who was called off of the pursuit, pulled the trigger.."

In their view Zimmerman is guilty, and if a jury finds him otherwise, it will simply be more injustice in a system that is broke.

"but it will still go to trial -- and even though most of us, myself included, have lost FAITH in the system, we only get what we ask "them" (those in the system) to serve up. As you point out, when people are checked out, and watching Housewives of whatever --- that's precisely when any sort of imbalance that takes over. The lowest common denominator drives the system. And even though I'm "exhausted" by all of it -- I think we still have to rage against the machine."

What is forgotten in all of this is the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident is rare. What normally happens is quite different. Here is a website that tracks murders in Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City like most cities has far fewer African Americans than other races, yet of the 58 murders in Kansas City so far this year 48 of the murders have been African Americans. http://homicide.kansascity.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please take special note of the latest homicide number 58 http://homicide.kansascity.com/victims/58/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Harry Stone, he is a 60 year old Caucasian who was murdered as he took his normal morning walk. Police suspect he was randomly picked out as some sort of gang initiation. No national news, no outrage, just another victim.

[RoyGBiv]

To make matters worse, now we're punishing people for simply stating their opinion on the subject.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -post?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That Fire CAPTAIN is a moron for making that post.
Whether or not it was copied from somewhere else and not attributed is irrelevant.
In this day and age a CAPTAIN, a LEADER of a diverse group of employees, should know better than to publicly post that.
That was a gross failure of leadership and I also would have removed him from that leadership position, were I his supervisor.
Publicly attacking the people you are hired to serve puts the entire department, and its mission, in jeopardy.
He's entitled to his opinion, but sharing it on Facebook was grossly stupid and unworthy of his leadership position.

IMO, YMMV

Besides having disparaging words for the prosecutor, the post also said: "I and my coworkers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, (expletive), ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey, we speak only the truth. They're just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn't have anything to do with why people wonder if they're about to get jacked by a thug,” he posted.

A disciplinary report said that the comment altered the reputation of the Fire Rescue department.

“The statement posted cast the subject in a negative light as well as brought ill repute to our entire organization as a result of the reference to 'my co-workers.'"

[Snap E Tom]

Saying that Zimmerman is (automatically) at fault for "being there" is akin to blaming the rape or mugging victim for walking down the street -- it's wrong -- when the criminal attacks.

That's a terrible comparison. You're saying that a CHL holder has no special responsibilities? Ideally, that's the way it should be, but in the real world, the mere fact that we have CHL classes where they teach you about the responsibilities says otherwise.

Do you have a law degree? The rest of your post is exactly what I'm pretty tired of hearing from internet forums. Everyone's citing code, but there's a huge difference between reading code and the interpretation of that code in case law.

[RoyGBiv]

Saying that Zimmerman is (automatically) at fault for "being there" is akin to blaming the rape or mugging victim for walking down the street -- it's wrong -- when the criminal attacks.
................
This case (almost solely) comes down to a couple of simple things (there are complications but I will give some references to fill those in, and plenty to read at the bottom of this post):


Did Zimmerman criminally assault Martin first?

OR

Did Martin criminally assault Zimmerman first?


......

The investigator/detective may have been stately a non-legal opinion "Hey, it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been there" but that is true of Martin as well. Or if you get mugged, it's true of you too. If you leave your house and get in an automobile accident caused by someone running a red light, it is still true that it would not have happened if you had stayed at home.

NONE of this is relevant to the LAW.

This is specifically why "Stand Your Ground" laws are so important to enact -- to keep otherwise well-meaning people from falling prey to such poor reasoning.

Now, if we are discussing GOOD SELF-DEFENSE, I will certainly tell you to follow the 4S rule: Don't do Stupid things, with Stupid people, in Stupid places, at Stupid times.


But doing one of those Stupids doesn't necessarily make you legally responsible -- just stupid, maybe.
...............

Notice that none of the following are illegal: 'Profiling', 'Pursuing', 'Following', 'Confronting'. 'Being rude', 'getting out of a truck', ''walking down a public sidewalk', even 'stalking' in the vernacular sense it would be used in this case**. Unless they are accompanied by criminal assault or some other actual crime.
...............

So, did Zimmerman assault Martin first (or commit some other significant CRIME) or not?

That is THE QUESTION.

The highly likely answer is "No" --

Spot-on post, IMO...

The one thing I would add that requires consideration is...
"Did Martin REASONABLY believe that initiating the physical contact was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death from being inflicted upon him by Zimmerman.?" Let's not forget to check whether Martins actions were proactively self-defense. I'd assume NO from the evidence presented so far, but, still a point requiring investigation.

This is surely an important part of the argument from the Martin camp.. Along the same lines of, but a better legal argument than, "If Zimmerman never got out of his car this never would have happened"....

[HerbM]

Martin's actions being self-defense do NOT matter -- since he is dead and will not be charged with assault.

Had Martin lived that (might) matter. In theory, they could BOTH have been justified. It's hard to setup a realistic example but it is possible: something like you and I both spot a criminal but from different sides of the house, he shoots at us, we shoot back and advance as he steps between the buildings. Then we run into EACH other, both with guns drawn, both shooting. If either or both of us live, we can probably form a legitimate claim of self-defense. Unlikely but possible.

Another way to think about it:
I don't have to know what YOU think or WHY you are attacking me to use self-defense.

But in this case, Martin has no claim of self-defense if he was MERELY frightened as a man walking behind him on the sidewalk. He can't use deadly force for that (reasonably.)

If the man came up and said, "What are you doing here?" Martin still cannot use deadly force or initiate a criminal assault with legal impunity.

If on the other hand, the man approach him, drew a gun, threatened him credibly or otherwise assaulted him (even without making contact) he CAN. But under all these scenarios Zimmerman now cannot make a legitimate self-defense claim.

BTW: The most recent denial of SYG Immunity for "Dooley" (sp?) was based on something like this. Dooley brandished his firearm before being assaulted (flashed it by lifting his shirt). The man he ended up killing attacked to prevent him from drawing the gun (according to the judge.)

Dooley might still convince the jury that there is a reasonable doubt, the the judge said he didn't show it by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Not sure about the name 'Dooley' -- I am doing most of this from memory and it isn't important to the discussion unless you need to research it.) He's the ~65-year old man in the park, arguing with a skateboarder when another guy (dead guy) intervenes.

Ultimately, the Martin camp gets nothing out of "Martin stood his ground or was acting in self-defense" except a larger tragedy and more sympathy.

Either Zimmerman was acting illegally or not, and that comes down to what Martin did FIRST, not what he believed.


--
HerbM

[HerbM]

Saying that Zimmerman is (automatically) at fault for "being there" is akin to blaming the rape or mugging victim for walking down the street -- it's wrong -- when the criminal attacks.

That's a terrible comparison. You're saying that a CHL holder has no special responsibilities? Ideally, that's the way it should be, but in the real world, the mere fact that we have CHL classes where they teach you about the responsibilities says otherwise.

Do you have a law degree? The rest of your post is exactly what I'm pretty tired of hearing from internet forums. Everyone's citing code, but there's a huge difference between reading code and the interpretation of that code in case law.

I am indeed saying that a CHL holder has no EXTRA responsibilities for guessing what a criminal might or might not do. Real world, ideal world -- neither. LEGAL system.

This is the law. As written and based on precedent.

As another example, there was a 14 year old kid near the incident preparing to walk his dog (he saw some of this) -- Zimmerman has as much right to that sidewalk as the 14 year old or Martin did.

I do not have a law degree and that is entirely immaterial since I am offering you citations and references, logic and fact -- you should believe what I offer because it is RIGHT, or disagree because you can find the flaws in logic, or precedent, or fact. (Why do people who cannot win a legal argument always want to ask this?)

[As to the law degree, I certainly have more time reading, discussing, and writing about THIS subject than 99% of all lawyers, but again that is TOTALLY irrelevant.]

Go read it for yourself.....

That was precisely my point as you cannot locate very many people competent to explain it to you -- in whole.

If you are frustrated by people on the Internet explaining the actual law, stop reading.

If you are frustrated (as I am) by people repeating half truths, invented crap, irrelevant feelings, then challenge them to back it up with facts.

But this is CHL forum, and if you cannot understand the law yourself, you should likely lock up your firearm in the safe and promptly forget the combination.

We do not incur any loss of liberty nor legal debt because of the CHL. We might incur a responsibility to "know the law" but in theory everyone is expected to know the law because it is frequently repeated that:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


--
HerbM

[stroo]

As I pointed out about 30 pages ago, GZ's getting out of his vehicle was bad tactics. But that makes it neither legally wrong nor morally wrong. GZ had a home in that development and had every legal and moral right to be on that sidewalk.

[HerbM]

+1

[baldeagle]

So the AP story said this:

"The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him."

In my CHL class, 90% of the classroom discussion was about "don't put yourself in a situation where you have to use a gun to begin with." As pointed out by Detective Serino, Zimmerman had options not to be there. Doesn't that nullify self defense and everything else that's clouded this case?

HerbM has already addressed the issues of the case quite adequately, but I think this one point needs to be emphasized. You do not give up your right to self defense simply because you chose to be in the place where the event was precipitated. This "logic" is so flawed it needs to be eradicated. If it were true, you would give up your right to self defense every time you entered an area where bad things happen, and by definition, if something bad happened, that is an area where bad things happen. By this "logic" you would have to stop running on the Katy Trail simply because the public knows about muggings there. Precisely the opposite is true. If you run on the Katy Trail it would be wise to arm yourself, because you know it's dangerous. In fact, this "logic" cedes vast areas of the public expanse to criminals and places law abiding citizens at the disadvantage of always having to avoid places were criminals ply their trade, almost an impossibility in the "modern" world.

As a human, you retain the right of self defense regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the reasons you are there so long as you do not commit any criminal acts. The law is very specific about this. I've highlighted the exemptions to the use of deadly force so you can clearly see the reasons you cannot use deadly force. You will notice that putting "yourself in a situation where you have to use a gun to begin with" is not something that causes you to be stripped of the right of self defense.

Texas Law

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

UPDATE: I originally quoted the wrong statute. My apologies.
Florida law

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[baldeagle]

On page 40 of the 183 page discovery pdf (thanks to HerbM for the link) a witness we have not heard of before was interviewed. These are excerpts of that interview.

"observed two men chasing each other, a fistfight between the two men, and then she heard a gunshot. When asked to clarify her observations, she stated she could not identify either of the two men, but she did state the person in pursuit of the person being pursued as approximately 10'-12' behind."

She "stated the chasing she saw was in the direction toward the "T" where the walkway leads to either Retreat View Circle or Twin Trees Lane."

I take that to mean that Trayvon was chasing George, because the direction would be toward George's SUV, not toward the home of Trayvon's father's fiancee.

[brainman]

observed two men chasing each other

Sounds to me like this witness is an idiot. How do two men chase each other? Unless they were running back and forth after each other, one of them had to be chasing the other, not "two men chasing each other."

[sjfcontrol]

observed two men chasing each other

Sounds to me like this witness is an idiot. How do two men chase each other? Unless they were running back and forth after each other, one of them had to be chasing the other, not "two men chasing each other."

Maybe they were running around in a circle??

[philip964]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... -1.1080161" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drop the charges.

[HerbM]

The 'chasing' witness doesn't know who or what she saw -- likely she saw SOMETHING (it probably wasn't something entirely different) but at that point nothing was happening and she didn't remember all this until later apparently.

The state investigator (under oath) already admitted 'she' didn't know the identities or who was chasing who of the 'shadows'. Read the 180+ report and you can find 'her' statement and this is the way it reads as well.

Some shadows went by, seemed to be chasing.

Everyone who SAW something identifiable saw pretty much what Zimmerman said.

Only real issue is that NO ONE saw the 50 seconds or so right BEFORE the FIGHT went to the ground and right after Zimmerman quit talking to non-emergency dispatch.

This 50 seconds or so is ONLY known from Zimmerman's statements, and maybe from Martin's 'girl friend' being on the phone with him (but there are a lot more problems with her statements as well.).

--
HerbM

[Beiruty]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... -1.1080161

Drop the charges.

The state prosecutor has to resign too. She was not telling the truth in her charges. She was over-reaching and falsely with no legal ground charging the accused of a crime, a murder. GZ should sue the state of Florida and the prosecutor for damages.

Worse, walking and following someone is not a crime. Prosecutor has no evidence that GZ attempted to make contact with the TM or attempted to detain him in anyway. Worse, GZ has many injures where as the TM has only knuckle injuries. TM boasted that his a "N" with no limits. A moto for a gangster wanabe. All of those are easy to be shown by the defense. The prosecutor is building a case based on hearsay and ideas found in castle on top of a cloud.