03Lightningrocks wrote:I do have a question... so if I am attacked and I turn the tables on my attacker, does the law not allow me to continue until the percieved threat is no longer a threat. At this point it has turned into revenge if I continue to attack? Then of coarse the question becomes, when is my attacker no longer a threat to me? My answer may be different than maybe a person of less ability to defend themselves. For me, that level would be incapacitation... how ever I must accomplish this goal. As long as my attacker is able to get up, me giving up the advantage and allowing them up may cost me my life. I have no choice other than to continue until the threat is rendered harmless.
One thing I know from this case... make sure the other person is dead so you only have one story to worry about.
03Lightningrocks, I don't know if this is true or not, but according to Zimmerman's family, the two of them tussled on the ground for a bit while Zimmerman screamed for help, but that he did not go for his gun
until Martin tried to take it from him, telling Zimmerman words to the effect of "tonight you're gonna die.".
IF that is true, then Zimmerman didn't "turn the tables" on Martin.
IF that is true, then he was losing a fight and about to be killed with his own gun, and he did what he had to do to live. End of story. I'm not going to argue if he had any business following Martin based on being either a neighborhood watch captain, off-duty or not, or simply being a concerned resident. I'm perfectly willing to concede—particularly in hindsight—that it was probably not a wise thing to do. Not illegal, but not wise either. If you ever have a chance, and this is relevant to this thread, you owe it to yourself to take one of Charles Cotton's "use of deadly force in Texas" seminars. It is an eye-opener.
Among other things you'll learn (which you probably already know) is that fighting words that cause a fight to which you respond with deadly force will severely compromise your defense if you shoot somebody under those conditions. But the takeaway that
I got from that seminar is that there is room there. If you provoke a fight with words, the other guy takes it to you, and you shoot him, you've got big problems; BUT, if you provoked a fight with words, the other guy doesn't do anything right away, you cool off and you leave, and after you have turned to go and are walking away and he
then assaults you, you might have some wiggle room there to defend yourself, including with deadly force if it becomes necessary. And how things will go for you depends a lot on whether or not your witnesses outnumber his witnesses, and whether either yours or his are
reliable witnesses. And this is where we find ourselves with Zimmerman, if his shooting happens in Texas.
For what it's worth, here is my take on the events as they unfolded:
- Zimmerman, an off-duty neighborhood watch captain of a gated community is getting in his car to go to the market when he notices a "suspicious" (to him) unknown character whom he does not recognize to be a resident loitering around the parking lot inside of this gated community. In this context, "suspicious" means "thuggish-looking," which was a look and persona that Martin definitely cultivated. As a neighborhood watch captain, Zimmerman would likely know most of the residents, including some of the black residents to whom he is personally close as both a good friend and a mentor to their children.
- Zimmerman exits his car to follow Martin to see what home he is going to. When it becomes apparent that Martin is not going to any home but is just bumming around the parking lot, Zimmerman's suspicions increase.
- Zimmerman then confronts Martin verbally. We don't know yet what exactly was said. We will only ever know Zimmerman's version of the conversation if he is forced to testify. If the rest of his testimony is corroborated by witnesses, then there is some reason to give his narrative the benefit of the doubt; yet, we will never know for certain. However, I can hypothesize that it went something like this:
Zimmerman: "Can I help you?"
Martin: "No," or "Get lost," or "I'm trying to find a friend's house." (Let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.)
Zimmerman: "Well, this is a private gated community, and unless you either live here or know who you are going to visit, you'll have to leave." Or...."We don't need any [insert racist expletive here] hanging around here, you better go!" (Again, lets give Martin the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.)
- Zimmerman turns and walks back to his vehicle.
- A few seconds later, Martin has (per eyewitnesses) assaulted Zimmerman from behind.
- Martin gotten Zimmerman on his back, is pounding his head into the pavement, is beating the snot out of him, and he sees Zimmerman's gun and goes for it, telling Zimmerman "you're going to die tonight!
- Martin and Zimmerman struggle over Zimmerman's gun (according to Zimmerman's testimony to both police and to his family and friends).
- Zimmerman gets it turned toward Martin and pulls the trigger.
- Martin dies almost instantly from a single 9mm shot at contact distance.
Now, play this back in a Texas courtroom—since that is the title of this thread—and ask yourself if a Texas grand jury would likely indict or no-bill Zimmerman. It really all pivots on an unknowable exchange of words that took place between Zimmerman and Martin in the moments before the scuffle. But we do know that Zimmerman had turned and was walking away. Therefore, at the very worst, even if he spoke "fighting words" during that vocal exchange, he had backed down and was walking away. That gives him a modicum of wiggle room. At the very least, if he did not speak fighting words but merely instructed Martin that he had to move on, then all of the responsibility for this would rest on Martin's shoulders as being the initiator of an assault.