TexasCHLforum.com

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: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.

Don't try that in Oklahoma. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmac ... le/3571542" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Texas law is much the same.

TAM -- here's another scenario...

• "What is your defense Mr. sjf?"
  "I told him his mother wears army boots. He then charged me, and hit me with a right-cross to my chin."
  "What happened then?"
  "I told him I was sorry, and that I didn't want to fight him."
  "And then...?"
  "He stopped punching me, and we bought each other drinks."
  "Um, I'm confused, why are we here?"
  "Because his first punch was an assault on me, so I'm pressing charges."

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
03LightningRocks, you've described your past experiences to me, and I tend to agree with you that he should have never followed Martin. I'd be willing to bet that if you could ask Zimmerman that question today, he would agree with you. This is why our CHLs are not batman licenses, and unless it really is a matter of life and death for someone you love or you're pretty sure is an innocent victim, it is better not to play-act at being a cop and restrict yourself to being a good witness.

Funny... that was the only point I have been trying to make all along. When we bring up a self defense situation to discuss on this forum, we should discuss what the actors could have done to stay out of the situation as well as the legalities of what they did.

Ya' know, I doubt that very many, if anybody on this forum would disagree that it wasn't very smart to get out of the car. Now admit the other half, that although not smart, it was not illegal, and did not justify Martin's use of force, much less deadly force.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:TAM -- I read PC 9.31 slightly differently.......

Well, sjfcontrol had made a post about PC 9.31 to which I was trying to respond, when he apparently deleted his post....so I'll post only my reply here and maybe it will make sense.

Yes, you're right. But that's not the point I was trying to make......

IF you cuss someone out, and they charge at you, you may not respond to their initial charge with deadly force. By "charge," I mean exactly that....charging in your direction. You provoked the charge. You can't go around calling people dirty names and shooting then when they come after you for it. I'm talking about situations where your words immediately precipitate that reaction. You would have no defense in court for using deadly force because you caused the situation. (I mean the editorial "you.")

• "What is your defense Mr. TAM?"
  "I told him I had to shave his momma's back last night before I would let her sing to me."
  "Then what happened?"
  "He charged at me so I shot him."

There is no way a Texas grand jury would let that one fly. Now, compare that to this one:

• "What is your defense Mr. TAM?"
  "I told him I had to shave his momma's back last night before I would let her sing to me."
  "Then what happened?"
  "Nothing."
  "Nothing? How come he's dead and you're not?
  "Well, he didn't do anything at first, so I walked away. I got about halfway across the parking lot when he cold-cocked me from behind. The next thing I knew, I was on my back getting my head stove in."
  "So how did he get shot?"
  "After he quit bashing my head on the pavement, he grabbed my gun and told me I as going to die tonight. I fought him for control of the gun and shot him in the process."
  "No further questions."

03LightningRocks, you've described your past experiences to me, and I tend to agree with you that he should have never followed Martin. I'd be willing to bet that if you could ask Zimmerman that question today, he would agree with you. This is why our CHLs are not batman licenses, and unless it really is a matter of life and death for someone you love or you're pretty sure is an innocent victim, it is better not to play-act at being a cop and restrict yourself to being a good witness.

TAM -- yes, I deleted my post, because on further thought, (and re-reading 9.31) I decided it was wrong.

In re-reading 9.31(b) I have a senario for you...

• "What is your defense Mr. sjf?"
  "I told him his mother wears army boots. He then charged me, and hit me with a right-cross to my chin."
  "What happened then?"
  "He used illegal force, so I was justified to repel his attack with reasonable force, and I hit him back."

Nope, that doesn't fly. Since I provoked him, according to 9.31(b)(4), even though the other guy was using illegal force against me, I'm still not justified to use force to repel, since I haven't abandoned the encounter, or communicated such.

However, if it goes like this...

• "What is your defense Mr. sjf?"
  "I told him his mother wears army boots. He then charged me, and hit me with a right-cross to my chin."
  "What happened then?"
  "I told him I was sorry (that his mother wears army boots -- couldn't resist), and that I didn't want to fight him."
  "And then...?"
  "He continued to take swings at my face, so I round-housed him with a punch to the nose."

Now, i've indicated that I wanted to break off the encounter, but the other guy continues the fight -- I'm justified to use force.

Beiruty wrote:we do not know if GZ talked to the TM before the shooting, or it was the case that after losing the trail of TM, GZ turns back to go to his car. At that time, TM would approach from the back and asks GZ, "Do you have a problem. GZ: No and reaches for his cellphone. TN: "Now you have a problem" and attack TM with a punch to the nose....and the rest is history.

That's the way I understand it, too. I don't think there's any indication that anything was said between the two until Martin approached Zimmerman at his car.

Beiruty wrote:What if:
Martin gain control of GZ' pistol and shoots GZ dead. Can Martin claim self-defense? who knows it is all based who started the assault. Tailing someone at night is not valid reason to assault the follower or threaten deadly force.

Also, as per Texas law, simple assault does not justify the use of deadly force unless the fear for one's life comes into play ( like disarming the CHLer and using his weapon against the CHLer).

I agree with your last statement, except...
There is nothing in the law regarding "fear for one's life". However, you could claim if an attacker was attempting to take your gun from you, that he was "attempting to use deadly force", and therefore I believe you would be justified.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:03 -- this thread is supposed to be about an analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting against texas laws. You have already made your point in other threads about what you think. Unless you want to discuss the subject with respect to chapter 9 of the penal code, please go back to those other threads. Your posts are off topic here.

My post does have to do with the penal code.


If I am attacked first, when does the law say I have to stop defending myself? Is it when the threat is no longer a threat? Or is it when I believe the threat is no longer a threat. My post was exactly related to this thread.

DId you read the second post in this thread? PC9.32 tells you precisely when deadly force is justified, and when it ceases to be. You can use deadly force when you REASONABLY believe it is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. (Assuming that the other is not committing various violent crimes). Also, the use of force is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED (and therefore deadly force is no longer justified) once the other other party abandons his use of force, or indicates a willingness to do so. Please read the analysis if you still have questions.

P.S. Maybe YOU missed MY post?

Yes... the over analysis threw me for a loop. I get it now. So if Trayvon thought Zimmerman was ca[pable of getting up and resuming the attack, he would be justified in continueing the attack. That is what I was thinking. Thanks so very much for the enlightenment.

Absolutely right! That is precisely what I and PC 9.31 says.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:03 -- this thread is supposed to be about an analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting against texas laws. You have already made your point in other threads about what you think. Unless you want to discuss the subject with respect to chapter 9 of the penal code, please go back to those other threads. Your posts are off topic here.

My post does have to do with the penal code.


If I am attacked first, when does the law say I have to stop defending myself? Is it when the threat is no longer a threat? Or is it when I believe the threat is no longer a threat. My post was exactly related to this thread.

DId you read the second post in this thread? PC9.32 tells you precisely when deadly force is justified, and when it ceases to be. You can use deadly force when you REASONABLY believe it is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. (Assuming that the other is not committing various violent crimes). Also, the use of force is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED (and therefore deadly force is no longer justified) once the other other party abandons his use of force, or indicates a willingness to do so. Please read the analysis if you still have questions.

P.S. Maybe YOU missed MY post?

03 -- this thread is supposed to be about an analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting against texas laws. You have already made your point in other threads about what you think. Unless you want to discuss the subject with respect to chapter 9 of the penal code, please go back to those other threads. Your posts are off topic here.

I would think that somebody could cause serious damage to a person's brain by bashing his head it into a concrete sidewalk, without necessarily causing massive damage to the scalp. There have been several well-known people that have died recently after an apparently-minor bump to their head. Are you claiming that bashing someones head into a concrete sidewalk isn't deadly force? i.e. capable of causing serious bodily injury or death?

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:We don't know how the fight started. If the shooter started the fight and the shootie was believing HIS life was in jeopardy then this analysis is not correct. The shooter goes to jail for a long long time.

Fraid not. Even if Zimmerman started the confrontation (and there is no evidence that he did), Martin's response must be reasonable. Unless Zimmerman was threatening Martin with illegal deadly force, he had no justification to use deadly force back. If I grab you by the shoulder (assault), you may be justified in punching me. You would not be justified in shooting me.

And, the current story (again) is that Zimmerman was returning to his car when Martin approached from the rear, and after a couple of words, started punching, then bashing zimmermans head on the sidewalk.

No thats the allegation of the current defendant. Actual facts are highly in doubt.
Again it goes back to reasonable belief. We don't know what happened. The shooter could have threatened the shootie. The shooter could have attacked the shootie and the shootie was defending himself. Again if you attack someone and start to lose that attack you don't have the legal right to then cap them. Thats settled law. The initial fact set of the thread is flawed as its designed to to generate the desired answer. However the real fact set is much more incomplete.

Same fact set except the shootie is a woman and the shooter is an intended rapist. She defends herself and he caps her. Thats not self defense thats murder in the furtherance of a felony. Its needle time.

Have it your way then. I believe that explanation fits with what we currently know of the physical evidence, and the witness statements that have been released. That's the best we can do on this forum. However I understand that many people are out to lynch the shooter (his name is 'Zimmerman'). You're entitled to your opinions, too.

I've already said that I'm willing to modify the analysis should further information come to light.

Wienerdogtroy wrote:We don't know how the fight started. If the shooter started the fight and the shootie was believing HIS life was in jeopardy then this analysis is not correct. The shooter goes to jail for a long long time.

Fraid not. Even if Zimmerman started the confrontation (and there is no evidence that he did), Martin's response must be reasonable. Unless Zimmerman was threatening Martin with illegal deadly force, he had no justification to use deadly force back. If I grab you by the shoulder (assault), you may be justified in punching me. You would not be justified in shooting me.

And, the current story (again) is that Zimmerman was returning to his car when Martin approached from the rear, and after a couple of words, started punching, then bashing zimmermans head on the sidewalk.

By the way, I forgot to mention that even if Zimmerman IS determined to have provoked Martin, all that would mean is that the shooting is not "presumed justified".

He *should* still get a trial to determine if other factors will justify the shooting. He may lose the automatic defense, but that DOES NOT MEAN he's automatically guilty of anything. He gets a trial to determine that -- if the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence to take him to trial and convict him. He's still presumed innocent...

Keith B wrote:sjfcontrol,

I think you are over analyzing the situation.

It's the engineer in me.

This is part 2 of an analysis of the Zimmerman?Martin shooting in Florida, as interpreted by Texas "Use of Force" laws.
Remember that this is a hypothetical situation, applying Texas law to an incident that happened in Florida. It is done this way because I (and many of the members of this board) are far more familiar with Texas law, than Florida's.

In Part 1 I analyzed PC 9.31 -- SELF DEFENSE
In that part, I concluded that Martin had no justification for the use of force against Zimmerman while Zimmerman was retreating to his car.
I also concluded that Zimmerman WAS justified in the use of force against Martin to repel Martin's use of illegal force.

Now we get to find out if the use of DEADLY force is justified when Zimmerman shot Martin. This is done by analyzing PC 9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
As we did in part one, we will analyze PC 9.32 step-by-step

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

OK -- We've already concluded in Part 1 that the use of force by Zimmerman was justified to repel Martin's use of illegal force

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

Did Martin's use of force against Zimmerman constitute DEADLY force? Deadly Force is defined as "force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury" (PC 9.01(3)). You can cause death by pounding a persons head against the sidewalk. You can also cause serious bodily injury (TBI -- Traumatic Brain Injury). It would seem that Martin WAS using deadly force, and since we've already concluded that the force was illegal, it becomes "illegal Deadly Force". This clause is met.

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

None of those crimes were imminent -- doesn't apply

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(b)(1)(A) and (B) is again the Castle Doctrine, and non-applicable
(b)(1)(C) references the crimes above, and were not being committed.
So we haven't yet got a reason to "presume" justification

(2) [actor's use of Deadly Force presumed reasonable if actor] did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

Uh-oh. In Part one, I postulated that Zimmerman did not legally provoke Martin. But, I don't have a definition for the term: "provoke". As a layman, I would think that to provoke someone, you'd have to have some form of significant face-to-face confrontation. Shouting insults or profanities, for example, to be considered provocation. And we have no indication that any such confrontation happened between the two until Zimmerman was stopped on the way back to his car. Can following someone be considered provocation? If that is provocation, where does it end? In fact, under 9.31, we find that the use of force is still available after direct confrontation of a person ("sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning...differences" (9.31(b)(5))). So apparently THAT is not considered "provocation". If "Hey! Who are you, and what are you doing?" isn't a provocation, how can following be?

(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.

Well, we covered this in part 1 -- still no criminal activity going on.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Again, this is similar to 9.31(e), with the same arguments there

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

And this is the same as 9.31(f)

Conclusion:

In part one, I determined that Martin did not have justification to use force (and therefore used illegal force) against Zimmerman as he approached his car, after abandoning any confrontation or provocation created by following Martin.
I also determined that Zimmerman WAS justified in the use of force to repel Martin's use of illegal force.

In part two, I've concluded that whether or not Zimmerman was justified in the use of Deadly Force depends upon whether he "provoked" Martin. Regarding the use of (nondeadly) force, your right to self-defense is restored even if you've provoked the other person, if you break off or clearly communicate the intention to break off the confrontation, and your opponent continues the use of force. However, this restoration is not mentioned in the Deadly Force statues -- probably since once deadly force is employed, it's a little late to "abandon the confrontation".

Consider, also, what were Zimmerman's options? Was he supposed to realize while being pummeled by Martin, that he may have provoked him by following him, and therefore he'd just have to lay there and take it until Martin gave up? Apparently he didn't shoot until Martin tried to take his gun. Is he supposed to just lay there and allow Martin to take it? At that point, there was only one option open to him. And if he HADDN'T had a gun with him that night, he could be dead now, and Martin facing murder charges.

And in closing, I'd like to make a comment to all those who claim if Zimmerman had just followed the rules, and/or done what the 911 operator told him to do (the operator didn't tell him to do anything), the whole confrontation would not have occurred. Well, that's probably true, but it's a straw-man argument. I can probably list 500 different things either of the individuals could have done, or other people could have done that would have prevented the situation. I could even claim it's Martin's schools fault, since if they didn't have a no-tolerance policy regarding empty marijuana baggies, Martin would not have been expelled, and therefore would have been in bed on a school night at his mother's house, instead of wandering the neighborhood at his father & stepmother's.

Note that this entire analysis is based upon MY understaing of the situation as it's being reported now. Any new information that comes to light may alter the conclusions.