Zimmerman/Martin Shooting in Texas Analysis

[bayouhazard]

If the shooter started the fight and the shootie was believing HIS life was in jeopardy then this analysis is not correct.

If the police shot Trayvon while he was pounding George's head on the ground then this analysis is not correct.

[sjfcontrol]

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?

[03Lightningrocks]

If the shooter started the fight and the shootie was believing HIS life was in jeopardy then this analysis is not correct.

If the police shot Trayvon while he was pounding George's head on the ground then this analysis is not correct.

The police would have said... STOP or I will shoot. They also may have just knocked him off and done the cop ninja thing on him. They are trained for such situations. I seriously doubt a cop is going to just walk up and put a bullet in the head of an unarmed suspect without so much as a "by your leave".

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[bayouhazard]

My proposed theory is supported by as much evidence as any of the theories that George drew first blood.

Personally I think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

[stroo]

If Zimmerman started the fight, both these guys went beyond what is allowed for self defence and neither would be innocent. This isn't necessarily an either or situation. Rather if Zimmerman started the fight, whoever killed the other would be guilty of some form of murder. If Martin started it, Zimmerman can claim self defense at the point Martin had him down pounding his head into the ground.


While the facts right now tend to support the idea that Zimmerman broke off and Marting started the fight, the facts in this case remain fluid.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

Maybe you missed the post. That might explain the rude response you made.

[sjfcontrol]

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?

[Keith B]

OK folks. The Zimmerman/Martin threads are geeting WAY over the line on throwing personal jabs. If you are not able to keep from doing that, then do not post. That goes for this thread as well as others.

[03Lightningrocks]

My proposed theory is supported by as much evidence as any of the theories that George drew first blood.

Personally I think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

Very true. You may be right... but Jack Ruby made sure we would never here the full story on that one...

[03Lightningrocks]

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 continuing the attack. That is what I was thinking. Thanks so very much for the enlightenment.

[sjfcontrol]

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]

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.

Thanks Again...

[Beiruty]

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).