Exactly. George Zimmerman came to mind when I read some of the comments above. Many people, including the prosecution, argued that Zimmerman was the instigator by following and then questioning Martin. However, it is my understanding that Martin's subsequent physical assault of Zimmerman was justification to defend himself.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Man Stops Home Invasion With KSG Shotgun - VIDEO
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Exactly. George Zimmerman came to mind when I read some of the comments above. Many people, including the prosecution, argued that Zimmerman was the instigator by following and then questioning Martin. However, it is my understanding that Martin's subsequent physical assault of Zimmerman was justification to defend himself.
Yes. His attacker brought violence into the situation and zimmerman, regardless of what he did that made his attacker angry, found himself in a situation where he felt that he needed to defend his life. He legally defended his own life against an angry assaillant who appeared willing to beat him into a coma.
Martin and zimmerman are exactly what the issue addresses.
Zimmerman was stupid.
Martin used the non-violent confrontation as an excuse to beat the snot out of zimmerman, a man who provoked him.
Zimmerman used force, killed martin, and was found by a judge and jury to have acted correctly and legally when he killed martin. I believe that the judge clearly stated that his actions were stupid and wrong, but legally defensible.
Zimmerman was a clear, perfect example of the type of person who is taking advantage of the self-defense legal codes. He armed himself, practiced his scary face in the mirror, then turned his hat backwards and went out to clean up dodge city. Those actions had a predictable trajectory. Maybe not that night, not the next, maybe never for him. It happens to other people, other places, all of the time. That's why we have to have juries. We won't know until the trial is over whether the Zimmermans of the world have done something 'bad'.
My statement was pretty clear and simple. Lethal force is legally defensible when the user is genuinely in fear of his life, and the user of lethal force wasn't guilty of provoking the direct circumstances that brought about the killing. There are many, many stupid people out there, many people who will try to game the system and commit homicide.
Martin and zimmerman are exactly what the issue addresses.
Zimmerman was stupid.
Martin used the non-violent confrontation as an excuse to beat the snot out of zimmerman, a man who provoked him.
Zimmerman used force, killed martin, and was found by a judge and jury to have acted correctly and legally when he killed martin. I believe that the judge clearly stated that his actions were stupid and wrong, but legally defensible.
Zimmerman was a clear, perfect example of the type of person who is taking advantage of the self-defense legal codes. He armed himself, practiced his scary face in the mirror, then turned his hat backwards and went out to clean up dodge city. Those actions had a predictable trajectory. Maybe not that night, not the next, maybe never for him. It happens to other people, other places, all of the time. That's why we have to have juries. We won't know until the trial is over whether the Zimmermans of the world have done something 'bad'.
to further criticize zimmerman, unless I'm mistaken, didn't he call 911 to report that a black guy in a jacket had just walked down a sidewalk, and then go out to confront that black guy in a jacket about being where he didn't belong?
It all started there. Zimmerman was clearly the founder of the feast. Legally, however, he was justified when he shot the guy who was doing nothing more than walking down a sidewalk when it happened.
It all started there. Zimmerman was clearly the founder of the feast. Legally, however, he was justified when he shot the guy who was doing nothing more than walking down a sidewalk when it happened.
Apparently nobody ever taught D1 how to "slice the pie" nor how to properly operate a pump action shotgun.
I do have to admit the video made me squirm in my chair a little bit watching as D1 cranked off more rounds out his front door at the other involved parties as they were apparently fleeing down the street.
I do have to admit the video made me squirm in my chair a little bit watching as D1 cranked off more rounds out his front door at the other involved parties as they were apparently fleeing down the street.
Zimmerman was charged, tried, and found not guilty. He waived the right to pretrial immunity hearing. Basically the defense did not have much confidence on their claim of self defense. Some even said the defense did not really claim self defense, or they should have done that during the pretrial immunity hearing, which would block all charges against him.
He was acquitted because the jury couldn't come to unanimous conclusion that he was guilty as CHARGED. The case wasn't about "stay your ground" as clearly he had met the criterion. Then it must be at least one of the other 4 criteria that wasn't on solid ground.
-TL
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
He was acquitted because the jury couldn't come to unanimous conclusion that he was guilty as CHARGED. The case wasn't about "stay your ground" as clearly he had met the criterion. Then it must be at least one of the other 4 criteria that wasn't on solid ground.
-TL
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Let's not re-try Zimmerman. That was discussed into the ground at the time.
Back to this sterling example of family.
Back to this sterling example of family.
I have seen this play out in the courts before in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio suburbs before. We do have Castle Doctrine. In one well publicized case the home owner pursued a retreating home invasion suspect. The homeowner was in his yard when he shot and killed the suspect a full backyard next door. When the suspect was retreating, literally running away you can't just open fire. While dead bad guys is a nice thought you can't just shoot them as they are fleeing, that is the law. The homeowner was charged and convicted but I can't recall if it was manslaughter or murder.
In this case the only redemption I see for D1 is he was shot at and apparently a jury felt his returning fire at the fleeing suspect(s) was justified. There may have been other circumstances we simply don't know as the relationships are just strange.
Ron
In this case the only redemption I see for D1 is he was shot at and apparently a jury felt his returning fire at the fleeing suspect(s) was justified. There may have been other circumstances we simply don't know as the relationships are just strange.
Ron
MoArk Willy
New member
Self defense ends when the intruder /attackers are on the run.
Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.
Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.
That's certainly true-but after receiving fire, I suspect many reasonable folks would 'reflexively' continue the fight until the opponent was neutralized.Self defense ends when the intruder /attackers are on the run.
Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.
I had an instructor once who used to say, "It's important you can slow down as fast as you can speed up" in lethal force incidents; I suspect that's easier said than done sometimes.
Larry
willy, you are splitting a few fine hairs.
The guy had a legal right to be anywhere on the property he is defending. some jurisdictions allow him to defend his safety and life from exactly where he stands, no matter where it is. If he went outside because of a legitimate need, to make sure that they hadn't doubled around to the back door, for example, or had a can of gas outside, that's one thing. If he was out there from legitimate need and he was fired upon, then just as it was inside his home, it would be legitimate self defense.
Intent matters, however, if he went outside to chase the guys off or to maybe even mock them as they ran, or even try a few more times to drop them, then he crossed over the line from performing a legitimate errand to re-escalating the conflict. Stupid, and completely out of the realm of self defense. Not legally protected. It will have to be run through the courts system, for a jury to decide just how big an idiot he was, and whether he committed a crime.
All of this is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction and there are still several other things that must be judge before the person can be said to have acted in legitimate defense of himself or others. the bottom line, however, is that a person can defend, but we are not gunfighters or soldiers, nor policemen, and we have no guaranteed rights to attack a criminal unless he is currently in the act of violence that threatens our life or safety. Once the threat to one's self is over, whether the attacker is incapacitated, has surrendered, or is running for his life screaming like a little girl, the reason for further 'defense' is gone, as well as our legal rights to further 'defend' ourselves.
The guy had a legal right to be anywhere on the property he is defending. some jurisdictions allow him to defend his safety and life from exactly where he stands, no matter where it is. If he went outside because of a legitimate need, to make sure that they hadn't doubled around to the back door, for example, or had a can of gas outside, that's one thing. If he was out there from legitimate need and he was fired upon, then just as it was inside his home, it would be legitimate self defense.
Intent matters, however, if he went outside to chase the guys off or to maybe even mock them as they ran, or even try a few more times to drop them, then he crossed over the line from performing a legitimate errand to re-escalating the conflict. Stupid, and completely out of the realm of self defense. Not legally protected. It will have to be run through the courts system, for a jury to decide just how big an idiot he was, and whether he committed a crime.
All of this is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction and there are still several other things that must be judge before the person can be said to have acted in legitimate defense of himself or others. the bottom line, however, is that a person can defend, but we are not gunfighters or soldiers, nor policemen, and we have no guaranteed rights to attack a criminal unless he is currently in the act of violence that threatens our life or safety. Once the threat to one's self is over, whether the attacker is incapacitated, has surrendered, or is running for his life screaming like a little girl, the reason for further 'defense' is gone, as well as our legal rights to further 'defend' ourselves.
Just for myself, I have seen and read a little extra along with the two shown links. There is no question in my mind at all that he should have been convicted, especially if he didn't answer all of the relevant questions with all of the right answers.
how many times did he leave a place of safety and re-engage the men who had not, as far as can be proven, engaged in activities that justified deadly force in the first place?
He obviously, clearly planned for a confrontation, meaning that he knew in advance that it would be happening. He obviously, clearly stepped out of line when he continued to shoot at the men who had disengaged. having 'no duty to retreat' cannot be interpreted as having a legitimate right to pursue and continue to engage the suspects, not at all.
The laws as written in florida don't give any support at all, nothing, zippo, to support his decision to pursue and kill a home invader. The laws are simple and once you go outside of those protected circumstances, the laws are written to protect the person who used defensive force to defend himself, not to go on offense.
Castle law of florida is likewise devoid of any justification for his actions.
The titleholder went into the home, and unless he engaged in activity that justified the use of force under the stand your ground law, there may be some question. Stand your ground law doesn't limit the location, it gives blanket protection anywhere from defense as far as the law provides. In fact, if those circumstances are considered, it's really unclear that the guy had the right to fire. There was no obvious or proven justification in form of an attack or serious crime in process. In fact, from what is available, it seems that the 'invader' would have been thoroughly justified in killing the 'resident' under stand your ground law when the resident showed his gun.
These statements are what I am getting from the very simple, very clear few sentences that are part of the codes of the state of florida.
how many times did he leave a place of safety and re-engage the men who had not, as far as can be proven, engaged in activities that justified deadly force in the first place?
He obviously, clearly planned for a confrontation, meaning that he knew in advance that it would be happening. He obviously, clearly stepped out of line when he continued to shoot at the men who had disengaged. having 'no duty to retreat' cannot be interpreted as having a legitimate right to pursue and continue to engage the suspects, not at all.
The laws as written in florida don't give any support at all, nothing, zippo, to support his decision to pursue and kill a home invader. The laws are simple and once you go outside of those protected circumstances, the laws are written to protect the person who used defensive force to defend himself, not to go on offense.
Castle law of florida is likewise devoid of any justification for his actions.
The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
The titleholder went into the home, and unless he engaged in activity that justified the use of force under the stand your ground law, there may be some question. Stand your ground law doesn't limit the location, it gives blanket protection anywhere from defense as far as the law provides. In fact, if those circumstances are considered, it's really unclear that the guy had the right to fire. There was no obvious or proven justification in form of an attack or serious crime in process. In fact, from what is available, it seems that the 'invader' would have been thoroughly justified in killing the 'resident' under stand your ground law when the resident showed his gun.
These statements are what I am getting from the very simple, very clear few sentences that are part of the codes of the state of florida.
Seems to me, if D1 knew A1 was coming, and D1 was so fearful as to armor up, D1 should have contacted police. If A1 questioned police and was informed he could not be denied entry(locked out), police should have intervened then. By intervened, I meant be present to intermediate, not necessarily detain.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
oops
Last edited:
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Sorry to bring this up again after a month.
I didn't see anyone mention that there have been cases where a fleeing subject simultaneously shoots in your general direction. Some times resulting in successful/lucky shots and even so far as resulting in death. I know of one case here in Miami Florida where during a gang-related shootout where everyone scattered, someone did just that. It was a temple shot from 15-20 yards away with a 1911 chambered in 45ACP. (Not that the gun or caliber matters, but extra details.)
I didn't see anyone mention that there have been cases where a fleeing subject simultaneously shoots in your general direction. Some times resulting in successful/lucky shots and even so far as resulting in death. I know of one case here in Miami Florida where during a gang-related shootout where everyone scattered, someone did just that. It was a temple shot from 15-20 yards away with a 1911 chambered in 45ACP. (Not that the gun or caliber matters, but extra details.)