# Can an aggressor act in self defense?



## Steve (Jul 2, 2013)

Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me.  Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not.  You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you.  What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?

I just don't get it.  Can someone explain this to me?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 2, 2013)

Well, in my opinion, we have person A and B.

Person A assaults Person B. Person B fights back. Person A runs away. Person B enters pursuit of Person A and assaults them. Person A now defends themself, and kills Person B.

Thats how.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me.  Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not.  You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you.  What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?
> 
> I just don't get it.  Can someone explain this to me?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Steve,

I am not a lawyer nor am I person who gives guidance for a living. So take what I say with a grain of salt and lots of water. 

If Person A assaults Person B.  B then defends themselves. They disarm the weapon and now they have the weapon so now Person A is the defender and can use deadly force ( in many states and depending upon rulings and judgement etcetera so see my first line I am not a lawyer ) . 

If Person B defends and person A is on the ground. Person B now has the advantage and the person A on the ground is at the disadvantage. 


If Person B's friends show up and now Person A is out numbered, cornered or trapped. 


In no way am I justifying any actions. 

In no way am I condoning any actions.



I am only commenting on Steve's thread.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 2, 2013)

It's complicated, but not really.

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying that you did something that would ordinarily be wrong -- but you had a good reason or good justification.  The Zimmerman case, based on a lot of coverage is not the situation you've described.  Manslaughter is, I think, a more viable charge here than murder.  Manslaughter is death by misadventure; the defendant gets into a situation where they could and should have recognized the danger, and done something else, but they ended up killing someone.  Murder requires malice aforethought -- an evil intent to do harm, even it if only formed a few instants before the attack.  That's where most drunken driving killings aren't murder; the defendant can't form the required intent -- but they could and should have known that they shouldn't have been driving.  Honestly -- it doesn't even seem that Zimmerman initiated the contact or started the fight.

So... how could an aggressor become a victim, and be justified in using force, especially lethal force?  Basically, the original defender has to become an attacker.  One simple way, that happens too damn often, is the homeowner who defends his house or the cashier at a stop & rob who defends himself against a robbery -- but then goes in chase when the bad guy runs away after being thwarted.  Suddenly, the bad guy is fleeing from a guy with a gun -- who has now become the attacker, and could easily find himself in a jam.  Another slight variation that's just especially relevant to martial arts instructors is a student who defends himself from an attack.  The defense is successful, and the attacker is down, helpless, and the student throws in another shot, or just carries that wonderful self defense combination through to the head stomp, throat rip... and finds himself arrested.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me.  Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not.  You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you.  What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?
> 
> I just don't get it.  Can someone explain this to me?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I can be armed and punch you. If you pull a knife and try to kill me you don't think I can now legally defend my life because I "started it"? If I approach you and flash my gun that changes things but I don't know that this is a fact in play.

I could still be charged with assault for the initial blows yet be justified in using deadly force if you elevated the encounter.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> It's complicated, but not really.
> 
> Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying that you did something that would ordinarily be wrong -- but you had a good reason or good justification.  The Zimmerman case, based on a lot of coverage is not the situation you've described.  Manslaughter is, I think, a more viable charge here than murder.  Manslaughter is death by misadventure; the defendant gets into a situation where they could and should have recognized the danger, and done something else, but they ended up killing someone.  Murder requires malice aforethought -- an evil intent to do harm, even it if only formed a few instants before the attack.  That's where most drunken driving killings aren't murder; the defendant can't form the required intent -- but they could and should have known that they shouldn't have been driving.  Honestly -- it doesn't even seem that Zimmerman initiated the contact or started the fight.
> 
> So... how could an aggressor become a victim, and be justified in using force, especially lethal force?  Basically, the original defender has to become an attacker.  One simple way, that happens too damn often, is the homeowner who defends his house or the cashier at a stop & rob who defends himself against a robbery -- but then goes in chase when the bad guy runs away after being thwarted.  Suddenly, the bad guy is fleeing from a guy with a gun -- who has now become the attacker, and could easily find himself in a jam.  Another slight variation that's just especially relevant to martial arts instructors is a student who defends himself from an attack.  The defense is successful, and the attacker is down, helpless, and the student throws in another shot, or just carries that wonderful self defense combination through to the head stomp, throat rip... and finds himself arrested.



I think that if Zimmerman approached Martin and flashed his gun or threatened/stated he had a gun than sure manslaughter...but approaching a person isn't in and of itself a reckless act. If Z approached M and was summarily ground and pounded and/or his gun was now exposed and in play..that changes things IMO. Of course with no independent witness to verify who knows what REALLY happened?


----------



## Tames D (Jul 2, 2013)

I think someone pounding their fists relentlessly into my face while on top of me would justify me doing whatever it takes to save my life.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 2, 2013)

We talk about this all the time w.r.t. knives. If someone tries to stab me and I disarm them then I have to consider the current threat to me in deciding whether I can stab them. I can't just do it from revenge; if they try to run, I can't chase them; I have to believe I'm still in serious danger.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 2, 2013)

> Can an aggressor act in self defense?



Sure. If the aggressor is an unarmed 17 year old boy being accosted by a strange man with a gun, and he attacks the man who approached him-regardless of race, or "ground and pound," -he's acted in self-defense. Throw in a few social factors, and it gets even more "self-defense-y"


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Sure. If the aggressor is an unarmed 17 year old boy being accosted by a strange man with a gun, and he attacks the man who approached him-regardless of race, or "ground and pound," -he's acted in self-defense. Throw in a few social factors, and it gets even more "self-defense-y"



Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?

Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tames D (Jul 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?
> 
> Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



This is obviously a race thing.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?
> 
> Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Is there any evidence that he didn't?

More to the point, at what point is a _minor_, being followed by an *adult*, in the dark of night, not to consider that adult's mere following them "an overt threat?" Questions of race aside, for the nonce....


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Is there any evidence that he didn't?
> 
> More to the point, at what point is a _minor_, being followed by an *adult*, in the dark of night, not to consider that adult's mere following them "an overt threat?" Questions of race aside, for the nonce....



There isnt..which makes proving Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt problematic....manslaughter would have been the better charge, but that wouldn't have played well with some factions.

The "minor" thing doesn't really play with me...seen far too many violent crimes perpetrated by "minors" to believe that youth tips the innocence scale one way or the other....if he was that scared of the big mean adult why didn't he run?

IMO there's probably "fault" enough to go around here, but Murder 2 seems like a political charge vs a provable one.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> There isnt..which makes proving Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt problematic....manslaughter would have been the better charge, but that wouldn't have played well with some factions.



With this, I agree...





Tgace said:


> The "minor" thing doesn't really play with me...seen far too many violent crimes perpetrated by "minors" to believe that youth tips the innocence scale one way or the other....if he was that scared of the big mean adult why didn't he run?



Maybe running wasn't an option? He was advised to run by the girl he was on the phone with-some sort of confrontation clearly occurred before it got violent-he was heard asking, "_Why are you following me?_ "  Don't know or think that anyone was "innocent," just know that I spent 6 hrs. in a Florida jail for being-_as the policeman put it_ " a *nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day,, and that-even if that was nearly 35 years ago, some attitudes just don't change that quickly.....frankly, if I were a black kid in Florida being followed by a white-man (or what I thought was a "white man") after dark, I'd be scared-"in fear for my life," the so-called "gold standard" for self-defense.

Of course, that's just me. Some might argue that Zimmerman isn't "white," but "Hispanic," disregarding, of course, that our completely arbitrary mandated standards of ethnicity have separate categories for "Black, Hispanic, "  and "Black, not Hispanic," and "White, Hispanic," and "White, not Hispanic." 

In any case, in most places, barring any other evidence, the guy with the gun would really have to prove he wasn't the aggressor, what with following his victim and all.....



Tgace said:



			IMO there's probably "fault" enough to go around here, but Murder 2 seems like a political charge vs a provable one.
		
Click to expand...


And I agree all around-though I think Zimmerman probably wasn't initially charged with anything at all in part because of the whole, "nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day" attitude that one can find with Florida law-enforcement-and I say "law enforcement" to include the ADA and DA-I think the original investigating officer is on record as wanting Zimmerman charged with "something" from the onset....*


----------



## billc (Jul 3, 2013)

What we know...Martin is the one who initiated the face to face contact...how do we know...the 18 year old girl he was on the phone with stated, under oath, that Martin said something to Zimmerman first...Then Zimmerman responded.  This matches what Zimmerman said in court on all of the video they have played of his recounting the encounter with the Sanford Police dept.  

Again, following someone in a public area is not against the law and if what Zimmerman says is true, does not warrant a physical response.  The only one we know made race an issue...Martin...how do we know, again the sworn testimony of his friend on the phone.

Also, thought it hasn't been introduced in court yet, Martin had a history of interest in the MMA, if no formal training in it.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Maybe running wasn't an option? He was advised to run by the girl he was on the phone with-some sort of confrontation clearly occurred before it got violent-he was heard asking, "_Why are you following me?_ "  Don't know or think that anyone was "innocent," just know that I spent 6 hrs. in a Florida jail for being-_as the policeman put it_ " a *nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day,, and that-even if that was nearly 35 years ago, some attitudes just don't change that quickly.....frankly, if I were a black kid in Florida being followed by a white-man (or what I thought was a "white man") after dark, I'd be scared-"in fear for my life," the so-called "gold standard" for self-defense.*


*

Quite a bit of assumption there...were you jailed by this particular PD? The whole broadbrushing of an entire States LEO's based on your 35 yo incident is proof of nothing...is my entire PD suspect if the NYPD stop and frisks minorities? We don't do that. If we applied the logic people use on cops to race we would start a huge row.

I cant comment on the shooting investigation ..to be honest this is in Florida...I only have a passing interest. But the whole "why didn't cops arrest Zimmerman on the spot" is a bit of TV inspired armchair policing. 

Excepting outright murderer/robbery/Rape etc, if you have a suspect ID'd who is a local not going anywhere; and its possible it was a self defense shoot, it can help an investigation to NOT immediately arrest. An arrest starts prosecutorial clocks ticking and rights are applied that can hinder questioning. Most times the LEO's have to call the DA before making an arrest in a felony crime to assure that the arrest wont hinder the prosecution at that stage.

All immediate arrest would have been good for would have been to appease the masses....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2*


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> is my entire PD suspect if the NYPD stop and frisks minorities?


*Yes.*


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> *Yes.*



How is that? They are on the other end of the state. They have tens of thousands of officers....we have 132.

Hell..our policies, proceedures and disciplinary process is vastly different even from the major city adjacent to me.

I think your trolling now...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

billc said:


> What we know...Martin is the one who initiated the face to face contact...how do we know...the 18 year old girl he was on the phone with stated, under oath, that Martin said something to Zimmerman first...Then Zimmerman responded. This matches what Zimmerman said in court on all of the video they have played of his recounting the encounter with the Sanford Police dept.
> 
> Again, following someone in a public area is not against the law and if what Zimmerman says is true, does not warrant a physical response. The only one we know made race an issue...Martin...how do we know, again the sworn testimony of his friend on the phone.
> 
> Also, thought it hasn't been introduced in court yet, Martin had a history of interest in the MMA, if no formal training in it.



First off, we're dealing in hypotheticals here-as per the original post. What we _think_ we know, what the *facts* are, and what's "proven" in court may all be separate, entirely different things. I offered an instance in which a young man in what we think may have been Trayvon Martin's situation, might be the "aggressor" as well as the "defender." 

As for being followed not being illegal or even confrontational, that's debatable-especially since Zimmerman did so in direct contravention of law-enforcement advisement. In any case, while we "know" that Trayvon Martin initiated face-to-face contact by confronting Zimmerman, we don't know-and may never know-just what Zimmerman's response to that was, and whether that response in any way prompted Martin's "ground and pound" in legitimate self-defense.

Likewise, the fact of his MMA interest or training, is immaterial in this hypothetical situation. The only one where Zimmerman is justified in shooting is where Trayvon Martin attacked him-and the only one saying as much in court so far is Zimmerman's attorney. 

He may be the only one to *ever* say as much in court.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

Does a dispatcher telling you to do something make it "illegal" to ignore them? 

I don't know about this agency, but most police dispatchers are not sworn LE.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> How is that? They are on the other end of the state?
> 
> Hell..our policies, proceedures and disciplinary process is vastly different even from the major city adjacent to me.
> 
> ...



You know, I'm in my sixth decade, now, Tony.

Most of the first four were spent in NY State.

In that time I've gone from "Negro," to "Black" to "Afro-American" to "Black" and to the current "African-American," and, while in my case the perjorative "*Halfrican* American" literally applies ("Which half?" I continue to ask...:lfao: ) it is how the world sees me, and the first thing that cops-everywhere-assess, unless it's the driving of my car-in which case it's the second thing they assess. 

In none of those decades has it been otherwise. I do not-*cannot*-trust the police, _especially_ in *any* jurisdiction in upstate NY or Long Island, and very little I've ever seen has shown me otherwise-my father being searched in front of his family, while wearing his _lclerical garb_[, in 1968-simply because we were the only "black" family in our Westchester neighborhood-the first one, in fact. Or me, being roughly searched in that same neighborhood _while walking my dog_, simply because I answered, when asked what I was doing, "I'm out for a walk," and a neighbor's house had been burglarized-never mind that I was two doors down from the house I'd grown up in, an entire block away from the house that had been burglarized, and had no criminal record.Or the time I watched two NY State troopers put a thumping on a dying man's wife and her friend in an ER waiting room, in front of small children-one of whom was mine....I have *no* reason to trust *any* policeman, and no reason to do anything but mistrust them until they prove otherwise,  and the reason I cannot trust them-*any of them*is because of the color of my skin. It is also, of course, the nature of their very human business, and the way they conduct it, but the police are not to be trusted, especially if you're black.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

Tony?

What's your opinion on black cops?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Does a dispatcher telling you to do something make it "illegal" to ignore them?
> 
> I don't know about this agency, but most police dispatchers are not sworn LE.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



No, but the laws against harassment and stalking-especially in the state of Florida-make it illegal. While he didn't receive a lawful order from law enforcement, Zimmerman was-as I posted-advised not to do what he did.

ANd, while he may be acquitted, I predict that, ala OJ Simpson, he's going to lose the civil suit, wrongful death trial.....unless Martin's parents keep that Krump character as their attorney....:lol:


----------



## arnisador (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> ANd, while he may be acquitted, I predict that, ala OJ Simpson, he's going to lose the civil suit



Yeah, reasonable odds--unless the stand-your-ground law includes  a provision for civil responsibility too.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Tony?
> 
> What's your opinion on black cops?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Sorry-I'm even worse with names face-to-face....:lol:

Listen, at the end of the day-most cops are okay, and for every ***, there've been some who really are just doing their job. The nature of your job, though, makes you suspicious, and you make countless judgements as though your lives depend upon them, and sometimes they really do. I've worked closely with law enforcement under several different circumstances through the last three decades, and I don't have a generally low opinion of them or their professionalism-I have a low opinion of how their job influences their judgements and actions, and how their drive to interdict often leads them to intrude upon citizens' rights-especially minority citizens, but citizens in general. Heck, I even dated an instructor at the NYPD academy.....that was nice!

*No one* should trust the police, too much, though....

As for "black cops," depending upon the jurisdiction, they can be even worse when dealing with a minority-one of the guys who frisked me in front of my suburban childhood home (and"frisked" is just wrong-they reached into the pockets of my field jacket and removed the contents, insisting that they had PC the entire time) was black-I never specified race, though-you all are blue, or grey, or whatever color-call it "blue."


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm okay with wherever the thread goes, but there is already a thread about the actual Zimmerman trial.  I am really interested in how an aggressor becomes a victim.

How about this?  Say I'm a mugger, armed with a handgun, and You believe I'm stalking you in a secluded area.  I follow you and you are growing increasingly agitated and worried.  You decide that flight is impractical for whatever reason and choose to confront me.  I close on you and we struggle. 

You take my gun from me and shoot me.  Self defense?  I think clearly yes.

What if I take my gun and shoot you.  Self defense?  I don't know...  I lean toward not. I struggle to imagine how it could be.

Now, I know that Zimmerman wasn't a mugger.  But does that change the scenario in a meaningful way?  And if yes, how?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> No, but the laws against harassment and stalking-especially in the state of Florida-make it illegal. While he didn't receive a lawful order from law enforcement, Zimmerman was-as I posted-advised not to do what he did.
> 
> ANd, while he may be acquitted, I predict that, ala OJ Simpson, he's going to lose the civil suit, wrongful death trial.....unless Martin's parents keep that Krump character as their attorney....:lol:



As long as the persons course of action is for a reasonable purpose its not stalking or harassment. Its arguable that Martins actions...if Z's version of events is true...were at least slightly suspicious. Following someone walking around my neighbors yards to see what hes doing is not unreasonable...stalking... or harassment.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> As long as the persons course of action is for a reasonable purpose its not stalking or harassment. Its arguable that Martins actions...if Z's version of events is true...were at least slightly suspicious. Following someone walking around my neighbors yards to see what hes doing is not unreasonable...stalking... or harassment.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2




Zimmerman alleges that he got out of his vehicle because he didn't know what street he was on.

In a neighborhood where he lived.................

That only has _three_ streets..................

Following someone in the dark of night, when you're not law-enforcement, and an apparently *stupid* neighborhood watch member (I mean, how effective can he be if he "didn't know what street he was on?" :lfao: ) is pretty criminal in my opinion, and makes following a kid-while armed-*criminal, * in and of itself....


----------



## Tames D (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> You know, I'm in my sixth decade, now, Tony.
> 
> Most of the first four were spent in NY State.
> 
> ...



Dude, 
You and I live in totally different worlds. Although I can't relate, I feel for you. I would not wish your past experiences on my worst enemy. I hope you can find peace. You're a good man.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm okay with wherever the thread goes, but there is already a thread about the actual Zimmerman trial.  I am really interested in how an aggressor becomes a victim.
> 
> How about this?  Say I'm a mugger, armed with a handgun, and You believe I'm stalking you in a secluded area.  I follow you and you are growing increasingly agitated and worried.  You decide that flight is impractical for whatever reason and choose to confront me.  I close on you and we struggle.
> 
> ...



You've already stated your intent was to commit a crime. I don't know what you are asking here. 

Most self defence laws like my States say that you change from attacker to victim when you clearly withdraw from an encounter and the other person continues. As long as you start as a mugger you are the attacker until you surrender and the other person then tries to kill you.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Zimmerman alleges that he got out of his vehicle because he didn't know what street he was on.
> 
> In a neighborhood where he lived.................
> 
> ...



Ive forgot where I was before under stress.  Starting calling for more units and cant remember where I was.  It happens.  Its easy to judge sitting behind your keyboard in the safety of your own home.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive forgot where I was before under stress. Starting calling for more units and cant remember where I was. It happens. Its easy to judge sitting behind your keyboard in the safety of your own home.


Actually, Zimmerman was "in the safety of his own home," as far as those _three streets_ go-he could have reported the wrong one, and the cops would have gotten there.....he gets no pass on "under stress" prior to Trayvon Martin's confronting him at all.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 3, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm okay with wherever the thread goes, but there is already a thread about the actual Zimmerman trial.  I am really interested in how an aggressor becomes a victim.
> 
> How about this?  Say I'm a mugger, armed with a handgun, and You believe I'm stalking you in a secluded area.  I follow you and you are growing increasingly agitated and worried.  You decide that flight is impractical for whatever reason and choose to confront me.  I close on you and we struggle.
> 
> ...



Its not really that hard to understand.  You go from Victim to suspect as soon as you have gotten the upper hand and the other person has given up.  For example.  You try to rob me.  You Pull you gun and point it at me.  I attack you in self defense.  You fall and bang your head and are knocked out.  The fights over because Im no longer in danger I have no more legal right to defend myself.  If I then jump on you and start pounding you Im now the suspect and the mugger is now the victim.  They are two different crimes You can still be charged with attempting to rob me, but I can also be charged with assaulting you.
You see it alot in police encounters.  I go to arrest you and you fight me.  Were now in a fight and I punch you in the face and you give up.  If I then give you an extra "lump" to teach you a lesson Ive just assaulted you.
Where I see it alot is a robber goes into a store pulls a gun on the clerk.  The clerk then pulls his gun and the robber runs away.  The clerk chases after robber and when he gets to the door he starts shooting into the parking lot at the robber thats still running.  If he hit him and killed him In my opinion thats a crime.  He was no long in danger and had no reason to defend himself.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Zimmerman was "in the safety of his own home," as far as those _three streets_ go-he could have reported the wrong one, and the cops would have gotten there.....he gets no pass on "under stress" prior to Trayvon Martin's confronting him at all.....



Says the guy thats never walked up to see what a suspicious person is doing.  Hes taking a part in the safety of his community.  If more people gave a crap about others and where they live we wouldnt have half the crime we do now.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Zimmerman alleges that he got out of his vehicle because he didn't know what street he was on.
> 
> In a neighborhood where he lived.................
> 
> ...



Ever try to give your location while under stress? Ive drawn a blank on what street I was on a few times when I was a rookie. Getting out of your car? Granted that's odd...

If he reasonably believed he was following a suspicious person...however unadviseable or ill considered that was...it is hardly "criminal" or becomes stalking. Simply having a legal gun on you doesnt change that fact. If he drew his gun and menaced someone simply for "looking suspicious" that a different story. If he recognized Martin and wanted to $#@% with him...that's a different story.

If in an alternate universe Martin was a burglar and Z followed till the cops caught him he would be getting a citizens award. 

I think Z was an overzealous wannabe, but that doesn't mean its not possible that his actions that night (following someone he thought suspicious) were unreasonable on their face..I'm not convinced that what happened was murder. Manslaughter? Possibly. Self defence? Possibly. 

I agree...his getting sued is more likely than a murder conviction...but we will see.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Says the guy thats never walked up to see what a suspicious person is doing. Hes taking a part in the safety of his community. If more people gave a crap about others and where they live we wouldnt have half the crime we do now.



And that is a *monumentally* erroneous assumption on your part-I can only speak of the burglar I caught in my neighborhood growing up, or the various things I've done for neighbor's safety over  the years. 

I can barely utter the things I have done for the greater world community's safety, simply because I could, and because I "give a crap about others," but I think Zimmerman's actions were wrong in this situation.

And if* I'd *been following Trayvon Martin, he wouldn't have seen me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And if* I'd *been following Trayvon Martin, he wouldn't have seen me.



Defeats the point of a neighborhood watch


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 3, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And that is a *monumentally* erroneous assumption on your part-I can only speak of the burglar I caught in my neighborhood growing up, or the various things I've done for neighbor's safety over  the years.


Were you frightened?  If you had to give an accurate report of what you saw in the moment could you?


> I can barely utter the things I have done for the greater world community's safety, simply because I could, and because I "give a crap about others," but I think Zimmerman's actions were wrong in this situation.
> .


  Depends on whos story you believe.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Were you frightened? If you had to give an accurate report of what you saw in the moment could you?
> 
> Depends on whos story you believe.



Was I frightened? Of course, Did I give an accurate report of what I saw in the moment?

Hell, I took *pictures*, knowing that it might mean a builet if I got caught...or worse. 

"Give an accurate report..." :lfao:


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I think that if Zimmerman approached Martin and flashed his gun or threatened/stated he had a gun than sure manslaughter...but approaching a person isn't in and of itself a reckless act. If Z approached M and was summarily ground and pounded and/or his gun was now exposed and in play..that changes things IMO. Of course with no independent witness to verify who knows what REALLY happened?



Didn't say it was a good charge -- just a more viable charge than murder.  This is a show trial, after the press and the Obama administration made it quite clear that they weren't going to accept a finding by the prosecutor that Zimmerman was justified, and shouldn't be prosecuted.

Of course, I fully expect riots, whether or not Zimmerman is convicted.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Didn't say it was a good charge -- just a more viable charge than murder.  This is a show trial, after the press and the Obama administration made it quite clear that they weren't going to accept a finding by the prosecutor that Zimmerman was justified, and shouldn't be prosecuted.
> 
> Of course, I fully expect riots, whether or not Zimmerman is convicted.



Yeah....agreed.

Nothing says protest like hurting innocent people and damaging property.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 3, 2013)

A key point...Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher as he was following Martin.  The whole conversation was  trying   to get the police to where Martin was seen so they could deal with him.  If he had planned on gunning Martin down...he would ha e shot him...and then called the police.  Remember, he knew the police were on the way, as per the dispatcher...and when he was told he didn't have to follow Martin, he said okay, and if you listen to e call his breathing slowed.

As to the main idea in the thread, when the aggressor stops aggressing and the defender then starts aggressing.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2013)

Regarding Zimmerman, I don't personally think he intended to kill him.  I do, however, believe that by aggressively pursuing him, he provoked a confrontation.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 3, 2013)

Steve I think you were given some good information by both jks9199 and tgace earlier.  

*I think with this case we have a situation where we just don't know.*  We don't know who initiated physical contact, who was the aggressor, etc.  What we do know is that we have one side of the story and that is pretty much it. (we are not getting the other side)  With that and all the testimony and evidence I think that the charge is just not provable by the prosecution.  They are going to lose.  Having said that I think Zimmerman is a total tool plus a fool and is responsible for the whole thing as he just should have kept his distance and let the police respond.  In the end he probably gets off but..... loses in a civil court wrongful death case.  His life is ruined, Trayvon Martin life is ruined and both sides of family and friends lives are affected negatively!  

Having lived in an inner city for awhile aka Detroit and grown up around Flint I can tell you I have seen some pretty interesting stuff from crazy people and the police.  Most people are really good citizens and most police are really good people too.  In any group there is always a small percentage of total jerks!  So be smart, be aware and prepared!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2013)

I don't know if "aggressively pursued" has been defined. As I understand it Z never got significantly close to M...it was M who turned and came up to Z.

It seems like we are portraying Z as having ran right up to M and confronting him...I'm not certain that's the case. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 3, 2013)

Well, from the only account that matters, Martin's friend on the phone with him shows he initiated conversation with Z.  This supports Z's version of how the actual encounter began.

I think before you can judge Zimmerman's actions you also have to examine who Martin actually was instead of the young, small, child he is portrayed as by all the media.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't know if "aggressively pursued" has been defined. As I understand it Z never got significantly close to M...it was M who turned and came up to Z.
> 
> It seems like we are portraying Z as having ran right up to M and confronting him...I'm not certain that's the case.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Regarding Zimmerman, my understanding is that he pursued Martin for a significant length of time, and over some distance, not hiding it.  That is what I mean by aggressive pursuit.  It's dark, and someone who is obviously hostile is obviously tailing you.  I'd be nervous.  Wouldn't you?  At some point, a decision has to be made whether to fight or flee.  

The disconnect for me is how Martin, the kid who wasn't doing anything wrong, was being followed by a known overzealous cop wannabe, and is now dead, is somehow to blame, as some here are trying to cast him.  How can he be other than the victim? I don't get it.  I have a pretty vivid imagination, but can't picture a sequence of events in which he is not the victim.

Let's say this isn't Zimmerman and Martin.  You're a teenager, in the dark, being tailed by someone whom you believe has ill intent.  You cut through some yards and try to lose the guy, but he's made clear he isn't letting up. You aren't armed, but think flight isn't viable, for whatever reason.  You turn and confront your pursuer.  It gets physical and you believe your life is in danger.

Are you acting in self defense?

Is your pursuer?  

I'm on an iPad, and if I've missed some posts, I apologize.  I didn't pay much attention to the back and forth between Tgace and elder.  If there's something there, I'll go back.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Well, from the only account that matters, Martin's friend on the phone with him shows he initiated conversation with Z.  This supports Z's version of how the actual encounter began.
> 
> I think before you can judge Zimmerman's actions you also have to examine who Martin actually was instead of the young, small, child he is portrayed as by all the media.



Okay.  Lets say you're a pregnant, drug addicted, high school drop out, kleptomaniac walking alone at night, being followed by a known, over zealous neighborhood watch, cop wannabe who, you believe is dangerous.  

How does that make you any less the victim?  I still don't get it.  Even if Martin were a gang member (which I don't think he was), explain how he goes from being pursued to aggressor?  He couldn't have initiated the confrontation, because we know that Zimmerman was actively pursuing him.  Isn't that initiating a confrontation?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Jul 3, 2013)

> It's dark, and someone who is obviously hostile is obviously tailing you.



How do you know what Zimmerman looked like?  what kind of attitude did Martin have before the attack?  His past behavior would shed some light on that.  His tweets would show that he apparently liked fighting, mma style, and that he was agitated about a fight he had lost against some other guy.  he tweets and his behavior problems at home and in school have also been excluded from evidence so far.  He was living with his dad because his mother kicked him out to live with other relatives who also couldn't live with him...so he was sent to his dad.  Those kind of issues change his possible demeanor on that night.


----------



## billc (Jul 3, 2013)

also, he was close enough to his father's girlfriends townhouse and could have made it there avoiding Zimmerman altogether.  if that is the case, with the fact that he initiated verbal contact with Zimmerman, he could have become the aggressor at that point.  it was dark, he had 3 inches in height on Zimmerman without the addition of the hoodie making him look even bigger, an he apparenltly may have surprised Zimmerman.  According to testimony, from the girl, he was already hostile to Zimmerman's presence. So sure, he could have become the aggressor very easily.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 3, 2013)

Steve said:


> Okay.  Lets say you're a pregnant, drug addicted, high school drop out, kleptomaniac walking alone at night, being followed by a known, over zealous neighborhood watch, cop wannabe who, you believe is dangerous.
> 
> How does that make you any less the victim?  I still don't get it.  Even if Martin were a gang member (which I don't think he was), explain how he goes from being pursued to aggressor?  He couldn't have initiated the confrontation, because we know that Zimmerman was actively pursuing him.  Isn't that initiating a confrontation?
> 
> ...



Wow. just wow


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

Other than the media describing Zimmerman as an over zealous neighborhood watch, cop wannabe, (do you realize the woman in charge of the neighborhood watch from the police dept. offered him an upgrade to his status where he would have been given a car and a uniform...and he turned it down as was revealed in court ) how do you define "over zealous and cop wannabe."

Here is a look at Martin and the behavior issues that could turn him into an aggressor...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html



> This story was pure fable from the beginning, and the attorneys knew it.  Even before going public, they moved to seal Martin's school records, and with good reason.  Consider this exchange between Martin and a female friend on November 21, three months before his death.  After he told her he was "tired and sore" from a fight, she asked him why he fought.  "Bae" is shorthand for "babe."
> MARTIN: Cause man dat ***** snitched on me
> FRIEND: Bae y you always fightinqq man, you got suspended?
> MARTIN: Naw we thumped afta skool in a duckd off spot
> ...





> As his social media accounts show, Martin was a student of mixed martial arts.  The fight followed the MMA format.  A day later, he would tell a friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn."  As his girlfriend complained, Martin was "always" fighting.  He was also something of a sadist.  His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough.  Why might this be relevant?
> Witness #6, the best of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, told the Sanford PD that a there was a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy ... or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help," and that black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style."






> On November 22, the day after the MMA-style fight, Martin told a friend that his mother "just kicked me out" and that he had to move in with his father.  When the friend asked why, Martin answered, "Da police caught me outta skool."
> "U a hoodlum," said the friend.  "Naw," said Martin.  "I'm a gangsta."  Incredibly, his death would transform this wannabe gangster into a saintly little boy, or, in the words of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, a "precious victim."
> On December 21, 2011, Martin told a friend, "dam I just got in trouble 4 sum sh** I aint even do."  His mother, Sybrina Fulton, was dismayed.  "Pack up your clothes now," she texted him.  "I love u but I think u being w/ ur Dad is best."
> Martin lived with his mother only intermittently and spent even less time with his father, who was then living with a sister in the Miami area.
> ...




Hmmmmmm....He was something of a sadist?

Is this the kind of kid who could have become the aggressor, as compared to the small, innocent looking child we are shown in the media?


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

Is this the kind of kid who could turn into an aggressor?



> In between these texts, Martin was negotiating to buy a handgun with a friend.  "U wanna share a .380?" he asked.  Guns excited him.  "U got heat??" he enthused earlier upon learning that a friend had access to a gun.
> Upon leaving Miami, Martin seemed to be growing angrier.  On February 21, he texted a girlfriend who was pouting about another girl, presumably in Sanford.  Wrote Martin, "f*** u cuz I neva text ha 2 day I made dat sh** up so u leav me df alone bout it."
> Two days later on February 23, a friend tried to warn Martin off some behavior that troubled even the friend.  "I ain't ya parent," he texted him, "but gsh** thro it away."  Martin was not in the mood to be lectured to.  "Y u gotta knock my hustle??" he shot back.



Of course, the judge won't allow this in court...yet...

This article shows that if he had wanted, Martin could have avoided Zimmerman altogether...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...estions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html



> According to the audio released by the police, after Martin stared at Zimmerman and began to approach him, the teen took off in the opposite direction, toward the rear entrance of the community and toward the apartment he was staying in.  The distance from where Zimmerman began his call, near the mailboxes by the clubhouse, to the apartment of Brandy Green, where Martin was staying, is roughly 850 feet.  Someone in good shape could probably run the distance in less than a minute and walk it in two.  From the start of Zimmerman's phone call, Martin had about six minutes to get home.  But the teenager was apparently not interested in returning to the apartment of his dad's fiancée and reporting the suspicious man to 911.  He was shot about 550 feet from where Zimmerman began his call, about 300 feet from Brandy Green's apartment.



If it is possible that he could have made it home, why did the confrontation even occur?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 4, 2013)

Steve is there any situation you can think of where a victim can become the suspect?  Putting the Martin case aside just in general can the rolls of victim and suspect be flipped?   I only ask because there are many that say no.  Once you start as the suspect you get what's coming to you. You brought it on your self.


----------



## Kurai (Jul 4, 2013)

Ballen,  If ever I'm in your neck of the woods, I'd be happy to buy you a pint.  I have a ton of respect for you.  

I'll give an example. I am an educated black man that has been followed, observed, etc., more than I can count, over the course of my lifetime.  I am a law abiding citizen, with a ccw, that works a white-collar job, for my state government.  I have a home in a cul-de-sac, in a decent neighborhood.  I'll be the first to say as far as Martin-Zimmerman case, I don't know.  Don't have enough facts.  

I have been profiled, as dwb (driving while black), walking while black, shopping while black, etc.  I've even been "profiled" as an attempted arm robber, because I was chatting late at night with a friend while he was closing the video store he managed, and after closing we were stepping across the street to the local pub.  I've made a point to be absolutely sure of the laws in my state because of the previously mentioned.  I have been a suspect for simply being black.  In truth, I'm of black-hispanic-european descent, but the first thought of people without knowing my name, is black.  When I was younger I changed styles after getting the snot beat out of me for defending someone else, (he brought two friends).  

It has changed over time, but still has a long way to go.  The statement of "Once you start as the suspect you get what's coming to you. You brought it on your self.", I truly believe to be off base.  A good friend of mine years ago explained it to someone.  She's lesbian.  She described it as, "I can hide my sexuality from scrutiny, he can't hide his race."

It is truly sad, that I'm not viewed as, just another "American", who believes in the constitution, and would die for his country in a heartbeat, or protecting others. That's the life I've lived though.

Steve, feel free to use me as your example.  I'm a martial artist with a ccw.  I do carry where-ever, when-ever it's legal for me to do so.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 4, 2013)

Kurai said:


> It is truly sad, that I'm not viewed as, just another "American", who believes in the constitution, and would die for his country in a heartbeat, or protecting others. That's the life I've lived though.
> 
> Steve, feel free to use me as your example.  I'm a martial artist with a ccw.  I do carry where-ever, when-ever it's legal for me to do so.



The issue I have with the Cry's of racism (not saying that's what you were doing) is that its so over played that its meaningless now.  As a police officer I get called a racist at least once a day.  That's by all races.  I've even had white guys say I was picking on them because they ate white.  Race to me is just a way to describe a person no different then saying they are fat skinny blue eyed tall short.  It means nothing.  Now don't get me wrong there are racists out there.  The shopping while black ect ect isn't just a black thing.  When I worked under cover they same guy following you around for shopping while black would be following me around as well.  Then you have phony outrage over race issues like this Paula Dean story you cant have a serious discussion about not using the N word until its removed from rap music and popular teen vocabulary or the Washington Redskins story.  People look for any reason they can to scream racism.  It make real instances of it just seem less impactfull  because of the 100s of cases of BS boy who cried wolf stories.


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

billc said:


> How do you know what Zimmerman looked like?  what kind of attitude did Martin have before the attack?  His past behavior would shed some light on that.  His tweets would show that he apparently liked fighting, mma style, and that he was agitated about a fight he had lost against some other guy.  he tweets and his behavior problems at home and in school have also been excluded from evidence so far.  He was living with his dad because his mother kicked him out to live with other relatives who also couldn't live with him...so he was sent to his dad.  Those kind of issues change his possible demeanor on that night.



As I said before, regardless of who Martin is or isn't, didn't Zimmerman initiate the confrontation?  I honestly don't see how anyone could believe otherwise.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Wow. just wow



?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Steve is there any situation you can think of where a victim can become the suspect?  Putting the Martin case aside just in general can the rolls of victim and suspect be flipped?   I only ask because there are many that say no.  Once you start as the suspect you get what's coming to you. You brought it on your self.



Ballen, this is exactly what I'm interested in discussing.  The conversation has centered around Zimmerman/Martin, but your post above is the central issue I had in mind.

I can imagine some circumstances, but they're along the lines of a protracted situation, where the initial victim retaliates.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Regarding Zimmerman, my understanding is that he pursued Martin for a significant length of time, and over some distance, not hiding it.  That is what I mean by aggressive pursuit.  It's dark, and someone who is obviously hostile is obviously tailing you.  I'd be nervous.  Wouldn't you?  At some point, a decision has to be made whether to fight or flee.
> 
> The disconnect for me is how Martin, the kid who wasn't doing anything wrong, was being followed by a known overzealous cop wannabe, and is now dead, is somehow to blame, as some here are trying to cast him.  How can he be other than the victim? I don't get it.  I have a pretty vivid imagination, but can't picture a sequence of events in which he is not the victim.
> 
> ...



It depends on how faraway this supposed pursuer was and what he was doing...if Z was on a cell phone and 100 yard away....M could have called 911 (instead of his GF) himself and said he was being followed. If Z was 3 paces behind Z that's another story. The version of events I have read is that M turned around and came up to Z (who was still on his cell...not lurking in the shadows with a drawn gun) and asked "why are you following me?"...to which Z replied "what are you doing here?"...then pushing and fighting started. Z's statement to M is a pretty clear explination of why he was following. IMO the aggressor is the first person who laid hands on the other. There's 911 evidence that Z's state of mind was that he was following a suspicions person...not seeking to chase and tackle someone.

Is the right self defence response to "what are you doing here?" a punch in the face? Assuming that M made first contact which unfortunately there is nobody but Z to corroborate that fact.

That's not to say that Z's suspicions were accurate...but accuracy isn't the standard in self defence....was Z responding with deadly force to deadly force?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The issue I have with the Cry's of racism (not saying that's what you were doing) is that its so over played that its meaningless now.  As a police officer I get called a racist at least once a day.  That's by all races.  I've even had white guys say I was picking on them because they ate white.  Race to me is just a way to describe a person no different then saying they are fat skinny blue eyed tall short.  It means nothing.  Now don't get me wrong there are racists out there.  The shopping while black ect ect isn't just a black thing.  When I worked under cover they same guy following you around for shopping while black would be following me around as well.  Then you have phony outrage over race issues like this Paula Dean story you cant have a serious discussion about not using the N word until its removed from rap music and popular teen vocabulary or the Washington Redskins story.  People look for any reason they can to scream racism.  It make real instances of it just seem less impactfull  because of the 100s of cases of BS boy who cried wolf stories.



I agree, to an extent, and that's why I've tried to specifically exclude race from any of my examples.  

One thing to think about the Zimmerman case, though.  If Martin were white, living in a largely non-white neighborhood, killed by a black dude, how do you think the narrative on this story would change?  Would it be different? I think it would.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> It depends on how faraway this supposed pursuer was and what he was doing...if Z was on a cell phone and 100 yard away....M could have called 911 (instead of his GF) himself and said he was being followed. If Z was 3 paces behind Z that's another story. The version of events I have read is that M turned around and came up to Z (who was still on his cell...not lurking in the shadows with a drawn gun) and asked "why are you following me?"...to which Z replied "what are you doing here?"...then pushing and fighting started. Z's statement to M is a pretty clear explination of why he was following. IMO the aggressor is the first person who laid hands on the other. There's 911 evidence that Z's state of mind was that he was following a suspicions person...not seeking to chase and tackle someone.
> 
> Is the right self defence response to "what are you doing here?" a punch in the face? Assuming that M made first contact which unfortunately there is nobody but Z to corroborate that fact.
> 
> ...


 If the pursuer is 100 yards away, wouldn't he have ample opportunity to avoid a direct confrontation?  

Zimmerman, for example... Was he 100 yards away when Martin turned and asked him why he was following g him?  That doesn't seem possible.  Does it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

Yes.  It would be a one day local story, covered on he local news, with no word from the President of the United States, or members of congress, no million dollar bounties on the killers head, and no t-shirts worn by celebrities at award ceremonies...the killer would be explained away as a " troubled" youth who was at heart a good kid, and was probably just a victim of societal racism...so nothing to see here...

Case in point...the large black guy who broke into the white woman's home and savagely beat and robbed her in front of her 3 year old daughter...local story with only mild national interest because there was a video from a nanny cam.


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

Her you go...the " white" Hispanic Trayvon Martin no one ever heard of...


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._trayvon_martin_shooting_in_phoenix_area.html



> Police have yet to charge a black motorist who shot dead a mentally disabled and unarmed "white Hispanic," Daniel Adkins, in a Taco Bell parking lot near Phoenix earlier this month. The two reportedly exchanged words before the shooting that occurred, according to some accounts, after the motorist almost ran over Adkins who then banged his fist on the car's windshield.





> The April 3 shooting by the 22-year-old black man -- whom police in suburban Laveen have yet to identify -- has gotten little if any coverage by the national media. Nor has President Obama weighed in on the case. Is it because Adkins doesn't look like his son?
> Whatever the case, the slaying of Adkins -- who was walking his yellow lab on a leash -- has ignited controversy in Arizona, and it has been commanding increasing attention in the blogosphere. Adkins' grieving family says he had the mental capacity of a 12 year old. He lived with his mom and dad.
> Local media outlets are describing Adkins as a Hispanic -- yet with an "Anglo" name and light complexion, he easily qualifies as what the national media have called a "white Hispanic" when describing George Zimmerman. Is this why the national media has yet to take an interest in the case?
> After Adkins was shot dead, his dog, Lady, stayed by his side, and a representative of the Humane Society was called to take the dog away. Police found no weapon at the scene despite the motorist's claim that Adkins had one.



Anyone here ever hear of this shooting?


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

> Zimmerman, for example... Was he 100 yards away when Martin turned and asked him why he was following g him? That doesn't seem possible. Does it?



The actual distances involved are discussed in the post above...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...estions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html




> According to the audio released by the police, after Martin stared at Zimmerman and began to approach him, the teen took off in the opposite direction, toward the rear entrance of the community and toward the apartment he was staying in. The distance from where Zimmerman began his call, near the mailboxes by the clubhouse, to the apartment of Brandy Green, where Martin was staying, is roughly 850 feet. Someone in good shape could probably run the distance in less than a minute and walk it in two. From the start of Zimmerman's phone call, Martin had about six minutes to get home. But the teenager was apparently not interested in returning to the apartment of his dad's fiancée and reporting the suspicious man to 911. He was shot about 550 feet from where Zimmerman began his call, about 300 feet from Brandy Green's apartment.



Distances examined by Eric Zorn...of the chicago tribune...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._police-dispatcher-timeline-fatal-altercation



> There's much we still don't know about what happened in those five minutes, but we do know it was five minutes &#8212; some 90 seconds longer than in many earlier news accounts that misstated the starting time of Zimmerman's call.
> And we do know that maps of the area show that Martin was only about 180 yards from home when Zimmerman told police he saw him running in that direction...
> ........
> Does Zimmerman break off the chase? By 7:12:15 p.m., the wind noises have stopped and his breathing has returned to normal as he discusses with the police dispatcher where responding officers should meet him. At 7:13:12 p.m. he interjects, "I don't know where this kid is."
> ...


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

As to Martin being an aggressor...did he throw a punch at a bus driver and get the 10 day suspension for it...which is why he was at his father's girlfriend's townhouse...would that change the view that Martin couldn't have been the aggressor?

http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-martin-s-ten-day-suspension



> says that Stephen Martin tweeted a message to Trayvon on February 21st that read "yu ain't tell me yu swung on a bus driver." Based on....... the message appears to be authentic. It was sent five days before the shooting, and raises a lot of speculation. Was Trayvon Martin suspended for ten days for assaulting a bus driver?
> Stephen has also posted a newer picture of Trayvon both on twitter and on Facebook. It shows an older, more muscular Trayvon than what we have seen in the media. It also shows a large tattoo on Trayvon's left arm.
> *Update: *The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported today, March 26th, that Trayvon's ten day suspension was related to marijuana. This, and a cryptic comment by his father that was quoted in the above Kansas City Star article, suggest he was caught smoking marijuana on school property.


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

billc said:


> As to Martin being an aggressor...did he throw a punch at a bus driver and get the 10 day suspension for it...which is why he was at his father's girlfriend's townhouse...would that change the view that Martin couldn't have been the aggressor?
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-martin-s-ten-day-suspension


Martin may have instigated 100 fights, but The only relevant question here is whether he threw a punch at Martin, and we are only able to hear one side.

As for Martin, he was the one being followed.  Again, how can someone who is being stalked be considered the aggressor?


Bill, are you afraid of black people?  Just curious.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Martin may have instigated 100 fights, but The only relevant question here is whether he threw a punch at Martin, and we are only able to hear one side.
> 
> As for Martin, he was the one being followed.  Again, how can someone who is being stalked be considered the aggressor?
> 
> ...



Stalking only applies if someone is following for no legitimate purpose...Its _arguable _that Z was legitimately following someone he thought suspicious (backed up by this 911 statements)..the fact that the person wasn't doing anything illegal doesn't convert the action into "stalking".

If I see a stranger walking down my street looking into car windows and I follow him, Im not "stalking".....


----------



## Tgace (Jul 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> If the pursuer is 100 yards away, wouldn't he have ample opportunity to avoid a direct confrontation?
> 
> Zimmerman, for example... Was he 100 yards away when Martin turned and asked him why he was following g him?  That doesn't seem possible.  Does it?
> 
> ...



Your assuming this was a "turned around and asked" scenario (close range) vs a turned around...walked a number of yards up to the guy and confronted him.....


----------



## billc (Jul 4, 2013)

> Bill, are you afraid of black people? Just curious.


....Steve

Nicely, done...two insults in the shape of a question which allows you to escape moderator attention.  The first insult is calling me a coward, the second calling me a racist...in such a way as to keep our friends from acting on it.

Why this question?  Was it because I responded to your question about if the race of the actors in the Zimmerman case were reversed what would actually be the narrative? 



> One thing to think about the Zimmerman case, though. If Martin were white, living in a largely non-white neighborhood, killed by a black dude, how do you think the narrative on this story would change? Would it be different? I think it would.


....Steve

 I gave two real world examples of exactly what you asked for...and you responded with this question...because the actual cases prove you wrong...or right because the actual media coverage of the event are so different...

Why is it again that I haven't insulted you in anyway, I haven't attacked you in any way in my responses and yet you feel the need to attack me?  Again, it is your side of the argument that has attacked first.  I haven't attacked you and yet you felt the need to attack me...


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Your assuming this was a "turned around and asked" scenario (close range) vs a turned around...walked a number of yards up to the guy and confronted him.....



Maybe.  If you're following me at 100 yards, and I turn and start coming back toward you, wouldnt you have ample opportunity to avoid me?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

billc said:


> ....Steve
> 
> Nicely, done...two insults in the shape of a question which allows you to escape moderator attention.  The first insult is calling me a coward, the second calling me a racist...in such a way as to keep our friends from acting on it.
> 
> ...



Not intended as a personal insult. It occurred to me that many of your positions are fear based.  I thought I'd ask.  And I'm as subject to the rules as anyone else.  If you think I'm breaking a rule, report me.  

Regarding your responses, you said that it would be much less newsworthy.  I agreed with you.  

I think, ultimately, Zimmerman will be acquitted.  Do you think a black dude in similar circumstances would be?  Statistically, its not nearly as likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Stalking only applies if someone is following for no legitimate purpose...Its _arguable _that Z was legitimately following someone he thought suspicious (backed up by this 911 statements)..the fact that the person wasn't doing anything illegal doesn't convert the action into "stalking".
> 
> If I see a stranger walking down my street looking into car windows and I follow him, Im not "stalking".....



I see your point, Tgace, and maybe stalking isn't the right word.  Consider that you're walking in a residential neighborhood, and someone is following you, because they think you're a "suspect".  What would you do?  What if you knew the guy by reputation as being hostile, you knew he had 40 or so lbs on you and he had a chip on his shoulder?

I think I'd call 911 now, but at 16 or 17, I'm not sure that would occur to me.  What do you think the 17 year old Tgace would have done?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Maybe.  If you're following me at 100 yards, and I turn and start coming back toward you, wouldnt you have ample opportunity to avoid me?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Do I have to?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> I see your point, Tgace, and maybe stalking isn't the right word.  Consider that you're walking in a residential neighborhood, and someone is following you, because they think you're a "suspect".  What would you do?  What if you knew the guy by reputation as being hostile, you knew he had 40 or so lbs on you and he had a chip on his shoulder?
> 
> I think I'd call 911 now, but at 16 or 17, I'm not sure that would occur to me.  What do you think the 17 year old Tgace would have done?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Doesn't matter really...in this situation the real issue is who initiated physical force first...who escalated to deadly physical force first and were either of them justified by law. This "assault by following" or "the nosey neighborhood watch dude deserved an *** kicking" are not really legal rationalizations when it comes to justified use of force. 

This of course assuming M swung/physically assaulted first...we only have one version on that. But we do have witnesses saying Z was on the receiving end of a GNP.

What I would have done at 17 or not wouldn't change the legality of what I did. Maybe I would have popped the nosey prick....but I would have been wrong. 

Most likely....and this is just my opinion....what we had here was a "$#%& this white/Hispanic/whatever guy profiling me and following me around calling the cops...I'm gonna kick his ***." Maybe an understandable emotion...but not a legal one. Was the *** kicking deserving of a lethal response? I don't know.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Do I have to?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



If you don't, you're choosing confrontation, not self defense.  Right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Carol (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> If you don't, you're choosing confrontation, not self defense.  Right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Not necessarily.   The act of reversing direction itself alone does not indicate a choice.  Reversing direction plus other factors may, but not just the act of turning around.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> If you don't, you're choosing confrontation, not self defense.  Right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



It's not a confrontation or self-defense till the threatened/immanent use of physical force presents itself.


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Carol said:


> Not necessarily.   The act of reversing direction itself alone does not indicate a choice.  Reversing direction plus other factors may, but not just the act of turning around.



Of course it's a choice.  I'm following you at 100 yards.  You have ample opportunity to choose a course of action.  

If You move away to avoid a confrontation, and i follow you, then the roles have been reversed.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> Of course it's a choice.  I'm following you at 100 yards.  You have ample opportunity to choose a course of action.
> 
> If You move away to avoid a confrontation, and i follow you, then the roles have been reversed.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Following in and of itself is not physical force of which you would be legally obligated to retreat from. Theres nothing illegal about asking "who are you and what are you doing here?" The proper response of which would be "Im walking home" or "go **** yourself I don't have to answer to you"...not a punch in the face.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

If you are really serious about learing the complexities of this Steve...read this.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/71.2.raymond.pdf



> Suppose, once again, that you are assaulted by a person threatening you with deadly force. But, looking further back in time, imagine that you wound up in that situation because you chose to enter into, rather than avoid, a potentially risky situation. Imagine, for example, that a friend told you that the assailant, a longtime enemy, was looking for you, had a gun, and planned to spend the evening at a local club. You replied, &#8220;Who cares? I&#8217;m not afraid of him. If he tries to start something with me, he&#8217;ll be sorry,&#8221; and headed off to the very same club. Once there, the assailant threatened you with lethal force. May you respond with lethal force in self-defense?
> 
> Some might say that, by going to the club where you knew the assailant might be, you were &#8220;looking for trouble.&#8221; Should that affect whether you can claim self-defense? Should legal analysis of a self-defense situation permit consideration of an expanded time frame, in which the prior conduct of the actors may preclude their right to act in self-defense? Or should the question about the legal justification of an act of self-defense turn on the narrow circumstances of the ultimate violent interaction, without an inquiry into whether prior behavior by the actor claiming self-defense precipitated a confrontation that could have been avoided? In other words, how should we &#8220;frame&#8221; the incident in which an actor claims the right to act violently in self-defense?
> 
> One might think that the answer to this question would be clear: either the law should draw the frame broadly, to include those facts, or draw it narrowly, to exclude them. Most commentators seem to think that the law is clear on this issue. As it turns out, however, the law is decidedly ambiguous about this problem. This lack of clarity has far-reaching implications. The problem of framing an incident of the use of force in self-defense is ubiquitous; any time we consider whether a person properly used force in self-defense, we must decide how far back, both in time and circumstance, we will look to consider how the actor came to be in the situation in which force became necessary.


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Following in and of itself is not physical force of which you would be legally obligated to retreat from. Theres nothing illegal about asking "who are you and what are you doing here?" The proper response of which would be "Im walking home" or "go **** yourself I don't have to answer to you"...not a punch in the face.



Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out.

Regarding above, We have one persons side, who has a vested interest in painting a picture that is sympathetic to his actions.  

Do we know that Martin punched Zimmerman first?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

From that same source:



> The classic statement of the notion that an actor need not avoid an encounter to be entitled to claim self-defense was articulated in State v. Gardner:
> 
> [A] person knowing his life to be threatened, and believing himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm, is not obliged to remain at home in order to avoid an assault, but may arm himself sufficiently to repel anticipated attack, and pursue his legitimate avocation; and if without fault, he is compelled to take life to save himself, he may use any weapon he may have secured for that purpose, and the homicide is excusable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out.
> 
> Regarding above, We have one persons side, who has a vested interest in painting a picture that is sympathetic to his actions.
> 
> ...



I do not know. I believe thats Zimmermans claim. But I think it's only supported by people who heard Z calling for help and one person seeing Martin GNPing Zimmerman. I don't think there are any eyewitnesses to the initial physical contact.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Just something throw out there...I believe that Fla law makes seif-defense a legal "defense" vs an "affirmative defense".



> 1. When a "defense, " other than an "affirmative defense, " defined by statute is raised at a trial, the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> 2. When a defense declared by statute to be an "affirmative defense" is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.



Which means the prosecution has to disprove Z's story beyond a reasonable doubt....

My .02...

The REAL issue here is the State overcharging a charge that they can't prove. Manslaughter would have been by FAR the more arguable offense...IMO.


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> From that same source:



So then, Martin may have been acting in self defense, even if he did approach Zimmerman?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Just something throw out there...I believe that Fla law makes seif-defense a legal "defense" vs an "affirmative defense".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree completely with you that manslaughter was a more appropriate charge, and personally believe that Zimmerman is guilty of it based upon what I have heard so far.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> So then, Martin may have been acting in self defense, even if he did approach Zimmerman?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Or vice versa...you were the one who said Z should have fled if M turned and approcahed him....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Or vice versa...you were the one who said Z should have fled if M turned and approcahed him....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Not quite.  At least, not intentionally.  What I was trying to suggest is that Zimmerman made a choice to engage Martin (and vice versa).  It makes the self defense claim seem at odds to his behavior.  But based upon the situation and the information you've shared, another question comes to mind.  Is it possible for both Martin and Zimmerman to be acting in self defense?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2013)

Ill say it....again....it depends on who initiated physical contact.

You seem stuck on this idea that being followed justifies the use of physical force.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Ill say it....again....it depends on who initiated physical contact.
> 
> You seem stuck on this idea that being followed justifies the use of physical force.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Not necessarily.  I haven't had a chance to read the article yet.  Is it that simple?  I can follow you and regardless of my behavior, if you initiate physical contact, I'm acting in self defense?  That simple?  Why isn't that the central question of the trial?  Who touched whom first? 

If I'm still stuck on this, it's because it still doesn't make sense to me.  

And central to the original post, if I initiate physical contact with you, is there any circumstance where I could kill you in self defense?  Is it possible?  If not, I'll concede the point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Carol (Jul 5, 2013)

I think the issue is that the scenario you are painting is a person being followed and being followed in and of itself is not enough of a justifiable situation.  Following plus a threats may be.

Most self-defense defenses are structured around the AOJ triad.  

I copied this from someplace but forget the source:

Ability = the threat has the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm. Power could be a weapon (gun, knife) or sufficient disparity of force (greater numbers, training in the destructive arts, position of advantage).

Opportunity = the threat is capable of immediately employing the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm. Key factors are proximity and obstacles. Of course, a firearm creates more opportunities, but as the Tueller experiments showed long ago, an average adult male opponent armed with a knife or club can close a 7 yard gap in 1.5 seconds.

Jeopardy = the threat uses words and/or actions that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the opponent intended to kill or cripple them. The threat merely possessing a weapon does not in itself constitute jeopardy. Intent has to be manifest in the opponents words and/or actions.

A reputed scumbag following you (in and of itself) does not fulfill the AOJ triad.  Thats not to say you shouldnt be on alert, nor does it mean you shouldn't be thinking about countermeasures.  But by itself, it is not justification for lethal force.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 5, 2013)

I prefer IMOP:

*Intent:* the purpose or goal of doing harm to someone.
*Means:* the tools and or present capability to do harm.
*Opportunity*: the ready ability to carry out the intent.  Things like being close enough to actually do what you threatened...
*Preclusion*: everything less than the force you used was unlikely to be effective in safely resolving the situation

So let's run that through a situation where the original aggressor becomes a victim...

_Intent_ to do harm to the aggressor can be assumed; the person he assaulted or instigated the fight with is returning the favor.  Probably with interest...
_Means_ come into play as the original victim escalates the fight, maybe bringing a weapon or buddies into the fight -- or just turns out to be a highly skilled martial artist (picture the poor drunk fool who picked a fight with Maasaki Hatsumi, Maung Gyi, Nene Tortal, or plenty of others we could list who don't appear to be particularly dangerous)
_Opportunity_ is covered -- the aggressor brought the fight to them, but they chose to stay in the fight longer...
Which is where they trip over _Preclusion_.  They had the opportunity to escape, or to use less force -- but they chose not to.  If someone can't satisfy _Preclusion_, they're up a creek.

Here's another example where the tables can turn and make the original victim an aggressor.  A guy's at a party, and gets into it with someone we'll call Mr Mouth.  He tries to do the smart thing, and leave.  But Mr Mouth won't let him, and blocks his path.  Our smart guy manages to shove his way past, and Mr Mouth follows him out, and tries to keep smart guy from getting into his car -- even pulls on his arm as he's trying to get into the car, then stands in front of the car.  Mr Mouth is never seen or shown to be armed.  Smart guy pushes the gas pedal, and knocks Mr Mouth over.   The case could be made that smart guy just committed an aggravated assault (the exact term depends on the state law).  Once in his car, could he have simply waited, or called the police, maybe driven another direction...  In short -- he wasn't precluded from running Mr Mouth over to escape.


----------



## Steve (Jul 5, 2013)

Carol said:


> I think the issue is that the scenario you are painting is a person being followed and being followed in and of itself is not enough of a justifiable situation.  Following plus a threats may be.


Frankly, I feel as though the issue here is that I'm the only one offering up any fodder for discussion and everyone else is sitting back and picking it apart.   And remember, the purpose of this thread was never intended to be about Martin.  It's about how an aggressor can claim self defense.  You're focusing on Martin, in the Zimmerman/Martin situation.  I'm suggesting that we focus on Zimmerman.  How does the Zimmerman side reasonably allege self defense.  What has to happen in order for the roles to have completely reversed in that scenario?


> Most self-defense defenses are structured around the AOJ triad.
> 
> I copied this from someplace but forget the source:


Okay.  Let's look at Zimmerman based on this.  





> Ability = the threat has the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm. Power could be a weapon (gun, knife) or sufficient disparity of force (greater numbers, training in the destructive arts, position of advantage).


Do you think that Martin had the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm?  Zimmerman was larger, more experienced, better trained and armed.


> Opportunity = the threat is capable of immediately employing the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm. Key factors are proximity and obstacles. Of course, a firearm creates more opportunities, but as the Tueller experiments showed long ago, an average adult male opponent armed with a knife or club can close a 7 yard gap in 1.5 seconds.


Martin was not armed, although the defense is suggesting that he was "armed with concrete."  Zimmerman, however, was armed with a pistol.  Once again, how does Zimmerman go from being the pursuer to being the victim? (Not intended to be rhetorical)





> Jeopardy = the threat uses words and/or actions that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the opponent intended to kill or cripple them. The threat merely possessing a weapon does not in itself constitute jeopardy. Intent has to be manifest in the opponent&#8217;s words and/or actions.


Zimmerman was actively and openly following Martin, in the dark, while talking on his cell phone.  If this applies, it seems most apt to apply to Martin.  What had to happen in order for this to apply at all to Zimmerman? 

What would Martin have had to do in order to meet these three criteria such that Zimmerman could kill him in self defense?  


> A reputed scumbag following you (in and of itself) does not fulfill the AOJ triad.  Thats not to say you shouldnt be on alert, nor does it mean you shouldn't be thinking about countermeasures.  But by itself, it is not justification for lethal force.


Thanks for this.  So, then, in what way does this AOJ triad apply to Zimmerman?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/QUOTE]


----------



## Carol (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm not focusing on either Zimmerman or Martin and will defer to someone following the case that knows more details. Other than a couple of lunchtime convos with the retire LEOs I work with, I have largely not been paying attention. Sorry.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 6, 2013)

Carol said:


> I'm not focusing on either Zimmerman or Martin and will defer to someone following the case that knows more details. Other than a couple of lunchtime convos with the retire LEOs I work with, *I have largely not been paying attention*. Sorry.



It ok Carol. He hasn't either.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2013)

Carol, I understand.  I think posting with two thumbs on an iPad makes being clear more difficult than usual.  

I meant that the focus seems to be on the the person being followed.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> Frankly, I feel as though the issue here is that I'm the only one offering up any fodder for discussion and everyone else is sitting back and picking it apart.   And remember, the purpose of this thread was never intended to be about Martin.  It's about how an aggressor can claim self defense.  You're focusing on Martin, in the Zimmerman/Martin situation.  I'm suggesting that we focus on Zimmerman.  How does the Zimmerman side reasonably allege self defense.  What has to happen in order for the roles to have completely reversed in that scenario?
> Okay.  Let's look at Zimmerman based on this.  Do you think that Martin had the power to kill or inflict grave bodily harm?  Zimmerman was larger, more experienced, better trained and armed.
> Martin was not armed, although the defense is suggesting that he was "armed with concrete."  Zimmerman, however, was armed with a pistol.  Once again, how does Zimmerman go from being the pursuer to being the victim? (Not intended to be rhetorical)Zimmerman was actively and openly following Martin, in the dark, while talking on his cell phone.  If this applies, it seems most apt to apply to Martin.  What had to happen in order for this to apply at all to Zimmerman?
> 
> ...



Specifically looking at Zimmerman/Martin...

Following someone is not, in and of itself, an aggressive act and definitely not an assault.  Pair it with certain conduct (yelling "I'm going to kick your ***!", or other overtly threatening behavior) or in certain circumstances (you're trying to walk away from a fight, for example, and being followed by the guy who wants to fight you) may begin to alter that.

All the accounts I've seen seem to suggest that Martin turned and confronted Zimmerman -- but that's really immaterial.  At some point, the two are close enough to have a verbal exchange, and for that exchange to become physical.  Again, it seems from what I've read or seen that Martin likely threw the first punch but he might actually have been justified depending on exactly what Zimmerman said; essentially, Martin had to believe that he had to act to prevent imminent assault.  It also seems clear that Martin got the upperhand and was dominating Zimmerman.  At this point, no weapon has been produced, so both are unarmed in effect.  Zimmerman begins to get pounded, and begins to fear serious bodily harm or even that Martin is going to beat him to death, and manages to draw his pistol, shooting a single round which stopped the fight. 

Among the factors to assess the reasonableness of the use of force (including lethal force) is included the cumulative effects of injuries incurred in the fight.  Zimmerman is getting pounded, suffering head wounds and being bashed into the concrete.  The question becomes whether or not a reasonable person would feel that Zimmerman could reasonably conclude that he was going to be beaten to death or serious bodily injury.  If you say no -- he wasn't justified in shooting Martin.  If you say yes -- then he probably could be found to have acted reasonably.  Just because in picking a fight, you bite off more than you can chew, that doesn't mean that the guy you're fighting can beat you to death.  And, at this point, there's really nothing that suggests that Zimmerman had an intent to start a fight.

Now, I still say Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.  He plays a major role in creating the situation -- but did that mean that he deserved to be beaten to a pulp or killed?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 6, 2013)

And you can be the initial aggressor and sti&#322;l be justified in using deadly force.

If I have an argument with you and push you down...entirely started by me....and you pull a knife and come at me...do you think its ok to kill me because "I started it"?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And you can be the initial aggressor and sti&#322;l be justified in using deadly force.
> 
> If I have an argument with you and push you down...entirely started by me....and you pull a knife and come at me...do you think its ok to kill me because "I started it"?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Of course not.  This is exactly what's thought you were suggesting when you emphasized several times that the key was who initiated contact.  You were giving me the impression that I was being thick by not agreeing.  

What you said above is exactly what I was trying to say several posts ago.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> Of course not.  This is exactly what's thought you were suggesting when you emphasized several times that the key was who initiated contact.  You were giving me the impression that I was being thick by not agreeing.
> 
> What you said above is exactly what I was trying to say several posts ago.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



In general (nothing is iron clad in SD), who initiates contact (or realistically threatens it) determines the primary aggressor....who uses deadly physical force first after that initial contact will determine who was justified in using deadly force in self defense.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 6, 2013)

All the "who followed who"..."who approached who" stuff is only important here because of the lack of independent eye witnesses. The real standard is who used/threatened deadly physical force first and if it was justified.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------

