# Stand Your Ground versus Duty to Retreat



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

It is becoming clear to me that there is a fundamental disconnect lately about what "Stand Your Ground" actually means in US law, how it differs from "Duty to Retreat," and what either of them have to do with the current Zimmerman case in Florida.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

All US states have self-defense laws.  That is, people are allowed to defend themselves from violent attack.  If someone walks up to you and hits you, you can defend yourself by hitting them back.  That's about as general as you can make it.  Some states require that the level of force used be proportionate to the force used in the attack, others do not specify other than to say 'reasonable force' and still others do not specify other than to forbid 'deadly force' as a response to a non-life-threatening attack.

With regard to deadly force, most states that have self-defense laws (actually all of them that I am aware of) also have laws regarding when deadly force may be used.  Deadly force is generally described as that force which could reasonably be understood to cause death when applied.  Shooting someone is a good example, or stabbing them, or throwing them off a tall building.

A person can legally apply deadly force in the course of self-defense intentionally only when permitted by law to do so.  Many states give the basic premise that when a so-called _'reasonable and prudent man'_ would consider themselves in immediate danger of death or serious injury.  An example might be a person who points a gun at you and demands your money; it is reasonable to believe you are about to be killed; many states would permit you to legally draw your own weapon and kill that person.  It would be a legal application of self-defense and deadly force.

It is also true that most states require that the danger be immediate.  The right to self-defense, and especially the right to use deadly force in self-defense, ends when the threat ends.  If a man points a gun at me and demands my wallet, I may indeed be in fear of my life, and if I shoot him right then and there, I may have done so legally.  If, however, he turns and runs when he sees my gun, and I chase after him and shoot him, that is neither self-defense, nor is it legal use of deadly force.  I will most likely face criminal charges, regardless of who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy'.  The law does not permit one to dispense justice; only to protect one's own life (and property in some states).

_"Stand Your Ground"_ laws come as a modification to states that previously had a _"Duty to Retreat"_ provision.  The 'Duty to Retreat' merely required that prior to engaging in legal self-defense, a person had the duty to attempt to retreat or otherwise end the threat with non-violent means.  This did not mean that a person could not defend themselves with violence, nor did it mean they had to run away if attacked; but if a so-called _"reasonable and prudent man"_ would have been able to leave and avoid the attack, then anyone would have to.  For example, if you were in your house and someone kicked in your front door, and you could run out of your back door, you were required to do that first before you could legally defend yourself with violence.  If you had no such exit, then your duty was extinguished and you could then proceed with defending yourself legally with violence.

'Stand Your Ground' was and is an attempt to remove that requirement.  In many cases, it was intended only to be applied to people in their homes.  In some states, it has come to mean people in their homes, their cars, or other possessions.  In some states, it means wherever they are.  What it does is simply remove the requirement that they first attempt to retreat before engaging in violence to defend themselves.  That is all.

It does not allow them to go hunting for people to injure or kill.  It does not take away the ability of the police to investigate crime or arrest people who break the law.  It is not a 'Get out of jail free' card.

In the case of Zimmerman, there is one crucial fact which we (the public) and probably the police as well, do not know.  Regardless of how Zimmerman came into contact with Trayvon Martin, there was a physical altercation.  That much is beyond dispute, I believe.  We do NOT know if Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm.  And unless the police can come up with probable cause to believe he was NOT in such reasonable fear, his self-defense claim will stand.

This has nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground', because by all account, both parties were on the ground; one on top of the other.  Even if Zimmerman was the person being hit and in fear of his life, he could reasonably argue that he could not have run away.  One could argue that he could have avoided confronting Trayvon Martin at all; and that is true; but the law in Florida to the extent I understand it does not require that a person avoid putting themselves in situations where they might end up fearing for their lives.  If that were true, people who walk down dark alleys and get mugged would have no right of self-defense.  In other words, it does not matter (legally) how Zimmerman came to end up in a scuffle with Martin.  What matters (legally) is what we do not know; whether or not Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life or great bodily injury.

Repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' in Florida would not have changed anything in this case; it has nothing to do with the case as far as I can see.  Zimmerman claimed self-defense.  The law in Florida allows self-defense with deadly force, under certain circumstances.  We do not know - and we may never know - if those circumstances were met.  But since we do know that both parties were seen by witnesses to be fighting each other on the ground, no 'Duty to Retreat' would exist; you can't run away if you're pinned down, so the duty would have been extinguished even if it had existed in law in Florida at that time.

The question of Zimmerman revolves around whether or not he was being attacked by Martin, and whether or not he was in reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury.  That burden is on the police to show evidence against; he does not have to prove his statements are true.  Again, that's just criminal law in the US, nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground'.  If the police develop enough evidence to show probable cause that he is lying, then they can ask for a warrant to arrest him.  The prosecuting attorney can bring charges against him.  And if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he may be convicted of a crime.

In my opinion, this is a hard slog, and I have serious doubt that the police will be able to develop probable cause for an arrest warrant, let alone enough to convict him.  Please understand that this does not mean that I think Zimmerman is innocent, nor does it mean I think he is telling the truth. I have no idea; none of you do either, to be quite blunt about it.  There is all kinds of information out there; it may be useful in helping to develop an opinion, but in my experience, not all or even much of it is going to be useful in developing a criminal case.

I think there are all kinds of possibilities out there.  Zimmerman may have committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder.  He may have gotten zealous and had a fantasy of being a cop and gotten in over his head and panicked when attacked by the much younger and smaller Martin.  Anything could be true.  Some of his statements could be lies, some might be exaggerations, some might be true.  No one really knows, and the frustrating part is that it is possible no one will ever know.

But regardless of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence; or what you believe to be true, this case has little to nothing to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida or elsewhere, in my opinion.  Changing that law would have had no impact in this particular situation.

If one wants to argue whether or not "Stand Your Ground" is a good idea, that's certain a fair argument to have.  It just doesn't mean anything in this context.  A lot of people getting worked up about it do not seem to me to have any real understanding of what it means at all.  They seem to be arguing that "Stand Your Ground" is some sort of state sanction to shoot black kids dead on sight.  It's not.


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 30, 2012)

I didn't hear about the Trayvon Martin case until mid-March when I received an e-mailed petition, asking to support justice for Trayvon Martin and his family.  I waited until I learned more--and I did learn more.  Now, before commenting about the Stand Your Ground law (or other Castle Doctrine laws), full and fair disclosure is necessary: I attended school as a Bussing student in the early 1970's.  Justice, law and race/ethnicity were intertwined and as such, contribute to my view of law.  Having worked in the legal field for 20 years also contributes.  

A quick reading of Florida's SYG law, reads, in pertinent part:



> (3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



Laws like this are often short-sighted solutions to age-old problems.  There isn't much benevolence to them.  While every human being should have the right to protect him or herself, there are limits.  And those limits are tested when it's decided that self-protection at home, at work, a fixed (for lack of a better term) location isn't enough.  In that sense, one's "ground" is where ever one decides to be, even in pursuit of a perceived aggressor.  These kinds of laws are intentionally simple, and knowingly vague.  The result is that the person who's shot dead is hopefully the very kind of person that the law targeted.  Problem is, it's left up to the hot-headed, low-IQ idiot with a 9mm, to determine what's reasonable and where their ground is or isn't.  And I can't believe that lawmakers didn't know or conceive of that kind scenario.  

Now, in the specific instance of George Zimmerman, the law was on his side so long as he stayed within the safety of his vehicle.  And even if he was approached while in his vehicle--which he was not--he still could have been protected by SYG.  By all accounts, Zimmerman left his vehicle and, against police directives, moved his "ground" while in pursuit.  In my opinion, this is where the law fails.  A man was in a safe place where he had a right to be; he went to where he believed there would be trouble; and expected to be protected by the law.  Going toward danger--*against police directive--*is not reasonable, especially when neither you nor anyone else is in imminent danger.  And unless you're a cop, when someone runs away from you, then you either respond with relief or it triggers a chase response.  Zimmerman isn't a cop; and it seems as though his chase response was triggered.  That sounds almost predatory in nature.

And if unchanged, these kinds of laws become a sick person's hunting license.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> A quick reading of Florida's SYG law, reads, in pertinent part:
> 
> _(3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony._
> 
> Laws like this are often short-sighted solutions to age-old problems.  There isn't much benevolence to them.  While every human being should have the right to protect him or herself, there are limits.  And those limits are tested when it's decided that self-protection at home, at work, a fixed (for lack of a better term) location isn't enough.  In that sense, one's "ground" is where ever one decides to be, even in pursuit of a perceived aggressor.  These kinds of laws are intentionally simple, and knowingly vague.  The result is that the person who's shot dead is hopefully the very kind of person that the law targeted.  Problem is, it's left up to the hot-headed, low-IQ idiot with a 9mm, to determine what's reasonable and where their ground is or isn't.  And I can't believe that lawmakers didn't know or conceive of that kind scenario.



So far, we're in agreement.  "The law is an ***" is the quote, I believe.  The law is neither left up to the common sense of judges and juries, nor given to excessive splitting of hairs; there are always unintended consequences.



> Now, in the specific instance of George Zimmerman, the law was on his side so long as he stayed within the safety of his vehicle.  And even if he was approached while in his vehicle--which he was not--he still could have been protected by SYG.  By all accounts, Zimmerman left his vehicle and, against police directives, moved his "ground" while in pursuit.  In my opinion, this is where the law fails.  A man was in a safe place where he had a right to be; he went to where he believed there would be trouble; and expected to be protected by the law.  Going toward danger--*against police directive--*is not reasonable, especially when neither you nor anyone else is in imminent danger.  And unless you're a cop, when someone runs away from you, then you either respond with relief or it triggers a chase response.  Zimmerman isn't a cop; and it seems as though his chase response was triggered.  That sounds almost predatory in nature.



This is where we disagree.  First, understand what the police dispatcher said to Zimmerman, by all accounts.  "Are you following him?"  "Yes."  "We do not need you to do that."  

That is not an order to disengage.  It can be interpreted as that, but it can also be interpreted as a statement that Zimmerman is not required to follow Martin, but if he does, he does.

There is probably a good reason it was worded that way by the dispatcher (and I am a former civilian police dispatcher).  A dispatcher has no authority to order anyone to do anything.  So no, the police did not order Zimmerman to stand down.

Zimmerman is not a cop, that is correct.  Perhaps you are not aware of it, but citizens have most of the same rights police do, including the right to go where they will.  Zimmerman was free to leave his vehicle.  He was not engaged in any illegal activity and was therefore not prohibited from engaging in self-defense.

It is also not left to Zimmerman to decide what is and is not a danger of death or great bodily harm that allows him to use deadly force in self-defense.  The standard, as you should know, is the 'reasonable man' interpretation.  Zimmerman could claim he was in fear for his life, but if the police do not believe a 'reasonable man' would have been, he is subject to arrest; if the DA doesn't believe it, he is subject to prosecution.  If a jury doesn't believe it, he is subject to criminal conviction.

I am not sure where the assumption comes that a person has the absolute right to decide what is and is not a threat to their lives and then use deadly force on that person.  It just is not the case.  Not in principle and not in practice.



> And if unchanged, these kinds of laws become a sick person's hunting license.



Again, SYG was not in question here.  Even minus this statute, assuming a Duty to Retreat instead, if Zimmerman was in fact on the ground along with Martin - as witnesses have said happened - he could not retreat, and thus that duty was fulfilled; it could not be done.  Duty to Retreat does not mean that Zimmerman could not defend himself with deadly force; it means he had to attempt to retreat if such was possible.  With both men on the ground, it clearly wasn't.

And when talking about repealing these sorts of laws, the first question that needs to be asked is whether or not we have a problem.  Even if Zimmerman simply went hunting for Martin intending to kill him (which most do not believe, and there certainly isn't any apparent evidence to prove it), that's one case.  We've had SYG laws in many states in the USA for decades.  There has not been a predicted bloodbath.  We don't have night-stalkers going out and hunting humans and then claiming SYG.  It's just not happening.  So on balance, I do not think that the SYG law needs to be repealed.

Sick person's hunting license?  Yes, I do not argue that could happen, given enough sick people devoted to the idea of hunting human beings and believing that they could persuade the police in each case that their fear for their life was genuine; but it hasn't happened.  Absent that, problems which do not exist do not need repair.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 30, 2012)

Someone kicks in My front door, so I should run out the back door? Abandoning My only possessions, pet, and family to some burglar?
Pfft.

On topic though;
I see why Youd have that Law. Itd be to prevent someone from attacking someone else, then claiming it was Self Defense. And also to try and prevent people from fight-mongering. Im also prepared to bet not many people even know about the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Someone kicks in My front door, so I should run out the back door? Abandoning My only possessions, pet, and family to some burglar?
> Pfft.



Prior to SYG laws in many states, Duty to Retreat said yes, you had a duty to attempt to retreat if you could; even from your house, before you could engage in violence to defend your property.  But a lot of states have changed that now.



> On topic though;
> I see why Youd have that Law. Itd be to prevent someone from attacking someone else, then claiming it was Self Defense. And also to try and prevent people from fight-mongering. Im also prepared to bet not many people even know about the law.



To the first part of your statement, I disagree; that's because the person who claims self-defense does not get to decide what a 'reasonable' fear of death or serious bodily harm is; that's not up to him.  So if I get in a fist fight with someone and decide to just shoot him and then CLAIM I was in fear of my life, if the police don't agree, I'll still be arrested.

To the second part of your statement, I agree.  A person could use the SYG law to lure people into fighting them and then shooting them dead.  It would take a lot of planning, basically, because you'd have to get them to fight you first, and then they'd have to actually be on the verge of killing you before you could engage in deadly force as self-defense (and you don't get to decide what that point is, that's the 'reasonable man' theory).  I doubt it happens; but it could in theory.

As to whether or not people know about the law, that's their problem.  Stand Your Ground laws have been in the news for years as they are debated and passed in one state and then another.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If people don't know about self-defense laws where they live and choose to engage in self-defense, they're stupid.  There is no cure for stupid.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 31, 2012)

Duty to retreat ought to be called, by anyone who practices, or believes in self defense, "BOHICA" i.e., "Bend Over Here It Comes Again"
What kind of sissified, craven, cowardly BS is that? 
IMNSHO, each person has an absolute right and duty to protect himself, his family, his friends, and any innocent they happen to be near.
But, people keep handing me this tripe about Black and White litmus tests, because it is apparently wrong to consider anything morally wrong anymore...


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> It is also not left to Zimmerman to decide what is and is not a danger of death or great bodily harm that allows him to use deadly force in self-defense. The standard, as you should know, is the 'reasonable man' interpretation. Zimmerman could claim he was in fear for his life, but if the police do not believe a 'reasonable man' would have been, he is subject to arrest; if the DA doesn't believe it, he is subject to prosecution. If a jury doesn't believe it, he is subject to criminal conviction.
> 
> I am not sure where the assumption comes that a person has the absolute right to decide what is and is not a threat to their lives and then use deadly force on that person. It just is not the case. Not in principle and not in practice.



As well as this is stated, it affirms the argument that provisions of SYG require amendment.  Not an an outright repeal, but an amendment.

If ... the dispatcher not ordering Zimmerman to stand down is correct; and

If ... the dispatcher purposely used persuasive and suggestive language, instead of "you shall" or "you must" declaratory-type language; and

If ... Zimmerman did not heed that suggestion because he knew that didn't have to ...

Then both the dispatcher and Zimmerman are aware that a dangerous situation exists.  And if a potentially dangerous situation did not exist, wouldn't it have been more likely that the dispatcher would not have warned Zimmerman not to pursue?  But a potentially dangerous situation DID exist and the dispatcher suggested--as any reasonable man would--to avoid it.  Moreover, I'm not altogether convinced that a dispatcher cannot order someone to act or not act.  The case of Joe Horn in TX, clearly demonstrates a dispatcher ordering Horn to stay in his home and not to engage suspected burglars across the street in another house.  

But let's presume, for the moment, that Florida's laws prohibit dispatchers from ordering citizens' actions.  The very notion that a dispatcher is preempted from ordering someone to maintain safe ground, rather than pursue dangerous ground, is a significant reason why SYG laws need to be amended.


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Duty to retreat ought to be called, by anyone who practices, or believes in self defense, "BOHICA" i.e., "Bend Over Here It Comes Again"
> What kind of sissified, craven, cowardly BS is that?
> IMNSHO, each person has an absolute right and duty to protect himself, his family, his friends, and any innocent they happen to be near.
> But, people keep handing me this tripe about Black and White litmus tests, because it is apparently wrong to consider anything morally wrong anymore...



Duty to retreat is pretty much a strawman argument anymore.  The real issue is whether there is a duty to pursue/engage.

Someone defending themselves in their home, car, job is a no brainer.  You defend yourself.  But think about this from a martial arts perspective.  If you teach, do you teach your students to avoid the fight until it's no longer possible to avoid it, or do you suggest that they pursue a situation that will likely lead to a fight?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Duty to retreat ought to be called, by anyone who practices, or believes in self defense, "BOHICA" i.e., "Bend Over Here It Comes Again"
> What kind of sissified, craven, cowardly BS is that?
> IMNSHO, each person has an absolute right and duty to protect himself, his family, his friends, and any innocent they happen to be near.
> But, people keep handing me this tripe about Black and White litmus tests, because it is apparently wrong to consider anything morally wrong anymore...



I'm not a fan of DTR, but it's not as bad as it is described, any more than SYG is for the other side.

DTR merely means you must retreat if you reasonably can before using violence in self-defense.  If you cannot reasonably retreat, then the requirement is fulfilled.

I doubt anyone has ever been charged for not retreating if they chose not to dive out a window on the 2nd floor of their house to avoid an attack.

However, I do agree that SYG is better than DTR for the citizen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Duty to retreat is pretty much a strawman argument anymore.  The real issue is whether there is a duty to pursue/engage.
> 
> Someone defending themselves in their home, car, job is a no brainer.  You defend yourself.  But think about this from a martial arts perspective.  If you teach, do you teach your students to avoid the fight until it's no longer possible to avoid it, or do you suggest that they pursue a situation that will likely lead to a fight?



From my personal point of view, Zimmerman was an idiot - as a private citizen.  As the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch, maybe not so much.  I cannot say that I would have done what Zimmerman did.  I personally think he made poor decisions that put him in the place and time where he found himself needing to defend himself with deadly force.

From a martial arts perspective, it goes against everything we teach; we're not vigilantes on patrol, and self-defense principles means that the first thing you do is remove yourself from danger.  In fact, DTR is a more pure self-defense principle than SYG.  However, Zimmerman also had a duty to perform.  Granted it was a voluntary duty; no one would arrest him for not performing it.  But it was a duty nonetheless.

From an Albuquerque Block Captain manual:

_"Our recommendation to all citizens who see a crime in progress or notice suspicious activity is to observe and report from a place of safety. We strongly suggest that you not confront an offender unless you are in immediate danger. "_

Zimmerman was definitely 'observing and reporting'.  Whether or not he was doing so from a place of safety is open to debate; Zimmerman says he exited his vehicle because he lost sight of Martin and was confronted as he returned to it.

That doesn't make anything he did illegal.  Just unwise, in my opinion.

If Zimmerman is lying, and he attacked Martin instead of the other way around, then he committed murder; and he may get away with it, because there appears to be little to no forensic evidence to disprove him.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, then Martin also did something wrong; he attacked Zimmerman, and paid for it with his life.

No one did smart things in this situation.  No one made good decisions.  That does not, however, mean any laws were broken; or that the law needs to be changed because of it.


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

> From a martial arts perspective, it goes against everything we teach; we're not vigilantes on patrol, and self-defense principles means that the first thing you do is remove yourself from danger. In fact, DTR is a more pure self-defense principle than SYG. However, Zimmerman also had a duty to perform. Granted it was a _voluntary duty_; no one would arrest him for not performing it. But it was a duty nonetheless.



If this "duty" is voluntary, then it is self-imposed.  As such, no one--least of all Trayvon Martin--is obligated to recognize Zimmerman's self-imposed performance of "duty".  Now, if it's determined that the homeowners association where Zimmerman acted as a watch captain, (a) recognized him as such and (b) expected him to act in that capacity--including carrying out certain duties--then the HOA is defendant number 2 in the civil suit that will be brought by Trayvon's parents.  I don't know the facts on that relationship one way or another, so I'm going to assume that the relationship between Zimmerman and the HOA was an informal "understanding" and not an employee/employer or principal/agent relationship.  

As soon as they (Zimmerman and the HOA) are sued, the details of any relationship will be part of the public record.  That would include any duties.  And if there aren't any such duties enumerated, then it goes back to Zimmerman's self-imposed duties.  It doesn't look good for him in that respect.



> If Zimmerman is lying, and he attacked Martin instead of the other way around, then he committed murder; and he may get away with it, because there appears to be little to no forensic evidence to disprove him.
> 
> If Zimmerman is telling the truth, then Martin also did something wrong; he attacked Zimmerman, and paid for it with his life.
> 
> No one did smart things in this situation. No one made good decisions. That does not, however, mean any laws were broken; or that the law needs to be changed because of it.



[Analogy] When people of different races were prohibited from being issued marriage licenses in states like Georgia or Alabama, that's just the way it was.  It was simply what the law said.  The law was the law.  Point being, it's easy to enact laws that reflect how we feel personally, but at the same time are harmful to liberty and sound public policy.  Eventually they are amended or repealed.

Florida's SYG applied to George Zimmerman, who will likely do serious jail time in addition to being sued for everything he's worth as a result.  And Florida's SYG law also applied to Trayvon Martin, who ironically may have exercised his rights under this law.  And he's dead as a result.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Florida's SYG applied to George Zimmerman, who will likely do serious jail time in addition to being sued for everything he's worth as a result.  And Florida's SYG law also applied to Trayvon Martin, who ironically may have exercised his rights under this law.  And he's dead as a result.



We were doing well, but now you're just flailing around.  Zimmerman has been widely reported as being the local neighborhood watch commander.  I don't know why you keep saying "if" this and "if" that about things that are not in dispute.  Educate yourself on the facts that are actually known before speculating and we can have a more productive discussion.

As to your statement that SYG applied to Zimmerman, yes, it did.  It is also irrelevant, as I've shown. If the SYG law had not existed, he still would have had the right to defend himself with deadly force under DTR, given the circumstances.  So SYG is not the issue here.

As to your statement that he will likely do serious jail time; I don't know on what you base that.  I'm not saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty; but I am not clear on what evidence you believe could be used to charge and convict him at this point.  I see none at this time.  If you're aware of any, please state what it is.

With regard to SYG and Martin, yes, it would have applied if he had been attacked and in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.  Unfortunately, we do not know if Martin attacked Zimmerman or the other way around.  All we know is that they fought, and Zimmerman says he was attacked.  Witnesses saw them on the ground, which only proves there was a fight.  That's about all we know.

Lawsuits?  Yes, I'm sure there will be lawsuits.  That's what happens.  Whether or not Martin's family will prevail is another question.


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

It's a good conversation.  We're doing just fine.  

I truly don't know George Zimmerman's status with respect to the HOA.  It's been reported that he was the neighborhood watch captain, and it's been reported that he was the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain.  But you know how reports go.  

I disagree that if the SYG law had not existed, Z would still have had the right to deadly self defense.  If the report is accurate, a homicide investigator by the name of Chris Serino doubted Z's account of the shooting...so much so that he recommended manslaughter charges.  But Serino was overruled by the State's Attorney due to lack of evidence.  Now, I will be intellectually honest and concede that I don't know if there wasn't enough evidence to overcome a SYG self-defense assertion, or if there wasn't enough evidence to overcome ANY self-defense assertion.  But I have my suspicions.

With respect to jail time, I believe that Zimmerman will be arrested--upon indictment or not--and I believe that he will be criminally charged.  I also believe that this supposed lack of evidence is not fortuitous.  What evidence did exist, was either never collected; never pursued; never reviewed; or in the worst possible case, was destroyed.  For instance, evidence of treatment at the scene; paramedic reports; emergency room records; photographs of Zimmerman's claimed near-death injuries.  Documents and things (other than hearsay) that would evidence the struggle upon which Zimmerman rests his defense.

It's true that all we *know* is that Z reported T as suspicious; that Z was asked not to pursue or engage T; that he did so anyway; and that Z claims there was a life and death struggle.  The rest of the evidence will either be produced at trial or discovered missing.  

The Martin family has a great case.  It's pretty clear to me that the Sanford PD will likely be hit with a spoliation order in the criminal case.  Spoliation is when evidence that should exist, is determined to have been destroyed or misplaced or not prepared.  The jury is then legally allowed to infer that the missing evidence would have looked bad for that party.  Rest assured that the Martin family will include that in their civil case.  And all it takes is a preponderance of the evidence.​


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> It's a good conversation.  We're doing just fine.




Not precisely, but I'm attempting to overlook the fact that you're twisting things whenever you can and I have keep correcting you;  good debate tactic, but not a good conversation tactic.



> I truly don't know George Zimmerman's status with respect to the HOA.  It's been reported that he was the neighborhood watch captain, and it's been reported that he was the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain.  But you know how reports go.



Fair enough.  But before, you seemed doubtful that he was *any* kind of a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.  It's a lawyerly tactic to cast doubt on everything, over and over, but it's again, not conducive to conversation.




> I disagree that if the SYG law had not existed, Z would still have had the right to deadly self defense.  If the report is accurate, a homicide investigator by the name of Chris Serino doubted Z's account of the shooting...so much so that he recommended manslaughter charges.  But Serino was overruled by the State's Attorney due to lack of evidence.  Now, I will be intellectually honest and concede that I don't know if there wasn't enough evidence to overcome a SYG self-defense assertion, or if there wasn't enough evidence to overcome ANY self-defense assertion.  But I have my suspicions.
> ​




I agree that the investigator recommended charges; that appears to be factual; and also the state's attorney said that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.  I don't see a conspiracy or a failure there; apparently you do.  But it is not the police that determine if there is enough evidence to bring charges; that's what prosecuting attorneys do.  The police make a determination if there is enough probable cause to make an arrest.

I have my suspicions about what actually happened as well, just as you do.  The difference is that I recognize that based on the facts that are known (two men on the ground fighting, one man shot another, that man claimed self-defense), there isn't enough evidence to say whether or not Zimmerman is lying.  In the absence of information that tends to incriminate Zimmerman, the 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine means he goes free.  Doesn't mean he didn't do it, of course.  Only means that this is how our system works.



> With respect to jail time, I believe that Zimmerman will be arrested--upon indictment or not--and I believe that he will be criminally charged.  I also believe that this supposed lack of evidence is not fortuitous.  What evidence did exist, was either never collected; never pursued; never reviewed; or in the worst possible case, was destroyed.  For instance, evidence of treatment at the scene; paramedic reports; emergency room records; photographs of Zimmerman's claimed near-death injuries.  Documents and things (other than hearsay) that would evidence the struggle upon which Zimmerman rests his defense.



Again, I do not see upon what you base your belief that evidence has been destroyed or suppressed.  I can imagine a world in which such conspiracies exist; but minus evidence of that, I doubt them.  You make bold claims, can you back any of them up, other than by speculation?



> It's true that all we *know* is that Z reported T as suspicious; that Z was asked not to pursue or engage T; that he did so anyway; and that Z claims there was a life and death struggle.  The rest of the evidence will either be produced at trial or discovered missing.



Again, you twist words.  Zimmerman was *not* asked not to pursue or engage.  He was told, verbatim, "Okay, we don't need you to do that."  That's a direct quote from the 911 tapes.  That's basic English and it is not a command imperative or a request not to do something.  If that is what they intended to say, they could have said "Do not do that," or "OK, we'd like you not to do that."  Those would be command imperatives or requests to stand down.  What the dispatcher said was that the police did not require Zimmerman's assistance.  They neither told nor asked him to disengage.

You keep implying that the words the dispatcher used are unknown.  They are not unknown, the quote is direct and verbatim.  I suspect you know that quite well, but again, it's a standard lawyerly tactic to cast doubt on known facts.  Great for press conferences; not for conversation.  Stick to the facts.

This is important because it goes to the requirement that a person not be engaged in an illegal activity when claiming self-defense.  If Zimmerman was breaking the law, then he could not claim self-defense.  If he was not, then he could.



> The Martin family has a great case.  It's pretty clear to me that the Sanford PD will likely be hit with a spoliation order in the criminal case.  Spoliation is when evidence that should exist, is determined to have been destroyed or misplaced or not prepared.  The jury is then legally allowed to infer that the missing evidence would have looked bad for that party.  Rest assured that the Martin family will include that in their civil case.  And all it takes is a preponderance of the evidence.


​
Time will tell.  And yes, I'm aware of the requirements for a civil judgment.  I have no doubt, as I've said, that a lawsuit will occur at some point.  I won't claim I know what the tactics or outcome will be.  The same is true of the chances of a criminal charge; I do not know what will happen.  All I know is that based on what little we actually know, there appears to be little evidence contradicting Zimmerman's story.  Even if he is lying, he may well get off.  As I'm sure the homicide investigator well knows, there is a huge difference between believing a suspect is lying and proving it in court.

And I'm just going to leave out any further discussion of wild accusations of coverups and evidence destruction, unless some actual facts are brought forward to demonstrate that this is happening.  That is just, as I have said, flailing around.  Wild speculation.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 31, 2012)

The duty to retreat is really just a form of the concern of "preclusion."  Any use of force is judged on several things, and one of those is what other options did  you have rather than use force (especially lethal force)?  Could you have fled?  Talked your way out?  Use a different, lesser force option


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

@ Robert Mattocks

Well, this is probably where we part company.  There's a point where I--and many others--no longer view this matter in a fully objective, disconnected, dispassionate and indifferent way.

Beyond the nuts and bolts, I see the strong likelihood of racially-motivated indifference, if not worse.  I'm dang near 50 years of age, and I know it because I've experienced it.  And not always in the one or two ways that some believe it only exists.

So rather than argue about when it exists and when it doesn't--kind of like me trying to tell an Israeli man when something is terrorism and when it's not--I'm just gonna disclose my subjectivity right here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> @ Robert Mattocks
> 
> Well, this is probably where we part company.  There's a point where I--and many others--no longer view this matter in a fully objective, disconnected, dispassionate and indifferent way.
> 
> ...



The name is "Bill," but OK.  And I *am* 50 years old.  My background is in law enforcement.  I have also seen racism.  I do not see any evidence of it here; but I admit it could well have been a factor.  We just don't share that opinion, and I try not to assume what I do not know.


----------



## Wo Fat (Mar 31, 2012)

Sorry about that, Bill.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 31, 2012)

It is hard to know anything at this point other than someone is dead.  We do not know if there was any racism.  Nor do we know if the force that was used was justified or not.  Only time will tell!


----------



## Wo Fat (Apr 1, 2012)

It's only hard to know if we don't ask direct questions and expect direct, honest answers.  The chips will fall where they fall.  If race was a motivation, then no decent person wants that.  If it wasn't; and this was an unnecessary shooting, well nobody wants that either.  In any event, everybody has a vested interest in getting to the bottom of things.

But the longer we wait, the less we know.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> It's only hard to know if we don't ask direct questions and expect direct, honest answers.  The chips will fall where they fall.  If race was a motivation, then no decent person wants that.  If it wasn't; and this was an unnecessary shooting, well nobody wants that either.  In any event, everybody has a vested interest in getting to the bottom of things.
> 
> But the longer we wait, the less we know.



I agreed with all but the last statement.  We'll know when we know.  Rushing to judgment doesn't generally result in good results.


----------



## Wo Fat (Apr 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agreed with all but the last statement.  We'll know when we know.  Rushing to judgment doesn't generally result in good results.



Remember the Ft. Hoot shooting?  Terrorism committed by an American citizen.  Right?


----------

