911 Caller Arrested In Deadly Police Shooting

[Bill Mattocks]

I wasn't there in either case, but I'd say in this case, the guy heard/saw someone taking something from his vehicle. He gave chase, the badguy swung the bag of radios at him, the victim hit back.

Correct, as I understand it.

In the Zimmerman case, did he actually see Martin doing anything? Or just walking thru the area?

Irrelevant. What matters is whether or not Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life when he pulled the trigger, and whether or not he complied with the Florida laws regarding use of deadly force in self-defense in all other respects.

Personally, anytime you involve yourself, you're going to be taking some seroius risk. Would I chase after someone who just stole something from my vehicle? I'd say it'd depend on the situation. Of course, if I opt to give chase, then I have to take all responsibility for anything that happens to me.

On a personal basis, that is fine and I agree with it. From a legal standpoint, a victim is allowed to chase a suspect in the same manner a person is allowed to go where he will; even follow and talk to strangers who are just wandering around. There's nothing illegal about it. As to 'taking all responsibility', you know the law doesn't work that way. If I follow you for no apparent reason and you turn and smack me because you don't like me doing that; and if you proceed to beat me to the point where I am reasonably in fear of my life, I can legally defend myself with deadly force. Yes, it was 'my fault' for following you. But I'm still allowed to defend myself from being killed. There is no rule that says "Well, you pissed him off, so you are required to die instead of fighting back."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In this case, the guy falsely hyped up the call, making it something it wasn't. It seems like the courts decided that a bag full of metal, was a deadly weapon, thus the justification for the victim to use deadly force.

I agree 100%.

 

[MJS]

Irrelevant. What matters is whether or not Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life when he pulled the trigger, and whether or not he complied with the Florida laws regarding use of deadly force in self-defense in all other respects.

Hey Bill,

Just to calrify on this. I too, have questioned whether or not Zimmerman was in compliance. To be honest, I dont recall if I got a reply/clarification on that or not. Anyways...regarding what I was saying here was...I could almost justify the guy whose radio was stolen, for giving chase. Like I said, I dont know what I would do. With Zimmerman, he really had no reason to pursue. He did it against the advice of the dispatcher in addition to wanting to play LEO.

On a personal basis, that is fine and I agree with it. From a legal standpoint, a victim is allowed to chase a suspect in the same manner a person is allowed to go where he will; even follow and talk to strangers who are just wandering around. There's nothing illegal about it. As to 'taking all responsibility', you know the law doesn't work that way. If I follow you for no apparent reason and you turn and smack me because you don't like me doing that; and if you proceed to beat me to the point where I am reasonably in fear of my life, I can legally defend myself with deadly force. Yes, it was 'my fault' for following you. But I'm still allowed to defend myself from being killed. There is no rule that says "Well, you pissed him off, so you are required to die instead of fighting back."

Points taken. What I meant by saying I have to take all responsibility, is that...if I decide to chase after someone and in the process get injured, thats my own fault. It's akin to getting involved in a dispute between 2 parties. If you, as a citizen, decide to act, rather than be a good witness, then you should be prepared, understand and accept the possibility that you could get injured in the process. Just like deciding to defend yourself rather than comply...if you choose to do that, then you have to also be prepared, understand and be willing to accept that by doing so, you could end up injured or dead.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hey Bill,

Just to calrify on this. I too, have questioned whether or not Zimmerman was in compliance. To be honest, I dont recall if I got a reply/clarification on that or not. Anyways...regarding what I was saying here was...I could almost justify the guy whose radio was stolen, for giving chase. Like I said, I dont know what I would do. With Zimmerman, he really had no reason to pursue. He did it against the advice of the dispatcher in addition to wanting to play LEO.

Yes, I agree. There is little doubt he was overzealous, I think. The term 'wannabe cop' might well apply. I think we both agree that this doesn't change the law with regard to self-defense; even wanna-be cops who do stupid crap are entitled to defend themselves. But he most definitely was dumb to pursue. And the guy chasing the thief with the bag of radios, perhaps less so.

But you've heard me argue against even chasing the bad guy who steals the radios. They're not worth my life, I'd never do it. Just talking self-defense here; I'm not in law enforcement anymore, and I would not want to have been brained by the sack of radios if I had chased the guy down. Let it go. That's what insurance is for.

Points taken. What I meant by saying I have to take all responsibility, is that...if I decide to chase after someone and in the process get injured, thats my own fault. It's akin to getting involved in a dispute between 2 parties. If you, as a citizen, decide to act, rather than be a good witness, then you should be prepared, understand and accept the possibility that you could get injured in the process. Just like deciding to defend yourself rather than comply...if you choose to do that, then you have to also be prepared, understand and be willing to accept that by doing so, you could end up injured or dead.

Yes, very much the case. I know where I stand legally if I defend myself in my home, or if I defend my life when confronted on the street. Everything changes when I take the additional step of pursuing anyone.

Like the fellow in Detroit recently who chased the guy whom he found trying to break into his house. He chased him down and he shot him dead. While it might cheer the hearts of many that a bad guy died and a good guy 'got even', it's not legal. And it was dangerous in the extreme; the victim giving chase might well have run the guy down only to discover a carload of armed gangsters waiting for the bad guy to jump in; he might have discovered the bad guy had a gun too; he might have had any number of bad things befall him once he went dashing through the darkness armed with a pistol after a guy who tried to break into his house. Sure, I get his anger, but it wasn't smart.

And all these cases tend to prove something I've said for years; if you kill someone in self-defense, even if you do not face criminal and civil charges, your life is not going to be the same again. Even the most innocent of victims who kills in self-defense often faces massive legal costs at the VERY least. Nothing gets better when a good guy kills a bad guy, except that the good guy gets to live. Everything else pretty much turns to crap.