Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[Sukerkin]

What does seem clear is that there is no attempt being made here to have a reasonable discussion of what the facts are behind this case. Plenty of supposition and Straw Men walking the thread, however; there might be entertainment to find in such posting but very little in the way of understanding or enlightenment.

Maybe we can steer the conversation back to a more profitable tone before it slips off track?

 

[MJS]

I have a question. When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to? Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why. Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"

I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything. If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?

You really can't know, can you?

At this stage of the game, I don't recall what he said....these people, these *******s. I suppose it would depend on the person hearing the comment and the way they take it. One can assume that whatever term he was using, it is being used to describe the person or persons who're causing issues in the neighborhood. Zimmerman most likely called them a name and is highly frustrated, because, like I've said before, he's of the mind that when a call is placed to the cops, an officer should materialize there in 2 seconds. Sorry, doesnt work that way.

 

[billc]

To honor Sukerkin' s wishes, Iwill take the thread back on topic...Did you see the presiding judge on the case...she's kinda hot.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/13/Judge-May-Have-Conflict-In-Zimmerman-Case

And before anyone says anything, this thread is 33 pages long, everything up to now has already been discussed, the discussion based on absolutely no known factual evidence that we have access to, so yes...the judge is hot....

 

[Wo Fat]

A more profitable tone is always a good thing. In that spirit, I wonder if I might offer up the opportunity to evaluate something. Each month, I send a newsletter to my students, colleagues, friends, etc. Below is a draft of this months. I welcome any comments or critiques:

A Word on Stand Your Ground

If you haven’t heard the names Trayvon Martin (or George Zimmerman) by now, you’ve been out of the country for a good long time—good for you! I won’t blog about it here, but should you need some background on the case, then let Google be your friend.

A major component of that case, however, is the legal doctrine known as Stand Your Ground. In theory, it is a concept of personal self-defense that allows a person to use force (sometimes lethal) to defend him or herself without having a duty to “retreat”, if he or she reasonably believes that a threat exists. For all but the most passive and pacifist among us—not to judge or condemn anyone for being non-violent—the right to defend one’s self seems as natural of a right as one can possess. But … there’s theory and there’s reality. And it’s the application of the human element that often screws up a perfectly good theory. Still, when it comes to Stand Your Ground, the questions quickly become: what is your ground?; where is your ground?; and what kind of a stand did you take?

As martial artists, do we have a higher standard when it comes to self-defense? Before you answer, know this; there are elements of some states’ Stand Your Ground laws that allow one’s ground to follow the threat. As a policy or political matter, I have no critique here. However, as a martial arts instructor, I have not nor will I teach anyone to transition from self-defense to self-”offense”. The very essence of our techniques rely on the premise that we have exhausted all efforts to avoid the threat; that the threat is upon us; and that we are about to be engaged in combat to protect ourselves, a loved one, and/or someone who actually needs the same protection. Unless we are sparring, we as martial artists are not in the business of pursuing, enticing, luring, or provoking any person who we believe is a threat. While some laws may allow citizens to theoretically “move your ground”, I believe that we as martial artists should be held to a slightly higher standard. Not a bad standard to have.

Sifu

 

[billc]

I just have to say that a few here on the thread seem to equate taking a martial art as a hobby is something that makes people special, implying a higher level of "something" or a greater perceived knowledge of "something." It's a hobby or something we do to make a little money. We aren't SEALs, we aren't warrior monks, were regular folk who like martial arts instead of tennis, or including tennis, or collecting stamps or knitting. I would say let's not try to elevate our hobby into something more than it is, or try to make us something more, or less than what we are. By all means do it if you want, but I'm not. We are people, no more, no less. Zimmerman and Martin are people and mistakes in judgement were made, probably by both guys. It lead to a tragic outcome. Now the courts have it.

 

[billc]

Have you seen the judge...am I right or am I right...?

 

[granfire]

I just have to say that a few here on the thread seem to equate taking a martial art as a hobby is something that makes people special, implying a higher level of "something" or a greater perceived knowledge of "something." It's a hobby or something we do to make a little money. We aren't SEALs, we aren't warrior monks, were regular folk who like martial arts instead of tennis, or including tennis, or collecting stamps or knitting. I would say let's not try to elevate our hobby into something more than it is, or try to make us something more, or less than what we are. By all means do it if you want, but I'm not. We are people, no more, no less. Zimmerman and Martin are people and mistakes in judgement were made, probably by both guys. It lead to a tragic outcome. Now the courts have it.

Oh the Humanity!
I am agreeing with billi!

It's 2012....I am scared now!

 

[Cryozombie]

Except he didn't say "those people". He said "these a$$holes...". He used a pejorative; a derogatory term, not an objective or innocuous term.

Well, all I gotta say to this is that if calling someone an ******* automatically means "Black People" then there sure are a lot of people that think I am Black myself.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now that there is opposition ramping up for Stand Your Ground laws, I am worried because once again, people are morons, sheep, and easily led.

Those arguing against the various state laws are referring to them in the most histrionic of ways; they are not laws designed to protect victims from malicious prosecution, they are licenses to kill. And why? Why because Stand Your Ground says if you feel threatened in any way, you can just whip out your roscoe and start blasting away.

They conveniently leave out one little word; "reasonably." That word means that a person cannot just start shooting people willy-nilly. There is an external standard that must be met.

And this is not different in a material way from former laws, known as 'Duty to Retreat'. Duty to Retreat laws said the same thing; the standard for using deadly force in self-defense is the 'reasonable person' standard. The only thing that is different between DTR and SYG is that SYG means you do not have to first attempt to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The 'reasonable person' standard is the same.

If people honestly believe that the so-called 'reasonable man' is NOT reasonable, or that the self-defense laws that invoke that standard are not honestly applied, then I can at least understand the objection. However, in that case, their real objection is to the notion of what people reasonably consider a threat to life; not 'Stand Your Ground'.

With regard to the Zimmerman case; I continue to believe that SYG had little or nothing to do with the shooting or the claim of self-defense. Even under the previous law, any 'Duty to Retreat' is satisfied if the person is, as Zimmerman said he was, flat on their back on the ground, having their head pounded into the pavement. If Zimmerman is telling the truth (which no one knows, of course), then he could by no means retreat at that point. So SYG simply does not matter in this case; the former self-defense law would have applied just as readily.

With regard to comments about martial artists holding themselves or being held to higher standards, that's up to each person. If you wish to refrain from using deadly force in self-defense, that is your business. I would suggest that to attempt to apply it to other people because you feel they have been sufficiently trained to avoid the use of deadly force would be foolish. How would one go about applying such a standard? Who has been sufficiently trained? To whom does it apply? Black belts? I mean, come on. I know black belts who are essentially dojo tigers (not in my dojo, but I'm just saying). They can't defend themselves for anything. I know at least one black belt who has an aversion to hitting people and won't spar. I know a couple green belts who can destroy just about anyone they come across, in or out of the dojo. So how do you apply this magical standard? You can't, and that's the problem. There is no objective measure of anyone's ability to defend themselves. It's the same reason that DUI standards test B.A.C. and not how drunk a person is; there is no objective standard to determine how impaired someone is, so we use the only objective standard we can; even if it is not precised when applied to individuals.

I absolutely reject notions that Zimmerman's having followed Martin have anything to do with Zimmerman having disregarded dispatcher requests to not follow Martin. Where the 'confrontation' began has nothing to do with anything. What matters is that there was a struggle; we know this. During that struggle, Zimmerman says he was on the ground with Martin; we also know this. Zimmerman says he was being assaulted by Martin; this we do not know. The question of 'reasonable' use of self-defense comes down to the moments before the trigger was pulled. There were no elements that would bar the use of deadly force in self-defense; Zimmerman, no matter what anyone wants to believe, was not breaking the law by either confronting or being confronted by Martin (no matter which it was). Since he was legally armed, and he was legally where he was (as was Martin), the question of self-defense comes down to whether or not he was 'reasonably' in fear of his life when he was on the ground with Martin. This we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, no one knows.

The prosecution has chosen to go a different direction. They are claiming he intended to 'go after' and attack or kill Martin, which eliminates the entire question of self-defense. That's a bold claim; I feel it's a tough pull. I seriously doubt that they can prove to a jury or a judge what was in Zimmerman's heart when he got out of his truck. However, it has also been pointed out that a jury can choose to find guilt in a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter. I don't know if they'll be able to make that case either. I can't claim to know what's going to happen; judges and juries do what they do without my consultation; and the prosecution may have facts that are not known to the public. But if the question of intent is disregarded by the judge or jury, which the prosecution claims and Zimmerman denies, then it comes back to the moments of the struggle itself; everything else is chaff being thrown in the air to confuse and obfuscate.

There, I've attempted to get this ugly monstrosity back on track. Have fun.

 

[WC_lun]

Martial artist holding themselves to a different standard for self defense is dangerous, in my opinion. If someone attacks you, you do what you must do to be safe. Generally, there is only time enough to access the situation and react. Anything more adds timeframes in which you are not actively defending yourself while being attacked. A recipe for injury. This doesn't mean kill every SOB that even looks at you cross eyed. You must use common sense in your self defense. However, martial artist are not supermen. We usually do not have the luxary to mess around when it comes time for actual self defense, no more than someone less trained.

I think we must be care ful when it comes to judging Zimmerman. Let the courts do that. If they have information which will convict him, then so be it. If they lack the neccesary evidence, then let it work itself out as well. I am interested in finding out what evidence they believe they have to support the charges. From what I've ready so far, it would have to be something new.

The problem with the stand your ground laws in Florida do not seem to be the law itself. It seems to be that the law is not being applied fairly across the board. There have been other killings using this law as justification, mostly black on black. According to several things I've read and a couple of interviews I've seen, many communities feel the police are using the law to bypass making a thourough investigation. The message sent was, blacks killing blacks do not matter. Of course, when a non-black person was involved in using the law as a shooting justification, the race card was able to be used to vault the story to national headlines, deserved or not. I do not know if police depts are using the stand your ground laws to shirk invistations. I would lean to giving police the benefit of the doubt working difficult a difficult job. However, that is the perception in some Florida communities. I think that should be the focus of the media attention, not a single episode. The single episode is easier to report and manipulate though.

 

[MJS]

I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement. It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card. For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor. Did they have to start a fight? Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do. I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you. To the other guy yes.

Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable. Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement. It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card. For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor. Did they have to start a fight? Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do. I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you. To the other guy yes.

Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable. Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.

Two things, which I've touched on before. First, there is nothing in the law of Florida (or most SYG laws that I'm aware of) that speak to who was the aggressor. You keep saying as if it matters; but from the purely legal standpoint, it does not. The law in Florida says that the person who claims SYG cannot be themselves breaking the law; but being the aggressor does not necessarily mean they were breaking the law. I can get right up in your grill and be all kinds of angry and yelling and NOT be breaking the law. If you decide to swing on me and put me into a position where I think I'm about to die, then SYG still applies; it does not matter one little bit that I was the aggressor. Morally, I see your point. From a legal standpoint, it means zero unless coupled with illegal actions. And that's what Florida is claiming; that Zimmerman went after Martin with intent to cause bodily harm and disregard of human life; that puts him in the fight with Martin illegally and defeats SYG. But they'll have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was in Zimmerman's mind. I don't think they'll be able to do that; we'll see.

Second, again, you use the word 'reasonable' but then you seem to think it's a personal standard; with regard to the law, it is not. The reference is not to what you think is reasonable or what I think is reasonable or even what Zimmerman thought was reasonable. The law refers to the 'reasonable person' test, which is a legal standard that attempts to be objective, not subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Zimmerman doesn't get to decide what 'reasonable' means; neither do I. That is a test for the judge and/or jury, and it doesn't even mean what they think reasonable means; the standard is based on a legal fiction describing what the average person would consider reasonable. It's not objective; but it's as close as we can get.

If 'reasonable' meant something different to each person and that definition was also used in court, then the SYG laws would indeed be a license to kill for those so inclined. It means people would shoot first and later state that they reasonably felt threatened, and that would be that. But the law does not define reasonable that way, so it's not a license to kill.

 

[MJS]

Two things, which I've touched on before. First, there is nothing in the law of Florida (or most SYG laws that I'm aware of) that speak to who was the aggressor. You keep saying as if it matters; but from the purely legal standpoint, it does not. The law in Florida says that the person who claims SYG cannot be themselves breaking the law; but being the aggressor does not necessarily mean they were breaking the law. I can get right up in your grill and be all kinds of angry and yelling and NOT be breaking the law. If you decide to swing on me and put me into a position where I think I'm about to die, then SYG still applies; it does not matter one little bit that I was the aggressor. Morally, I see your point. From a legal standpoint, it means zero unless coupled with illegal actions. And that's what Florida is claiming; that Zimmerman went after Martin with intent to cause bodily harm and disregard of human life; that puts him in the fight with Martin illegally and defeats SYG. But they'll have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was in Zimmerman's mind. I don't think they'll be able to do that; we'll see.

Hmm...ok points taken, but I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that it would/did matter if there was an aggressor. Yes, it will be intereting to see what pans out.

Second, again, you use the word 'reasonable' but then you seem to think it's a personal standard; with regard to the law, it is not. The reference is not to what you think is reasonable or what I think is reasonable or even what Zimmerman thought was reasonable. The law refers to the 'reasonable person' test, which is a legal standard that attempts to be objective, not subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Zimmerman doesn't get to decide what 'reasonable' means; neither do I. That is a test for the judge and/or jury, and it doesn't even mean what they think reasonable means; the standard is based on a legal fiction describing what the average person would consider reasonable. It's not objective; but it's as close as we can get.

If 'reasonable' meant something different to each person and that definition was also used in court, then the SYG laws would indeed be a license to kill for those so inclined. It means people would shoot first and later state that they reasonably felt threatened, and that would be that. But the law does not define reasonable that way, so it's not a license to kill.

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I just assumed that if it was a law, standard, etc, that they're using, that at some point, someone must've created it, thus giving what they feel is their personal standard.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. See, its true..you learn something every day.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hmm...ok points taken, but I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that it would/did matter if there was an aggressor. Yes, it will be intereting to see what pans out.

If being the aggressor can be shown to demonstrate something else, like extreme indifference to human life, intent to harm, or some other way of demonstrating that in the instant of the conflict, Zimmerman was there illegally; if he was, then self-defense laws in Florida do not apply to Zimmerman.

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I just assumed that if it was a law, standard, etc, that they're using, that at some point, someone must've created it, thus giving what they feel is their personal standard.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. See, its true..you learn something every day.

The 'reasonable person' test dates back to English Common Law. The whole purpose is to let the judge or jury put themselves into the situation that the so-called victim and play 'what would I have done'?

Of course everyone has their own concept of what is and is not reasonable; that's perfectly normal and natural. But we don't want people to just make up their own rules as they go along and have that be law. If it were the case, I'd be in favor of repealing SYG laws as well.

What makes me angry is that the people now agitating for repeal of SYG know perfectly well how it works, but they are intentionally misrepresenting it to stir up indignation and anger. Being for or against SYG is something I can understand. Intentionally lying to get what you want? I am not a fan of those persons.

 

[Cryozombie]

If being the aggressor can be shown to demonstrate something else, like extreme indifference to human life, intent to harm, or some other way of demonstrating that in the instant of the conflict, Zimmerman was there illegally; if he was, then self-defense laws in Florida do not apply to Zimmerman.

I do know that here... the aggressor cannot claim SYG applies to them, even if they were gonna get killed because of what they did... i.e. If Zimmerman had Followed and initiated confrontation with Trayvon and he then started pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and Zimmerman shot and killed him... Zimmerman would not be protected under Illinois law. UNLESS Zimmerman disengaged and demonstrated that the confrontation was over, and Trayvon THEN started pounding him into the pavement. Otherwise, the aggressor cannot claim Self defense under our version of SYG

 

[Wo Fat]

I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement. It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card. For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor. Did they have to start a fight? Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do. I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you. To the other guy yes.

Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable. Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.

Which is why I instruct my students accordingly. Not that standing their ground is the wrong (or "liberal" or "democrat" or whateva) thing to do, but that they are expected to use good and sound judgment in reasonable anticipation of something happening.

I think you know, MJS, that I'm a Kajukenbo man. We tend to have a screw loose in terms of defending ourselves--sometimes we go the extra mile. And we don't apologize for that. My point is to be extra-judicious about situations, locations, confrontations, etc. So as much as I might be able to put hurtin' on somebody, doesn't mean that I ought to find the nearest biker bar, swagger in sporting my Al Sharpton button on my pro-affirmative action t-shirt, and stare down the nearest regular while uttering whatchoo lookin' at, b*tch! There's a good chance I'm gonna have to stand my ground--and that I or somebody else is gonna get hurt or killed. And while the law allows me to be there, and to stand my ground if I feel threatened, I shouldn't have placed myself in that situation.

That's all I meant.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do know that here... the aggressor cannot claim SYG applies to them, even if they were gonna get killed because of what they did... i.e. If Zimmerman had Followed and initiated confrontation with Trayvon and he then started pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and Zimmerman shot and killed him... Zimmerman would not be protected under Illinois law. UNLESS Zimmerman disengaged and demonstrated that the confrontation was over, and Trayvon THEN started pounding him into the pavement. Otherwise, the aggressor cannot claim Self defense under our version of SYG

Yes, that is the case in some states.

It's a tough row to hoe, though. If a person has an argument his next-door neighbor over the dog pooping in his yard, and he and the neighbor engage in mutual combat, but the neighbor suddenly pulls a gun and shoots the person who 'started it', the law would say he is required by law to stand there and die, or run away if he can, but he's not allowed to defend his own life. Only if he runs away AND the neighbor pursues him, and continues the violence even after the person who 'started it' begs for his life can he defend himself.

Personally, I think if it were to me, I'd want to live in a state that allowed SYG without regard to who started it, so long as the person who claimed legal self-defense was in fact not breaking the law.

"He started it" arguments can mean anything from the first guy to raise a fist to the first guy to initiate contact and everything in between. Too messy. Zimmerman 'started it' by following Martin. Ah, but he is allowed by law to follow him. Martin 'started it' by attacking Zimmerman with his fists (if he did in fact do that). Ah, but Zimmerman got our of his vehicle looking for Martin on foot, so he 'started it'. And on and on. Fortunately for Zimmerman, Florida does not have that requirement to the best of my knowledge. I personally hate "You started it! No, I didn't, YOU started it," arguments. Ick.

 

[Wo Fat]

What's simple is what my grandma (and probably many other grandma's) said: Dont' start none ... won't be none.

 

[granfire]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...erman-to-get-fair-trial-defense-attorneys-say

 

[Bill Mattocks]

For those who feel being the 'aggressor' means you cannot claim self-defense:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...94.html?ref=chicago&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Ron Psenka, 46, was sleeping in his home near the alley where the 21-year-old woman was struggling with her attacker when his wife alerted him to screams in the distance, the Chicago Tribune reports. Psenka grabbed a shovel and began chasing the assailant on foot until he was able to flag down a police patrol car, and officers arrested 27-year-old Admon Shasho.

Psenka was clearly the aggressor here. He did not have to get involved. He had no authority to get involved. He didn't even dial 911 before grabbing a deadly weapon (a shovel) and confronting someone he *thought* was committing a crime. Now suppose that the rapist (or whatever he was) had started beating on Psenka? Psenka feels he is in danger of losing his life and he swings his shovel, cracking Shaso's skull cleanly in twain.

Can he not claim self-defense? I mean, he is clearly the aggressor here; he clearly was not the police and had no authority to get involved. He's obviously a wanna-be cop. Oh, and from the photo, it looks like he's white. From the last name of the suspect, I would guess he's of some other ethnic group. Racism too!

Good thing Psenka didn't have to actually swing the shovel, eh? Because according to some of you, he would have been legally required to stand there and be killed by Shasho as punishment for being the aggressor, wanna-be cop, and racist.

Am I right? Just checking.