Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[De Selby]

This is just...flabbergasting. How exactly is someone who is pinned down and being pummeled supposed to disengage? You really can't at that point, and if shielding yourself and yelling "HELP!" doesn't show that you don't wish to fight, what the hell does?

In MMA and other such sports, someone who is pinned down often requires the ref to come in and stop the beating, because it's impossible for the person who is pinned (someone who is a trained fighter) to disengage or adequately fight back. And that's in an organized fight. "Tap outs" aren't recognized in street fights.

Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation.   Once you do that, you're likely to end up in trouble if a shooting occurs, no matter how hard you tried to undo the mistake.


I'll say again, I'm not sure why this is news to Gun owners.  In nearly every self defense thread I've ever seen, a chorus gets going about how you do not leave positions of safety to seek out dangerous suspects.  If this were a scenario on Strategies and Tactics on any other board, and a shooting had not happened, how many people would be telling the poster what a dumb move it was to get out of the car and follow the suspect into a dark space???

If the behaviour in question is something that you could reflexively call a dumb move, and it results in a shooting, yeah folks....a criminal trial is the likely result.   The most bizarre thing about this case isn't the murder two charge, it's that they didn't charge it on the first day.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I have not heard a single person (in all of the threads we have had) say that what Zimmerman did was smart, good tactics, or admirable.  However, being dumb is not in and of itself criminal.  What we are discussing is, with the information we currently have, was Zimmerman justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.

[Chester32141]

  The physical evidence belies the idea of mutual combat.  Absent mutual combat the person w/ the injuries to his hands was the aggressor and the person w/ the injuries to his face and to the back of his head was the victim.  The only reason this simple sensible statement is open to debate is because racial  politics got involved.   Perhaps Zimmerman requested Martin to sit on his chest and bust up his face and scalp so he would be justified in shooting him. The fact that the lead investigator wanted to charge 'Z' w/ manslaughter is not evidence and carries no weight.  Has anyone heard his reasoning for wanting to file this charge ?  Does anyone truly  believe that if the races were reversed we'd even be discussing this incident ?

I think what happened here is a kid attacked the wrong victim and learned too late that he was armed and willing to defend himself.  If the race baiters had used this as a teachable moment to warn thugs against attacking unknown victims something positive might have actually come from this ...

[Perd Hapley]

Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation.  

Where could I find the list of what those things are? Would my local police/sheriff have that, or should I check with the state?   

[De Selby]

Where could I find the list of what those things are? Would my local police/sheriff have that, or should I check with the state?   

You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws.   If everyone you know would say "that's dumb!", and the activity could foreseeably cause death, you are at risk.   That's a good rule of thumb for avoiding the jury.

Had Zimmerman gone to a lawyer and asked about chasing down suspects in his neighborhood before this happened, he'd have received the exact same advice.  The dispatcher knew what he was doing was a bad idea, everyone on this forum knows this was a dumb move, and now someone who actually was just walking down the street before running away to avoid the confrontation is dead.

[seeker_two]

You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws. 

"Common sense" and "interpreting law" are often mutually exclusive when politics are thrown into the mix....

[Monkeyleg]

Its not realistic that you'd stop mid fight, and that's the point - its essential that you not do things which you know could start an armed confrontation.   Once you do that, you're likely to end up in trouble if a shooting occurs, no matter how hard you tried to undo the mistake.

So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?

[Regolith]

You have to use your common sense - as you do for interpreting most laws.   If everyone you know would say "that's dumb!", and the activity could foreseeably cause death, you are at risk.   That's a good rule of thumb for avoiding the jury.

Had Zimmerman gone to a lawyer and asked about chasing down suspects in his neighborhood before this happened, he'd have received the exact same advice.  The dispatcher knew what he was doing was a bad idea, everyone on this forum knows this was a dumb move, and now someone who actually was just walking down the street before running away to avoid the confrontation is dead.

Here's the problem: that's not how Florida law reads on the matter. AmbulanceDriver has quoted it twice to you, and you've ignored it both times. Again, here's the relevant section:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I've bolded the section that deals SPECIFICALLY with this scenario, since there's no indication that Zimmerman committed a forcible felony.

Now, how is it that Zimmerman, being on the ground and having his skull punched in, does NOT meet the exception under section 2a? In fact, that exception describes the way YOU describe what happened to a "T". Having your skull punched in pretty clearly meets the definition of "being in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm", and since he was pinned to the ground he had "exhausted every means of escape." He yelled for help for almost a minute while he was having his head bashed in before he shot. I'd say he pretty thoroughly exhausted his options in terms of use of force. His only other options at that point were to take the beating and hope TM killed him instead of turning him into a vegetable.

And remember, there weren't any injuries to TM save for the gunshot wound and the abrasions on his knuckles, which means that it wasn't mutual combat and was entirely one sided.

So even if Zimmerman somehow provoked the attack (which I do not see any evidence for), he can STILL claim self defense unless he was committing a forcible felony, of which, again, there is no evidence for.

[zxcvbob]

If the race baiters had used this as a teachable moment to warn thugs against attacking unknown victims something positive might have actually come from this

There's no money in that.

[De Selby]

So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?

Might have - we certainly wouldn't be able to argue about whether he caused an armed confrontation. 

Being armed means there are some otherwise legal activities that can become negligent - ie, drinking, being clumsy and dropping things, dry firing, etc.  Just because something is legal in the abstract doesn't mean it can't become criminal negligence under the circumstances.

Regolith, let's see how that argument works out for Zimmerman.  He is already on trial.

[Monkeyleg]

Might have - we certainly wouldn't be able to argue about whether he caused an armed confrontation. 

Ask an absurd question, get an absurd answer.

[De Selby]

Ask an absurd question, get an absurd answer.

Where's the absurdity there?   I don't think it's all that bizarre to consider that you need to be a little more careful when armed than when not.

[Monkeyleg]

The absurdity is that Martin presumably had no idea that Zimmerman was armed. By saying that Zimmerman would have been okay if he'd followed Martin while unarmed, you're ascribing guilt to the presence of the gun.

IF the scenario played out as Zimmerman has stated (which we still don't know for certain), then he may well have been very seriously injured--or even killed--from Martin hitting him.

Zimmerman was either right or wrong to follow Martin, gun or no gun. The presence of the gun didn't instigate the altercation. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I think what happened here is a kid attacked the wrong victim


yup  truly a teachable moment

[HankB]

. . . Even if Zimmerman had chased Martin, even if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin, even if Zimmerman had smacked Martin upside the head, BECAUSE MARTIN USED DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE THAT COULD LEAD TO GREAT BODILY HARM, *AND* Zimmerman could not escape (because Martin had him pinned down), Zimmerman was justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.

We're mostly on the same page, but I have to nitpick a little on this . . . the cited Florida statute would seem to suggest that a minor incident does not eliminate the right to self defense if the other party greatly escalates the conflict to the point where you're likely to be seriously injured, but I suspect it would be very difficult to successfully argue self defense to a jury if you employ deadly force because you start losing an actual fight that you started in the first place. If Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin ("smacked Martin upside the head"), regardless of the language of the statute, I doubt a jury will be sympathetic to him . . .

Of course, there is absolutely no evidence in the public domain right now that Zimmerman started any kind of fight or even so much as initiated verbal contact with Martin, so it would seem that he absolutely HAD the right to self defense.

. . . Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit.   Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.

Let's see . . . DeSelby's arguments have already established that if some unwelcome panhandler follows me for a bit down the street, between houses, around trees, etc.,  I can go ahead and chase him down and beat the snot out of him even after he stops following and is returning to his street corner.  Now I learn that, once he's down, I can CONTINUE beating the snot out of him even if he's crying out for me to stop because in the heat of administering the beating, I really don't have an opportunity to sit back and think about what I'm doing.

Cool!  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

only if you are black and the panhandler is white or "white Hispanic "  you gotta follow deselby's rules

[AmbulanceDriver]

Hank, I actually agree with you there, in a scenario of "mutual combat" that is correct, but then the second half of the language, the "withdrawal" clause can come in to play. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Regolith, let's see how that argument works out for Zimmerman.  He is already on trial.

De Selby, we already know that Zimmerman is on trial.  What I would like to know is how you feel your assertion that Zimmerman is guilty squares with the Florida statute that has been quoted at least three times in the last two pages.

[Tallpine]

So, if Zimmerman hadn't been armed, would watching or following Martin have been okay?

Just fine, except that Zimmerman would be dead.

[T.O.M.]

Let me throw this out.  A case I prosecuted.  Sorry I can't link to anything about it, as the case happened around 15 years ago, and the file was sealed and expunged.  Man A goes to Man B's house to settle a dispute.  Because fo Man B's reuptation, he takes a few friends and arms himslef with a utility knife, just in case.  The two exchange words, B charges off of his porch and a fight breaks out.  In the course of the fight, B gets A in a chokehold.  A pulls his knife and slashes the neck and face of A.  Long story short, B survives with over 100 sutures, and A gets indicted for Felonious Assault (knowingly cause serious physical harm/cause physical harm by means of a deadly weapon).  Case goes to trial.  A argues self-defense, testified that he was being choked, only recourse was to pull and use the knife.  I am prosecuting, and I argue that A caused the incident.  He went to B's house, armed and with back-up, and called out B.  Jury acquitted based on self-defense.  In speaking with several jurors, the key point they made was that B was at fault for starting the incident because he left a position of safety and went after A.
Isn't this what we've said that Zimmerman did?  Didn't he leave a position of safety and go after Martin?
one thing you have to remember is that a jury is a strange and unpredictable creature.  There's no telling what it may find to be significant or irrelevent.  If the jury hangs up on the idea that Zimmerman left a safe position and went after Martin, as happened in my case, fine points of law will get thrown out the window and the common sense of those 12 people will rule the day.
All of this talk about engaging and disengaging is fun to discuss, but one key point seems to have been lost along the way.  It is a question of fact for the jury to decide, as it was in my case.  We can debate until the cows come home, and still have no idea what the jury will do. I (and DeSelby) just think Zimmerman is in deep because he left safety and went after Martin.

[lupinus]

[quote}In speaking with several jurors, the key point they made was that B was at fault for starting the incident because he left a position of safety and went after A.
Isn't this what we've said that Zimmerman did?  Didn't he leave a position of safety and go after Martin?[/quote]
I'd say there are some parallels, but IMO Zimmerman more closely follows A than B.

In the case above B left his position of safety for the specific purpose of fighting A. Thus far, there's been no evidence made public that Zimmerman intended to cause a fight with Trayvon. If anything Zimmerman parallels A more closely. Both armed themselves to go into a potentially dangerous situation, both did things that were probably bad ideas and put themselves in stupid situations, and both had to defend themselves as a result. But putting yourself in a stupid position is not criminal nor does it make you liable for someone else attacking you.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Chris, I guess the difference that I see between the two cases is that in your case, man b knew that man a was there spoiling for a fight.  He *knowingly* left a place of safety.  While in hindsight we can see that Zimmerman left a place of safety, at the time I don't think he felt that Martin was in any way dangerous.  He was someone Zimmerman thought was acting suspicious, and he got out of his vehicle to try to follow him and report his location to police.  If Zimmerman had been threatened or "called out" by Martin,  I would agree that he knowingly left a place of safety.

[makattak]

Let me throw this out.  A case I prosecuted.  Sorry I can't link to anything about it, as the case happened around 15 years ago, and the file was sealed and expunged.  Man A goes to Man B's house to settle a dispute.  Because fo Man B's reuptation, he takes a few friends and arms himslef with a utility knife, just in case.  The two exchange words, B charges off of his porch and a fight breaks out.  In the course of the fight, B gets A in a chokehold.  A pulls his knife and slashes the neck and face of A.  Long story short, B survives with over 100 sutures, and A gets indicted for Felonious Assault (knowingly cause serious physical harm/cause physical harm by means of a deadly weapon).  Case goes to trial.  A argues self-defense, testified that he was being choked, only recourse was to pull and use the knife.  I am prosecuting, and I argue that A caused the incident.  He went to B's house, armed and with back-up, and called out B.  Jury acquitted based on self-defense.  In speaking with several jurors, the key point they made was that B was at fault for starting the incident because he left a position of safety and went after A.
Isn't this what we've said that Zimmerman did?  Didn't he leave a position of safety and go after Martin?
one thing you have to remember is that a jury is a strange and unpredictable creature.  There's no telling what it may find to be significant or irrelevent.  If the jury hangs up on the idea that Zimmerman left a safe position and went after Martin, as happened in my case, fine points of law will get thrown out the window and the common sense of those 12 people will rule the day.
All of this talk about engaging and disengaging is fun to discuss, but one key point seems to have been lost along the way.  It is a question of fact for the jury to decide, as it was in my case.  We can debate until the cows come home, and still have no idea what the jury will do. I (and DeSelby) just think Zimmerman is in deep because he left safety and went after Martin.

First of all, you note he was acquitted.

Secondly, he left a position of safety sought out a confrontation. There is no evidence the Zimmerman sought a confrontation.

Now, leaving his position of safety does increase the chances of a confrontation occurring, but unless there is some evidence that was Zimmerman's intent (DeSelby's unsopported theorizing not included), your example doesn't match.

[HankB]

Chris, in your example "A" is roughly analogous to Zimmerman in that 1) A went to see B; 2) A didn't initiate violence; 3) A used a weapon to stop the violence B initiated.

On the other hand "B" is roughly analogous to Martin, in that 1) B was not assaulted by A; 2) B was damaging A in what could be regarded as a serious matter; 3) B actually left the position of safety - his house - and went after A.

Though not in his house, Martin was essentially in a position of safety (as was B) once Zimmerman had stopped following and was returning to his car.

Using this example, Zimmerman is less culpable than A because unlike A, it would seem he never actually initiated contact - verbal or otherwise - with Martin.

The jury regarded B as the aggressor because he "went after A". Unless additional evidence surfaces, I would expect the same with the Zimmerman trial.

[Monkeyleg]

Chris, in your example you have person A going to confront someone, backed by others and armed. He was obviously expecting violence or the reasonable possibility. Person B charged person A, aware that he's outnumbered. Whether he "charged" for hostile reasons, I don't know. I can only assume so because of your use of the word "charged".

In the Martin/Zimmerman case, we have Zimmerman following Martin, but not charging. He's reporting Martin to the police, and backs off when told to do so. We have Martin presumably charging and assaulting Zimmerman, and not because Zimmerman showed any intention to cause violence.

The two cases aren't analogous.