Stand Your Ground

We are operating on the word of GZ that TM threw the first punch and he was not confronting TM in a dangerous manner. Whether that is true is a different story.

I don't think anyone would disagree that if GZ drew his weapon on TM first, GZ would certainly be on the hook for 2nd degree murder. This would be a reverse case as GZ is committing the crime and TM is defending himself. Of course as we know this isn't the case or Jeantel would have testified otherwise.
This is a matter of who broke the law, not who made the first poor decision.

 

If a random stranger points a gun at you then they have committed a crime, and they are no longer protected by either castle doctrine or stand your ground. In that case Martin (or whoever) is completely justified in doing whatever they need to do to protect their life/limb.

There is ZERO evidence that that is what happened here, and at least some evidence that something else happened (that Martin was the aggressor).

Your contention that these laws increase the chances of violence occurring is nonsense, as well. There is no statistical evidence to back it up. There is quite a bit of evidence that shows that states that enact CCW laws (and SYG and CD laws logically follow) generally see a drop in violent crime - usually a significant drop. I could speak anecdotally as well, but I won't bore you with that.

 

Have a look at the drop in violent crime rates. Keep in mind that population has increased drastically since 1995 when Texas passed concealed carry laws. As a proportion of population the drop has been significant, with the murder raw number dropping from 1,693 in 1995 to 1,126 in 2011. The numbers don't lie, and the story they're telling isn't one of out-of-control CCW'ers rampaging and killing at will because of the power they wield at their hips...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

 

Oh, and those with a CHL are FAR less likely to commit a crime than those without one.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-12-22-264494.112112-Texas-study-Concealed-carry-permit-holders-commit-less-than-1-of-the-crimes.html

That is a pattern seen repeated in every state where it's implemented. You see, we are the type of people who are inclined to follow the law in the first place. That's why we go through the trouble and expense of getting licensed.

 

So by this standard, Rodney King could have legally killed the police officers who busted his head open and caused him kidney damage right?

 

Er, no, the protections do not extend to someone who is committing a crime. King, who was on parole, was driving drunk and trying to evade police, who he led into a high speed chase. Upon being finally stopped he acted bizarrely and refused police requests to comply with arrest, and made menacing gestures, ultimately trying to physically resist arrest. Again, break the law and you don't get these protections.

How many times must this be said?

 

Having heard a bit more about the judge's instructions and the jury deliberations, it sounds to me that the jury was mostly railroaded to considering only the heat of passion moment where Zimmerman chose to draw his weapon and fire, without any consideration of how he got himself in that mess in the first place. Whether it's SYG or other content of Florida's self-defense laws, I think something is not right with their legislation.

 

You're right. They were told to look at the elements of 2nd degree murder.

 

This is in conjuction with a nation-wide drop in violent crime---

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

So I wouldn't cherry-pick CCW as either an increasing or decreasing factor to be perfectly frank.

 

You can't have CCW without some form of SYG. CCW merely allows you to carry the weapon without being arrested and charged, SYG comes into effect when you have to use it.

This really is not that muddy. If you are not the aggressor, and you feel your life is in danger, then you are protected under SYG. If you are the aggressor, then you are not going to be able to use that as your defense because you have committed a crime.

Common sense and hindsight says that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. According to available evidence, though he got out to find Martin because Martin had gone around a corner. Zimmerman was trying to keep eyes on Martin so he could vector LEOs to his location. When the dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin he said "OK" and arranged for a place to meet LEOs, and was apparently walking back to his car. At this point it appears that Martin had doubled back to confront Zimmerman, and given the physical evidence, by all reasonable accounts Martin threw the first punch.

Had Zimmerman thrown the first punch he would have been the aggressor and would not be covered by these protections. There is no evidence at all that he struck Martin. You can accurately say that Zimmerman put himself into a dangerous position by getting out of his car, but hindsight is 20/20. There is ZERO indication that Zimmerman actually tried to provoke a confrontation, much less was "stalking" Martin, as so many have in ignorance claimed.

You can't simply say "well, your choices weren't perfect so you can't claim this defense". The standard is that you are not in the process of committing a crime, because that is the only way you can objectively judge the situation.

 

Here's a good piece about the Marissa Alexander case. As is always the case, the initial media sound bytes were quite misleading.

 

You need either SYG and/or Castle Doctrine in order to have a truly effective legal protection for CCW.

Consider this example. I go into a convenience store to buy some Skittles. I know the place gets robbed often. While in there a dude barges in waving a gun around adn telling the clerk to give him the money. In an non-SYG state I am obligated to either stay still or attempt to run and hope for the best. Maybe I get lucky and don't get shot, maybe I don't. In a SYG/CD state I can take the dude out if I get a chance. Either way my life is in danger the second he walks into the store. Having SYG increases my chances of survival because it gives me other options to consider. It allows me to respond proactively. It's absence forces me to be passive and hope for the best.

A CCW that does not incorporate SYG / CD (which are legal ptinciples, not laws themselves) is much weaker and only benefits criminals.

Actually it does make sense, he was trying to keep eyes on him to he could vector LEOs to him, but you're right, it belongs in the other thread.

Sure I would consider it provocative. I would not, however, turn around and attack you. A much wiser course of action is to simply keep going, but be ready in case YOU try and make it physical.

The fact that your presence makes me feel uncomfortable is completely irrelevant. It's a public place, you have a right to be there, I have a right to be there, and until one of us breaks the law by initiating physical contact that's just the way it is. Once one of the parties physically attacks the other then the situation changes. But the simple fact that someone is following someone else does *NOT* give them the right to attack the other.

Again, trying to keep eyes on so he could vector LEOs to that location. Remember, he already knew that LEOs were on their way to the area and likely felt that mitigated any potential threat. And at that point there was no reason to think that he was in imminent threat of losing life or limb - that did not occur until physical contact had already been made.

Self defense covers you when you fear that you may lose your life or succumb to great bodily injury. If you initiated the physical contact by committing a crime (and if you initiated, you almost certainly did), then you forfeit that defense.

In your example, yes, you would forfeit that defense, because you have ended the threat by breaking your opponent's legs. Going back and killing the guy afterwards when you are no longer in fear of losing your life or succumbing to great bodily harm would make YOU an aggressor, and you would forfeit that defense.

A similar example would be if Zimmerman shot Martin, but the first shot merely incapacitated him. Martin falls off and is rolling around on the ground in pain, Zimmerman gets off and backs away. Martin does not appear to be capable of continuing the fight, and Zimmerman is no longer in fear of losing his life. The smart thing to do is stay back and wait for LEOs / EMS. But instead he walks op to Martin and puts one in his head. In that case, Zimmerman is behind bars right now, and the jury probably would've spent all of 5 minutes deliberating it.

Anyone who has studied Castle Doctrine/SYG principles and knows CCW law, or who has taken defensive firearm courses, knows that you do not shoot to kill a person, you shoot to end the threat. Sure, that means you are shooting center mass because that is the most efficient and most reliable way to end the threat, but in reality whether the person actually dies or not is a secondary consideration. Your goal is to end the threat. If you have ended the threat to your life/limb, then any further action such as a double tap would be considered excessive use of force and would probably sink you in court.

 

and/or people who don't want to get shot at in a Wild Wild West shootout between Citizen X and Robber Y (and who the hell is one or the other, God knows, after a while).

Yeah, I can see the logic behind how mutiplying the amount of bullets involved makes it safer for all. Unless, of course, CCW is James one-shot kill Bond, and we really live in a world of Halo-esque heroes.

 

I feel I should also point out the absurdity of claiming that Martin had a right to physically attack Zimmerman because he feared for his life (standing his ground, I guess), yet Zimmerman did not have a right to use force when in fear for his life after someone else had already physically assaulted him.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

 

Yes, and this is usually the argument that arises... Although in real life it is extremely rare, and most examples of it happening involve police as shooters.

Generally speaking, I am going to try and keep a low profile and stay out of the way. But that is not always a good option, or possible. If I have a good shot then I am going to take it. You're damned skippy I will end the threat if I can. I've had quite a bit of training, military and civilian, taken many classes, participated in competitions, and I am confident in what I can do. I also am cognizant of the 4th rule of firearms safety: Know your target, and what is behind it.

Tell me, are you cool with the cops coming in and taking the guy out? Are they the only ones who are qualified to do it? I've likely had more training than many of them have.

 

well, one is a fist fight between a man twice the size of a boy, the other is a loaded weapon going off into said boy that will probably cause death instantly if not within minutes, so yeah, there is quite a different set of standards.

 

There's a group of them, they're clearly identifiable, they know how to deal with the legal principles of what is a crime and not, they can arrest within a legal framework, or have multiple options to deal with said suspect that might not end with said suspect attempting to blow everybody's face off because you decided to try to one-shot kill him.

so...um...yeah.