The Sanford Florida incident....

[David Armstrong]

from BaiHu:
IMO opinion, David, I think this is the disconnect you and I share regarding what is reasonable. I don't want to speak for others, but I believe this is why others are chiming in similarly.

The objective of 'reasonable' as a legal term is malleable given the circumstances of the event and it seems to me, that you either don't believe they are subjective, don't believe that the information divulged gives Zimmerman the right to use lethal force or even if there is some information that others would consider justification for lethal force, you wouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt. Is that accurate?

There is both a subjectively reasonable and an objectively reasonable concept, Mitchell can probably explain the difference better than I can. And of course reasonable is malleable, as you say. Otherwise there would be no need for reasonable at all, it would be a hard bright line. My personal position at this time is the evidence I have seen simply does not indicate Zimmermans response to the situation was reasonable. Others can take a different position. It has nothing to do with giving anyone the benefit of the doubt or not, it has everything to do with what the first officers on the scene felt, the pictures of the crime scene, and the evidence of the wounds and other evidence that has been made available. I completely reject the idea that a simple fistfight between two comparable opponents gives rise to the use of deadly force, and have not seen anything that would indicate this was anything other than a simple fistfight between two comparable opponents.

Irrelevant to what is morally right/justified, b/c Martin is dead, it really leaves a great deal of leeway for Zimmerman to justify his actions. More so than I think David gives credit. Or am I wrong in characterizing your thoughts, David?

As I've said, I don't see any way for the Murder 2 charge. I do think it quite possible to get a Manslaughter, as Mike said. And sure, Zimmerman has a lot of leeway to justify his actions. But legally justified doesn't mean that the action was appropriate, it simply means it was legal.

[Slavex]

David, I think Todd answered your question far better than I could. What I am failing to understand is what you think would be the deciding factor that would allow someone to employ deadly force to stop someone from punching them in the face while pinning them to the ground. Would it be after they don't stop when asked, the 19th punch, and the 20th, maybe after the koše is broken or bleeding, or maybe when consciousness starts slipping. It's like the argument that we hear up hear all the time, don't fight back when being mugged, your life isn't worth what's in your wallet. That's awesome, if your attacker decides its only your wallet they want, but why should I have to gamble on that? Minor violent incidents can turn lethal by accident, even if the intent wasn't there.

[David Armstrong]

David, I think Todd answered your question far better than I could. What I am failing to understand is what you think would be the deciding factor that would allow someone to employ deadly force to stop someone from punching them in the face while pinning them to the ground.

The deciding factor would be if it were reasonable, given the information available to you at that time, to believe that you were in danger of death or great bodily harm. Again, I'm not sure we have that. The evidence, to me, does not indicate that Zimmerman was pinned and unable to respond, or that the blows he was receiving were particularly dangerous.

Would it be after they don't stop when asked, the 19th punch, and the 20th, maybe after the koše is broken or bleeding, or maybe when consciousness starts slipping. It's like the argument that we hear up hear all the time, don't fight back when being mugged, your life isn't worth what's in your wallet. That's awesome, if your attacker decides its only your wallet they want, but why should I have to gamble on that? Minor violent incidents can turn lethal by accident, even if the intent wasn't there.

Sure, but that can be said of anything. You gamble on pretty much everything, you just may not realize that you are gambling. Thus the reasonable man concept....what was reasonable given the circumstances. We don't get to base deadly force on what might potentially happen, as Mitchell so aptly pointed out:
"Making a lethal force choice based on only the potential of the incident yielding a lethal threat to yourself, means that the subjective portion of the use of force test is likely unsatisfied in that you did not, at the time you used lethal force, likely believe your attacker had Ability-Opportunity-Intent to injure you in a manner sufficient to rise to the level in which lethal force was an appropriate response."

[David Armstrong]

"Reasonable" is what the jury decides "reasonable" to be. There is no national, state, local, legal, civil or community standard for it. It's easy to define what's CLEARLY unreasonable and CLEARLY resonable. It is the grey areas that juries have to decide. You could say that "reasonable" is defined by the jury.....and every jury may define it differently. Yeah, not fair, not consistent, not standardized. But, think about this: Every situation is unique and it would be too difficult to define a "reasonable standard" that meets every circumstance and every situation.

That is why we have juries and trials. Let's just hope they get it right. I don't like second guessing juries because I wasn't there in the jury seat or the jury room. Now prosecutors......that's a different story....what is the joke about no skid marks where the lawyer got hit?

CC

Well said. That is why we have guidelines about what is allowed, what is proper and accepted, etc. Then we toss those guidelines against the evidence and other factors of a situation and get reasonable. Some will find certain acts reasonable that others won't, and vice-versa.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

David, I think Todd answered your question far better than I could. What I am failing to understand is what you think would be the deciding factor that would allow someone to employ deadly force to stop someone from punching them in the face while pinning them to the ground. Would it be after they don't stop when asked, the 19th punch, and the 20th, maybe after the koše is broken or bleeding, or maybe when consciousness starts slipping. It's like the argument that we hear up hear all the time, don't fight back when being mugged, your life isn't worth what's in your wallet. That's awesome, if your attacker decides its only your wallet they want, but why should I have to gamble on that? Minor violent incidents can turn lethal by accident, even if the intent wasn't there.

Sigh...

You are looking for a hard and fast answer, and their simply isn't one.

You need to understand the subjective/objective test, and AOI...and you will get your answer.

[ToddG]

You need to understand the subjective/objective test, and AOI...and you will get your answer.

That's a non-answer. Or at best, it's a ridiculously complicated requirement for the average joe who finds himself set upon and being punched repeatedly in the face by someone atop him.

And that's what is getting lost in this discussion, at least by some. This wasn't a school yard brawl between mutual combatants. Unless someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, it's pretty clear that one person (Martin) attacked another (Zimmerman) without the second person's consent or any other signal that the confrontation was an accepted challenge. Regardless of whether Zimmerman was following him or not, profiling him or not, or even calling him names or not, at a certain point one actor (Martin) became physically violent against another (Zimmerman). So let's be extremely clear. There was a victim of a criminal attack, and that was Zimmerman.

So it's nighttime, and the neighborhood watch guy finds himself on the ground being pounded repeatedly in the face by someone straddling his chest. We know that the victim repeatedly called out trying to stop the fight. We know that the victim received injuries that needed medical treatment. All of this happened to the victim over the course of how few seconds? And you're suggesting that in that flash moment while a stranger is kneeling on his chest and punching him over and over again in the face he was supposed to perform a legal analysis? Bollocks.

What it boils down to is a simple question: was Zimmerman required to hand over the decision of whether he'd live or die to Martin? Some seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes, that essentially Zimmerman couldn't treat it as an imminently grievous attack until after he'd already sustained some kind of permanent injury or death. That's not what the law says. If Zimmerman was unable to stop the fight through less lethal means (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman) and if Zimmerman felt like his life was in danger from attack that was so relentless Martin continued even after Zimmerman begged for help (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman), then how much more does he need to know before his use of lethal force is justified?

If someone wants to argue that we don't know all the facts yet, that's fine. But coloring this as some kind of school yard brawl doesn't pass the laugh test. I got in some school yard brawls as a kid. Sometimes I was the victor and sometimes not. None of them ever continued after the first person appeared injured or called quits. Period. And that is where the Martin/Zimmerman case jumps the line between a simple physical altercation and one that creates justification for lethal force. Zimmerman -- as best the paltry evidence shows us -- was down, beaten, and helpless to protect himself. He was calling for help. But his attacker kept going. The suggestion that Zimmerman's only recourse was to "lie back and take it" is repugnant.

That's my last comment in this thread.

[TGS]

That's a non-answer. Or at best, it's a ridiculously complicated requirement for the average joe who finds himself set upon and being punched repeatedly in the face by someone atop him.

And that's what is getting lost in this discussion, at least by some. This wasn't a school yard brawl between mutual combatants. Unless someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, it's pretty clear that one person (Martin) attacked another (Zimmerman) without the second person's consent or any other signal that the confrontation was an accepted challenge. Regardless of whether Zimmerman was following him or not, profiling him or not, or even calling him names or not, at a certain point one actor (Martin) became physically violent against another (Zimmerman). So let's be extremely clear. There was a victim of a criminal attack, and that was Zimmerman.

So it's nighttime, and the neighborhood watch guy finds himself on the ground being pounded repeatedly in the face by someone straddling his chest. We know that the victim repeatedly called out trying to stop the fight. We know that the victim received injuries that needed medical treatment. All of this happened to the victim over the course of how few seconds? And you're suggesting that in that flash moment while a stranger is kneeling on his chest and punching him over and over again in the face he was supposed to perform a legal analysis? Bollocks.

What it boils down to is a simple question: was Zimmerman required to hand over the decision of whether he'd live or die to Martin? Some seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes, that essentially Zimmerman couldn't treat it as an imminently grievous attack until after he'd already sustained some kind of permanent injury or death. That's not what the law says. If Zimmerman was unable to stop the fight through less lethal means (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman) and if Zimmerman felt like his life was in danger from attack that was so relentless Martin continued even after Zimmerman begged for help (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman), then how much more does he need to know before his use of lethal force is justified?

If someone wants to argue that we don't know all the facts yet, that's fine. But coloring this as some kind of school yard brawl doesn't pass the laugh test. I got in some school yard brawls as a kid. Sometimes I was the victor and sometimes not. None of them ever continued after the first person appeared injured or called quits. Period. And that is where the Martin/Zimmerman case jumps the line between a simple physical altercation and one that creates justification for lethal force. Zimmerman -- as best the paltry evidence shows us -- was down, beaten, and helpless to protect himself. He was calling for help. But his attacker kept going. The suggestion that Zimmerman's only recourse was to "lie back and take it" is repugnant.

That's my last comment in this thread.

Utterly fantastic post.

[Mr_White]

That's a non-answer. Or at best, it's a ridiculously complicated requirement for the average joe who finds himself set upon and being punched repeatedly in the face by someone atop him.

And that's what is getting lost in this discussion, at least by some. This wasn't a school yard brawl between mutual combatants. Unless someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, it's pretty clear that one person (Martin) attacked another (Zimmerman) without the second person's consent or any other signal that the confrontation was an accepted challenge. Regardless of whether Zimmerman was following him or not, profiling him or not, or even calling him names or not, at a certain point one actor (Martin) became physically violent against another (Zimmerman). So let's be extremely clear. There was a victim of a criminal attack, and that was Zimmerman.

So it's nighttime, and the neighborhood watch guy finds himself on the ground being pounded repeatedly in the face by someone straddling his chest. We know that the victim repeatedly called out trying to stop the fight. We know that the victim received injuries that needed medical treatment. All of this happened to the victim over the course of how few seconds? And you're suggesting that in that flash moment while a stranger is kneeling on his chest and punching him over and over again in the face he was supposed to perform a legal analysis? Bollocks.

What it boils down to is a simple question: was Zimmerman required to hand over the decision of whether he'd live or die to Martin? Some seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes, that essentially Zimmerman couldn't treat it as an imminently grievous attack until after he'd already sustained some kind of permanent injury or death. That's not what the law says. If Zimmerman was unable to stop the fight through less lethal means (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman) and if Zimmerman felt like his life was in danger from attack that was so relentless Martin continued even after Zimmerman begged for help (and the only person who'll be able to testify to that effect is named Zimmerman), then how much more does he need to know before his use of lethal force is justified?

If someone wants to argue that we don't know all the facts yet, that's fine. But coloring this as some kind of school yard brawl doesn't pass the laugh test. I got in some school yard brawls as a kid. Sometimes I was the victor and sometimes not. None of them ever continued after the first person appeared injured or called quits. Period. And that is where the Martin/Zimmerman case jumps the line between a simple physical altercation and one that creates justification for lethal force. Zimmerman -- as best the paltry evidence shows us -- was down, beaten, and helpless to protect himself. He was calling for help. But his attacker kept going. The suggestion that Zimmerman's only recourse was to "lie back and take it" is repugnant.

That's my last comment in this thread.

Completely right on. Well said.

[Slavex]

Again, Todd you've managed to say what I was trying to say far better than I could. Thanks.

[JeffJ]

Again, Todd you've managed to say what I was trying to say far better than I could. Thanks.

+1