The Sanford Florida incident....

[Mitchell, Esq.]

This brings a litmus test to my mind and I'd like you all, especially Mitchell to weigh in on this. If I can take mental time to discover whether or not I need to apply lethal force, then I probably don't need to apply lethal force, b/c I'm calm enough to mentally discuss abstract concepts. If I can't take the mental time to discuss an abstract concept, then I probably need to apply lethal force. I understand that this litmus test is going to vary from person to person, but I feel like this is a good start for my skills/personality.

Your thoughts?

Let's take your bolded words above, and look at a piece of caselaw:

If the jury determines that the defendant had not believed that he had needed to employ deadly physical force to repeal the victim's attack, the jury's inquiry ends, and the defendant's self-defense claim must fail.

If, however, the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances. State v. Miller, supra, 36 Conn.App. at 512, 651 A.2d 1318; State v. Williams, supra, 25 Conn.App. at 464, 466, 595 A.2d 895.

Note how you are saying similar things to the judge.

The the further in time from the actual combat, the more evaluation has to be undertaken, but as you approach the incident, and as options such as distance and cover are removed, the analysis narrows to the fundamental issues: Do I have to act to prevent injury to myself?

If you are wondering that and have time sufficient to ponder it...well, you tell me.

I'm not going to say "if x happens, go for it" because to me, that's a cheap way out of a discussion.

I'm not going to give an answer because I don't feel the question needs to have an answer given.

It has a method of finding an answer which isapplicable to the question presented, and to other situations that people can use for themselves to find the answer from the facts presented.

Once you do that, the questions become much more managable.

[MikeO]

Yes. After months of being bombarded by the media with "Zimmerman chased down and shot an innocent man" some of the witnesses are changing the stories they told the police when the incident was fresh in their minds.

This is good for Zimmerman; the defense is gonna shred 'em.

[David Armstrong]

But how did he perceive the damage and danger?

I haven't been in a fight since junior high. I haven't been deliberately hit by someone for over 30 years. If a stranger punched me in the face a couple of times I'd probably think I was in serious trouble, even if the actual damage was minimal. I don't have the experience to make that judgement in real time. Some folks here could probably take the same couple of punches and think "Meh. Sloppy, no power, leaving himself wide open. This is going to be fun." I'd be thinking Ohshitohshitohshit.

A relatively safe situation can look like an "O my god we're gonna die" situation if you don't understand what you're seeing.

"Reasonable" fear for one's life probably looks a lot different to a typical suburban professional than it does to someone who gets in bar fights for fun.

That is why it is a two step process. Were your actions reasonable based on what you believed and was your belief reasonable given the circumstances. Your personal perception is certainly going to be a big part of that, but the rest of the world is also going to look at what you perceived and judge it. As a quick theater of the absurd, your neighbor's 6 year old daughter rushes at you in a violent rage screaming "I'm going to kill you" because you just ran over her favorite puppy. Even though you might think "Boy, she's really mad, and if she hits me hard enough to trip me there is the potential I might fall over and maybe hit my head on the pavement and get a concussion and die" so you draw down and shoot her, it is doubtful many folks will agree that your perception of the danger was reasonable, even if your actions were reasonable based on your perception. Change it up a bit and your neighbor, Mike Tyson, is in place of the little girl, and your perception of the danger becomes much more reasonable.

[David Armstrong]

Some witnesses are changing their stories. One now says Zimmerman was on top, and another is now not sure Zimmerman was calling for help or Martin was throwing any punches...

Not at all uncommon. Eyewitness testimony sucks, to be blunt about it, and often what we think we saw turns out to be wrong once the excitement and adrenaline wears off, or we learn more facts that let us understand what we saw in a different light. That is one of the things I have wondered about the most, the claim of Martin doing an MMA-straddle and punch routine, as the physical evidence just does not jive with that, IMO.

[jthhapkido]

That is one of the things I have wondered about the most, the claim of Martin doing an MMA-straddle and punch routine, as the physical evidence just does not jive with that, IMO.

I'm curious as to what physical evidence contradicts this. I haven't seen anything like that, so I'm curious.

I have read that 1) Zimmerman had damage to the front of his head (nose, black eyes, etc), 2) Zimmerman had damage to the back of his head (lacerations not matching typical hand strike damage), 3) Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, 4) Martin had injuries to his knuckles corresponding to impact damage, and 5) Zimmerman did not have injuries to his knuckles corresponding to impact damage, 6) gun was fired up close, 7) gun did not cycle.

None of that contradicts straddle-and-punch. It doesn't prove it by any means, but that isn't what you said.

What "does not jive"? Is there something I'm missing in terms of facts? Or something about that list that "doesn't jive"? Or is there some other sort of fact that should be appearing (and MUST appear) for the facts to "jive" with straddle-and-punch?

[MikeO]

Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to think his life was in danger? I can see why people would think yes or no based on what we have so far.

Here's some if pigs had wings they'ld fly stuff:

Zimmerman takes his beating, Martin gets off of him, Zimmerman gets up to return to his vehicle. Realizes he does not have his car keys and goes back to get them. Martin is still there, Zimmerman fires a warning shot. Should Zimmerman get 20 yrs? Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to be afraid? If he was afraid, why did he go back?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Here's some if pigs had wings they'ld fly stuff:

Zimmerman takes his beating, Martin gets off of him, Zimmerman gets up to return to his vehicle. Realizes he does not have his car keys and goes back to get them. Martin is still there, Zimmerman fires a warning shot. Should Zimmerman get 20 yrs? Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to be afraid? If he was afraid, why did he go back?

How does this help an already confused discussion?

[cclaxton]

I would like to think that through my awareness and training that I would have never let Trayvon get close enough to me to allow him to batter me, much less get on top of me. This just goes to prove how important it is to be properly trained and to be mentally prepared to know how to deal with most typical situations. Use of your voice (i.e.- Yelling "Stop Right There!", Yelling at the person, "I have a gun!", Presenting the gun at the right time, etc.)

Proper training, situational preparation, mental awareness...these don't just happen magically.

CC

[Mitchell, Esq.]

One of the issues with scenarios is that they are approached in a segmented manner, as if they are a puzzle in which all the pieces don't quite fit.

Solve problem #1, then everything else is #2...like the legal issues...

That's the normal approach - to break things down and deal with them in bite size pieces.

Well...that approach sucks.

You can't solve a tactical problem effectively (I mean problem #1 AND #2) if you don't know what your rules of engagement are, and how you can operate effectively, competently and ruthlessly within them.

Skill sets have to be learned individually - but not to the exclusion of others.

Legal class...it's all well and good to do theory...but what's the use if you don't have any practical understanding of a use of force encounter, how fast things go, and so forth.

Tactical classes...yeah, yeah...you can clear a structure solo like a ninja. But do you know when you should or should not shoot?

Segregated learning is a great way to have a lot of information you can't ever use effectively.

[Tamara]

Not at all uncommon. Eyewitness testimony sucks, to be blunt about it, and often what we think we saw turns out to be wrong once the excitement and adrenaline wears off, or we learn more facts that let us understand what we saw in a different light. That is one of the things I have wondered about the most, the claim of Martin doing an MMA-straddle and punch routine, as the physical evidence just does not jive with that, IMO.

No, it does not become more clear as we reinterpret it, it becomes less clear as we re-create it. Memory is not a recording that gets played back like a CD; it gets actively re-written every time it is called up and is only going to become more and more of a fabrication over time.

The only way the evidence at hand does not "jive with" Martin straddling Zimmerman and punching him in the face is if you decided from the jump off that that is not what happened and are determined to stick to that decision, facts be damned.

If Martin had straddled Zimmerman and punched him in the face, we would have expected to find Zimmerman's back wet and dirty from lying on the rainy ground. We'd expect to find wounds on his face from where he'd been punched, and wounds on the back of his skull from where it had rebounded against the ground. We'd expect Martin to show injuries to his knuckles. We'd expect the bullet wound on Martin to be tracking upwards. We'd expect the pistol to have cycled improperly due to the slide being fouled from firing in an awkward quasi-retention position.

Which of these pieces of evidence are missing?