The Sanford Florida incident....

[jrm]

Would anyone like to address some pre-fight issues in Z's case which may cause his claim of self defense to be a little less solid than he'd like?

It seems that most of the pre-fight issues would go to the heart of what an appropriate charge might be. I see no evidence of a depraved heart so I feel an appropriate charge would be some type of manslaughter not 2nd Degree Murder. As far as the self defense issue goes if following Martin were enough to qualify as an act of aggression I imagine this would cause Zimmerman some problems in claiming self defense. Was Zimmerman reckless or negligent in following Martin? The statement from the 911 operator that they did not need Zimmerman to follow Martin is likely insufficient to establish the knowledge necessary for recklessness on its own. Perhaps he was negligent in following Martin though I would imagine the distance at which he followed, the duration of his following Martin, and other indications like running in order to keep up with Martin would be relevant. If the following of Martin were negligent I think that he would be found to be the first aggressor which would cause problems with a self defense claim. But hey maybe a reckless or negligent standard doesn't apply to first aggressor situations. Just spit ballin here I saw yellow and red flags on the Florida Statutes for constitutional and legislative reasons and ran the other way. By the Way I am not a Lawyer.

[David Armstrong]

Would anyone like to address some pre-fight issues in Z's case which may cause his claim of self defense to be a little less solid than he'd like?

Not sure how it relates in relation to the SYG doctrine, but I'd toss out the issue of he knowingly and intentionally placed himself into a position which would increase the potential for danger to himself.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Not sure how it relates in relation to the SYG doctrine, but I'd toss out the issue of he knowingly and intentionally placed himself into a position which would increase the potential for danger to himself.

Yes.

Continue...

And how does this impact on the issues of stand your ground and self defense, viewed through the analysis of a reasonable person determining if his actions were reasonable?

[Tamara]

And as a FWIW, I didn't say the evidence contradicts straddle and punch, I said that it did not jive with an MMA-style straddle and punch...

To the layperson, there isn't a difference. "MMA Style" = "Sitting On Some Dude And Punching Them In The Face".

If I were to glance out my window and see some guy sitting atop another cat and pasting him in the melon, I wouldn't linger to critique his mount; I'd be on the horn with 911 yelling "There's some guy in my front yard going all octagon on some other dude!"

[Tamara]

And how does this impact on the issues of stand your ground and self defense, viewed through the analysis of a reasonable person determining if his actions were reasonable?

"Mr. Zimmerman, have there been any previous incidents of night time vandalism or petty theft in your neighborhood?"

"Yes."

"And have any of those incidents resulted in anyone being physically attacked or harmed?"

"No."

"What did those suspects do when confronted by homeowners or the police?"

"They fled."

"Were they caught?"

"No, they eluded the police."

"Did you, while following the deceased, feel physically threatened or endangered before the actual altercation?"

[ford.304]

I think that is a big part of the difference, Mike. You and I have both BTDT a lot, and have seen all sorts of fights, which gives us a very different perspective, perhaps not only what happened but also what would have happened and how much danger there was. What it boils down to on a legal basis is rather simple....was Zimmerman in fear of his life. The hard part is convincing someone else that being on the losing end of a minor fight means that you should fear for your life.

I think that it may be useful to view this in terms of options.

For someone like you or Mike, the options when mounted are:

1) Get pounded until the person gets bored/decides to stop.
2) Use a known technique to try to get out of your bad position.
3) Shoot your assailant.

And you can pick from those three, and consider (2) the most reasonable one.

Question for you, then: if you had tried (2), and failed, would you then consider (1) more reasonable than (3), given that all you know of your assailant (assuming, arguendo, that Z's version is true) is that they ambushed you?

Because I think that there is at least an argument for someone who is untrained, that (2) collapses into (1), given either the expectation of its futility, or the lack of knowledge of its existence. So we are left with getting punched until your attacker gets bored, or shooting them... but you would pick the "getting punched" option, as you don't expect it to be lethal.

Is that correct? Just trying to get on the same page here.

Edit: Ugh.. phrasing... but you know what I mean.

[Mr_White]

And as a FWIW, I didn't say the evidence contradicts straddle and punch, I said that it did not jive with an MMA-style straddle and punch, and that may be part of the disconnect. When I envision an MMA routine I see a persons on the bottom who has his hands trapped while the person on top delivers a number of reasonably strong blows. We don't see evidence of either of those things, in fact we see the opposite.

Maybe others with BJJ or MMA experience can add to this, but the mount just means that the top person's legs are around the bottom person's torso and the top person's head is oriented the same direction as the bottom person's head (as opposed to the north-south position.)

Everything I stated in my previous post applies to the standard full mount described above.

Having the bottom person's hands trapped, in addition to the above, further aggravates the danger above and beyond the standard full mount. Though in that position, the hands aren't free to contribute to an escape or reversal or to access a weapon with which to stop the threat, so freeing the hands would typically have to happen first.

[David Armstrong]

To the layperson, there isn't a difference. "MMA Style" = "Sitting On Some Dude And Punching Them In The Face".

If I were to glance out my window and see some guy sitting atop another cat and pasting him in the melon, I wouldn't linger to critique his mount; I'd be on the horn with 911 yelling "There's some guy in my front yard going all octagon on some other dude!"

OK, if you think that then perhaps we should get rid of this whole idea about "MMA punch" and similar descriptions are not worthwhile and we should go back to referring to the fact that one guy was on top of the other, hitting him? That has been part of my point, that this idea of some sort of mystical MMA-style attack going on against a helpless opponent with it's supposedly increased potential for death or danger as opposed to a "we have a rather minor and ordinary happens-to-hundreds-of-people-every-day altercation." As I've been saying, there is nothing here that I have seen that looks any different than any other run-of-the-mill high school level fight.

[David Armstrong]

Yes.

Continue...

And how does this impact on the issues of stand your ground and self defense, viewed through the analysis of a reasonable person determining if his actions were reasonable?

I'll let others play for a bit, as I'm pretty sure I know the answer already.

[Mr_White]

As an example for those who don’t believe Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with being mounted and struck repeatedly, or having head slammed into the ground, or otherwise being in a situation and under an attack which, under the circumstances, was readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, I note that in this case the police apparently saw it differently:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-ne...-he-ar-406108/

From the article: “…Jared J. Richardson, 18, of 868 Bayou View Drive in Brandon, was arrested on charges of aggravated battery…”

And: “Aparicio suffered a broken nose, and his tooth was knocked out, a police report states.”

From the Florida Statutes: “ 784.045 Aggravated battery.—
 (1)(a)A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
 1.Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or…”

Link to the same Florida Statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0784.045.html

So, my question is how anyone thinks that this: “a broken nose, and his tooth was knocked out” is a substantially different level of injury than was apparently inflicted on Zimmerman, and apparently considered by the police in this case to be great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement?