The Sanford Florida incident....

[Zhurdan]

Would you take a butt whipping from a total stranger if you were armed and did not initiate the violence?

Not really what I was getting at. I posted later on with more definition, but no, I wouldn't take a butt whipping, but I'd also like to think that I'm far less likely to be in a situation that would result in said butt whipping BECAUSE I carry a gun everyday.

[rsa-otc]

So, after a discussion with a friend the other night, I spent some time reading about the homicide statute in FL. I went from thinking that the DA might be seriously overreaching with a murder charge (and believing that manslaughter would probably be more appropriate) to thinking that the DA might have made the right call given the law in FL.

If my layman understanding of the law there is correct, both manslaughter and second degree murder in FL are based around the unintended killing of another person. The difference between the two appears to be that manslaughter is when that death occurs due to the negligence of the person being charged. In contrast, second degree murder is also the unintended killing of another, but as the result of a willful course of action that the person being charged should have known would be imminently dangerous to others.

My basic understanding of the events is that:

• GZ knew there had recently been break-ins, etc in his neighborhood.
• Zimmerman considered Martin suspicious enough to call the police.
• Zimmerman followed Martin in his car for some time.
• When Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, he chose to exit his vehicle and pursue him on foot.
• He did so against the advice of a 911 dispatcher.
• Zimmerman did so knowing that he was armed.

If I'm understanding the law correctly, I'd have to imagine that last bullet point is going to be a factor in the state's case. His actions really do strike me as going beyond simple stupidity and stepping into the realm of willfully creating a situation that he really should have known had a serious likelihood of turning out to be Bad News Bears. It certainly seems to go beyond simple negligence, and I'd have to imagine that's a lot of why he's facing murder instead of manslaughter.

Could you please point me to that particular statute? Murder generally revolves around some form of malice. Of course each state’s statute is written differently. In my mind Cory was trying to justify the malice aspect by bringing GZ conversation with the 911 operator when he's discussing the previous break-ins..

[David Armstrong]

from rsa-otc:
But this is not the same thing. This is not a fight over a girl, two rivals in high school or a bar fight. This is an altercation between two strangers, and it seems as one may have sucker punched the other.

Which is quite true for many low-level, minor fights. If some one can show me how this incident structurally differs in any significant way from the hundreds of silly little fights that happen every day and we do not see any need for deadly force, I'm open to it.

But before we go on lets take your fight over a girl, high school or bar fight. What if you arrived and the guy on top had beat the other unconsciousous, would you then only charge misdemeanor battery? How about if the one on top indicated that his intention was to kill the other guy and you got there and stopped the fight before there were any injuries more serious than what GZ sustained? Would you charge misdemeanor battery or attempted murder? It all goes to to perceived intent doesn't it?

Lots of "if" stuff there, which again just goes to support my point. IF we have to change the situation to make it serious then the situation must not be that serious. As to your first "if" that would depend on the statutes. Here in LA no, that would not rise to a felony battery. Looking at the statute for Florida it looks like it would still be a misdemeanor, but I'm not that conversant with Florida law. As for your second "if" yes, if the fight were stopped with the level of injury, even if the intent was to cause more injury in this instance we would still have misdemeanore battery based on level of harm. If you yell "I'm going to kill you" then punch me and break my nose and then are stopped, do you think you should be charged with an attempted murder??? And finally No, it does not all go to perceived intent, although that can certainly be part of it. If my intent is to kill you but I am hitting you with a peacock feather the intent really doesn't play that big a part.

Now lets take this example. You and a stranger end up in a fight, with stranger having started the physical altercation by punching you and knocking you down. He is now stradling your body pinning you down. You have sustained a broken nose (you don't know how badly broken since you don't have the time or medical knowledge to assess), and your head is bouncing off the ground with each blow. He has yet to say a word since the first minor exchange of words in the beginning (the words said at the start of the altercation would not have led you to believe that a fight was coming, remember what was reported by Martin's girl freind; Martin - "Why are your following me?" GZ - "What are you doing around here?"; then the connection was broken). Your untrained efforts to break free have been unsucessful to this point. You've screamed for help and no one has responded. At what point does David begin to beleive this isn't going to be just a beat down, this guy is going to kill me unless I respond with deadly force? Wait to long and you may not have the chance or ability to defend yourself. So where is your line?

My line is rather simple, and I have stated it clearly several times. I will respond with deadly force when I believe that this person is going to kill me right now if I do not use deadly force right now.

Personaly for me this is a gray area with no cut and dried answer.

Agreed, which is why so many people have such diverse responses. For me, so far, the evidence does not show me a reason for Zimmerman to need to use deadly force. Now, some evidence may come up to change that belief. But I haven't seen it yet.

[David Armstrong]

If a man attacked you, not "engaged you in mutual combat", but attacked you with physical violence against your will, and you felt like you were losing consciousness and you had a pistol in your pocket, would you be scared?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Rather unfair to ask someone a multi-level question with assorted variables then try to restrict the answer in advance. So, sufficient or not, you'll excuse me if I forego the simplistic "yes or no" restriction and answer as I see fit. With that, I don't know. Any time there is a level of uncontrolled physical combat going on I think pretty much everybody experiences some level of fear. Being "scared" is a natural state of being when one is in a strange situation or where they lack control over the outcome, and covers a gamut of levels. Given the huge number of variables that possible in that hypothetical I'm not sure what level of scared I would be at, nor do I think that having a pistol in my pocket would change whether I would be scared or not.

[David Armstrong]

I have to admit I'm having a hard time determining the point when a guy in a completely dominant position punching me in the face at will goes from "well, this is a minor kerfuffle" to "well, this could result in severe brain injury/death".

If the line is that I have to be sufficiently damaged that I can't do anything useful in my defense, then that's a pretty crappy standard to live with.

I don't think anyone would support that standard, AFAIK.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

If a man attacked you, not "engaged you in mutual combat", but attacked you with physical violence against your will, and you felt like you were losing consciousness and you had a pistol in your pocket, would you be scared?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Yes.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Would you take a butt whipping from a total stranger if you were armed and did not initiate the violence?

has an interesting take on this question. Recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Bla.../dp/1594391297

[rsa-otc]

My line is rather simple, and I have stated it clearly several times. I will respond with deadly force when I believe that this person is going to kill me right now if I do not use deadly force right now.

Actually I don't think you have, you have given us a general fits all statement. Within the stated example outlined in my previous post, what set of circumstances would lead you to the use of lethal force? Where is your line in the sand?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to add to my personal knowledge base, so if a similar situation befalls me and I go to the old computer in my head it doesn't respond "File Not Found".

[rsa-otc]

Lots of "if" stuff there, which again just goes to support my point. IF we have to change the situation to make it serious then the situation must not be that serious. As to your first "if" that would depend on the statutes. Here in LA no, that would not rise to a felony battery. Looking at the statute for Florida it looks like it would still be a misdemeanor, but I'm not that conversant with Florida law. As for your second "if" yes, if the fight were stopped with the level of injury, even if the intent was to cause more injury in this instance we would still have misdemeanore battery based on level of harm. If you yell "I'm going to kill you" then punch me and break my nose and then are stopped, do you think you should be charged with an attempted murder??? And finally No, it does not all go to perceived intent, although that can certainly be part of it. If my intent is to kill you but I am hitting you with a peacock feather the intent really doesn't play that big a part.

With regards to your question in bold. Yes I would expect to be charged, how is it differant than if I shot at you with a gun missed and was prevented from firing another shot. I was attempting to KILL you. The type of force doesn't enter into this, it's my intent, I tried to kill you with physical force, I should be charged, period.

[David Armstrong]

Actually I don't think you have, you have given us a general fits all statement. Within the stated example outlined in my previous post, what set of circumstances would lead you to the use of lethal force? Where is your line in the sand?

I don't know how many ways to say this. I will respond with deadly force when I believe that this person is going to kill me right now if I do not use deadly force right now. That is my line in the sand, those are the circumstances.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to add to my personal knowledge base, so if a similar situation befalls me and I go to the old computer in my head it doesn't respond "File Not Found".

And that is why I can't give you more than I have. I can't say "any time you get your nose broken you should use deadly force" because there are so many variables that surround that one variable that can completely alter the situation. In one situation maybe you should, in another maybe you shouldn't. That is why I suggest the "I need to do this right now" concept. If you really feel that way, why wouldn't you use deadly force? And if you don't really feel that way why would you use deadly force?

With regards to your question in bold. Yes I would expect to be charged, how is it differant than if I shot at you with a gun missed and was prevented from firing another shot. I was attempting to KILL you. The type of force doesn't enter into this, it's my intent, I tried to kill you with physical force, I should be charged, period.

The type of force DOES enter into this. It is a very important part of this. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy (and I still like to include Preclusion), remember? Take the next sentence....If I am screaming I want to kill you and I'm beating you with a peacock feather, or a rolled up newspaper, my intent is clear but trust me, I'm not getting charged with attempted murder. And if I am beating you with a feather and screaming I want to kill you, I doubt that using deadly force to stop me would be appropriate. Intent is only one part of the body of a crime.