The Sanford Florida incident....

[David Armstrong]

I brought it up to counter the "trained fighter" bit. It was unusual in that one blow did the job in that case, but as far as getting put into a full-on ground and pound against an attacker who doesn't seem to be letting up any time soon and is clearly intent on seriously <CENSORED>ing you up and you have no other ready means of escape?

Exactly. It is UNUSUAL to be killed or severely injured as the result of a hand-to-hand fight. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect death as a result. So that becomes the key....is there evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that this situation was so far outside of the norm to justify an exceptional response. So far, I haven't seen it.

Grass stains on back + lacerations on the back of the head= Zimmerman's torso was in a yard while his head was over concrete/pavement.
Not saying what happened, but it's a plausible scenario based on those bits of evidence. Unless you're implying Zimmerman pulled a WWE move and cut himself with a razor blade or something.

No, I'm implying that there isn't enough damage on the back of the head to suggest there was much action on the concrete, if any at all. We have two minor lacerations to the back of the head. They apparently weren't even bad enough to require a Band-Aid. To me that does not equate with having your head slammed repeatedly against the concrete.

[SamuelBLong]

No. See, like everyone else here, I'm commenting on the evidence that is available to me, based on my opinion of that evidence. As I am not actually involved with the case I would have no direct evidence relating to the case. That is generally how things like this work.

No, I did not say that, nor did I even imply that, nor does it make sense.

Yes, and that standard happens to be one of objective reasonableness. Again, if you think that what to me so far is essentially a basic high-school level kids fight constitutes grounds for using deadly force I would have to disagree with that.

Yes, and I suggested how Todd's situation might not be the same as the actual situation, something which none of us know at this time.

Again, lots of claims about someone mounting someone, and heads impacting concrete, but not much evidence to support that yet. Remember, "I was in fear of my life" is only one part of the equation. The other part is if that fear was reasonable. I might fear for my life everytime anyone gets within 10 feet of me. That doesn't give me the right to shoot them.

We disagree, as I see (and apparently many others see) a good amount of evidence that IS inconsistent with it. Officers at the scene apparently disagreed with you.

Please don't make things up and attribute them to me. I can easily see how having your head slammed into the concrete while someone has mounted you and you are helpless can create a fear for life. However, I haven't seen evidence to lead me to believe that is what happened in this case.

I believe that is EXACTLY what you and others are doing, applying your own standards and preconceptions, correct??

Again, please don't make up positions and then try to attribute them to me. Perhaps you are unaware of it, but in play areas around apartments and other areas where there is grass there are often small pieces of gravel, glass fragments, assorted pieces from broken toys, and so on that are in the grass. In fact, as there is a small tree near the fight scene small twigs from the tree could be on the ground.

I'm asking a serious question here, so don't take it as being snarky or malicious.

You say that people are applying our own standards and preconceptions to what occurred. Aren't you doing the same by stating that this incident seems like a "basic high-school level kids fight"?

How can you for sure say that Treyvon didn't have the intent to kill / severely injure Zimmerman? It all comes back to who started the incident. Dead men tell no tales, so maybe we will never know.

However, it seems you're doubting the ability of a single blow to the head to cause severe injury or death. I have five words for you - Epidural Hematoma or Subdural Hematoma. Look them up. Remember the actress Natasha Richardson? She fell while skiing, hit her head and was dead two days later.

It is not unreasonable to think that if Zimmerman's head impacted the concrete at all, even once, that he would be in great fear for his life and / or that he could become permanently disabled / impaired.

[will_1400]

Exactly. It is UNUSUAL to be killed or severely injured as the result of a hand-to-hand fight. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect death as a result. So that becomes the key....is there evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that this situation was so far outside of the norm to justify an exceptional response. So far, I haven't seen it.

No, I'm implying that there isn't enough damage on the back of the head to suggest there was much action on the concrete, if any at all. We have two minor lacerations to the back of the head. They apparently weren't even bad enough to require a Band-Aid. To me that does not equate with having your head slammed repeatedly against the concrete.

So all the beatings I've personally witnessed where the loser got sent to the ICU for internal injuries are unusual and invalid? That argument makes very little, if any, logical sense. I'm pretty sure being in a situation where you feel you're forced to open fire is unusual in and of itself. So if we follow that logic path as it pertains to self defense in general, the conclusion would be "given that being attacked in a manner that requires deadly force is highly unusual, we should not carry any kind of deadly weapon on our person". Sorry, but that just plain doesn't make sense

Regarding the injuries... Are you expecting Zimmerman's skull to be broken open before saying that he could have had his head bounced off of it a few times? Photos don't show hairline fractures, internal bleeding, etc. Again, I'm not saying Zimmerman sustained those injuries, but it is a possiblity (haven't seen anything that proves it either way, so that's just a "for instance" bit on my part.) Needing proof that someone's taken severe damage before you can say they acted in self defense is akin to saying someone has to be shot by a badguy before returning fire.

Another supposition: what if in the course of waiting to take serious injury you lose consciousness/become dazed to the point where you can't defend yourself. Nothing would really stop your attacker from searching you (assuming a street thug) for valuables, finding your weapon, and perminantly putting you down for the count.

[ToddG]

Agreed. I don't think there is a chance in Hades of getting a Murder 2 conviction. Given the information available to me at this time I wouldn't take bets on any kind of a criminal conviction. I think the likelihood of conviction is a different matter than appropriateness of action, however.

That depends on how you define "appropriateness." We're talking about the legal aspect of self-defense. As such, likelihood of conviction seems like a very good measuring stick.

If you mean moral/ethical/religious/whatever appropriateness, then we're in a quagmire so deep we'll never escape. Some people will say there is never an ethical reason to kill, others believe that it's reasonable to shoot and kill anyone who'd raise his hand against you.

I might agree with that. However we don't seem to have evidence supporting that scenario for me. Again, Zimmerman is not helpless and unable to defend himself here.

You're confusing the burden of proof. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove it; the State has to disprove it. There is case law in Florida to that effect: once the defendant raises a colorable claim of self-defense, the jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self-defense in order to convict.

He apparently is able to get to his gun, draw the gun, and bring the gun between him and his attacker.

I'll defer to the ECQC grads on that. It's not at all hard for me to imagine a scenario where I couldn't defeat someone who was punching me, but I could access my gun and shoot him off me.

I don't disagree with the exception of "getting the crap beaten out of him". But even given that, how does that differ from the thousands of fights that go on every year all over the country that get, at most, a misdemeanor A&B charge? Again, a high school playground fight does not justify deadly force, IMO.

I'll defer to my favorite Tom Givens quote: The reason there are so few civilian CCW shootings is because there are so few civilians CCW'ing. The fact that it's not happening doesn't mean it wouldn't be justified if it did happen.

As for the "high school playground" fantasy example, I'm sorry, that's not something I can agree with. This wasn't a couple of kids who know each other, it wasn't on school property. It was a trespasser on private property in the dark of night attacking a stranger.

Furthermore, if you'd like examples of "high school playground fights" that turned deadly, I'm quite sure the forum members could provide a deluge with little effort. Q.E.D.

In fact, from what I can see, it looks to me as if the damage is the result of him twisting and turning his head while it was in contact with the ground.

Still not relevant. Whether he happened to cause the wound to himself as a result of his defensive actions, it was still damage he felt and responded to during the attack.

If this occurred on grass and not concrete as I stated repeatedly in my previous post, I apologize for mischaracterizing the facts.

Let's change things up just a wee bit. Many of us are in "defense of third party" states. So, you are driving down the road. You see to your right two young men of comparable age and size fighting. One man pushes the other down, then kneels across him punching at his head while the one on the bottom is twisting and squirming and yelling "help, help." Would you think you were justified in stopping your car, pulling your gun, and shooting the young man who was on top of the other? Or would you consider that excessive force??

First, the example is a poor analogy because many people have a substantially different threshold for use of force in defense of a stranger than in self-defense.

Second, if it was instead my wife who was lying on the ground being punched in the face repeatedly and I didn't think I could reach her in time to effect immediate assistance, you can be absolutely certain I'd shoot that bastard in the head.

[SamuelBLong]

I'll defer to the ECQC grads on that. It's not at all hard for me to imagine a scenario where I couldn't defeat someone who was punching me, but I could access my gun and shoot him off me.

Its not the thing to do position wise as it leads to more opportunity to get your gun taken from you, however if its you're last option and you're sustaining lots of damage and you're about to die....

In fact, from what I can see, it looks to me as if the damage is the result of him twisting and turning his head while it was in contact with the ground.

I'm far from being a pathologist, however I do encounter lots of trauma on a regular basis.

Looking at the laceration on the right side of the parietal lobe, it appears to be what we call a "split laceration". Split lac's are caused by intense compression of the skin between two hard objects... so the skin getting compressed between concrete and the skull would make sense.

If it was caused by torsion against the ground, or torsion / impact against an object like a rock, Id expect to see a different profile to the laceration wound edges.

[BaiHu]

I'm just going to lay out a case about 'reasonable' fear here.

1) We have approximately 30% of Americans that are obese and our range for obese might be a teensy bit broad.

2) Zimmerman, like a fair number of gun guys, was not 'athletic' looking. Under the stress, he has currently lost a good number of pounds.

Given that most people who carry guns are a) typically not in shape and b) have not done anything physical by the very nature of not being in shape, we can conclude that c) CCW folk most likely have never been in a fight before or even a wrestling, boxing, or sparring match in their life ever. Let alone an unarmed/armed combat class like ECQC.

Sidebar:
I'm a tiny guy, but I have given people standing knockouts with a jab. Not b/c I'm so awesome or I meant it (we were sparring), but b/c the guy moved in on my jab and I couldn't pull it fast enough and I was rooted and so was he. I immediately stopped my attack and we had to stop the match. He was over 200 lbs.

OTOH, I was once doing a consensual and compliant knee-strike exercise with a different 200 lb guy and he drove his knee too high by accident and I couldn't see anything but black for about 5 seconds as I did my best Jean Claude Van Damme impression. In either of these cases, those 3-5 seconds would be an eternity for an attacker to finish you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-MY_kyxAU

Now, imagine you have never done anything physical and you have a gun so you don't have to be physical and the first time you are really hit, you are then mounted, dazed, confused and the flurry keeps coming-what do you do?

There are only two choices if the facts seem to be the way they have been reported:

a) I'm so glad I get to shoot this guy, I've been dying for this moment, b/c I'm a gun nut and I want to know what it is like to take a life.

or

b) Holy cr$p! Holy cr$p! Holy cr$p! Holy cr$p! I'm gonna die! OMFG! Holy SH%T I have a gun!! Wooohoooo!! I hope I can get it and shoot him before he kills me or takes it from me.

That's just how I see it.

[David Armstrong]

I'm asking a serious question here, so don't take it as being snarky or malicious.

You say that people are applying our own standards and preconceptions to what occurred. Aren't you doing the same by stating that this incident seems like a "basic high-school level kids fight"?

Actually, somebody else said that about me as if it were somehow unusual. I pointed out that we all do it, including me.

How can you for sure say that Treyvon didn't have the intent to kill / severely injure Zimmerman? It all comes back to who started the incident. Dead men tell no tales, so maybe we will never know.

Actually who started it may or may not have much bearing on the incident, depending on how the evidence falls out. Zimmerman could h ave started it and still be OK in the shooting, just as Martin could have started it and Zimmerman could still be wrong in the shooting. But you might note that I don't say for sure. I say that according to the evidence I have seen, I have developed certain tentative conclusions and feel that evidence indicates certain things.

However, it seems you're doubting the ability of a single blow to the head to cause severe injury or death. I have five words for you - Epidural Hematoma or Subdural Hematoma. Look them up. Remember the actress Natasha Richardson? She fell while skiing, hit her head and was dead two days later.

Again, then you would think we should arrest everybody who gets into a fistfight for Attempted Murder? No, of course not. I don't doubt the ability of that to happen. However, that is not the standard we use. The standard revolves around how reasonable our actions were. And generally it is not reasonable to say that we should base the normal responses on something that happens once in several thousand times.

It is not unreasonable to think that if Zimmerman's head impacted the concrete at all, even once, that he would be in great fear for his life and / or that he could become permanently disabled / impaired.

Again, I totally reject the idea that one bases a deadly force decision on what might happen in anyone's fantasy as opposed to what is objectively reasonable to believe.

[David Armstrong]

So all the beatings I've personally witnessed where the loser got sent to the ICU for internal injuries are unusual and invalid? That argument makes very little, if any, logical sense.

Depends a lot on the beatings, doesn't it? Here we have a situation where the guy wasn't hurt bad, didn't even need to go to the hospital, etc. Again, I tend to go with what the evidence indicates...a minor altercation on the grass.

I'm pretty sure being in a situation where you feel you're forced to open fire is unusual in and of itself. So if we follow that logic path as it pertains to self defense in general, the conclusion would be "given that being attacked in a manner that requires deadly force is highly unusual, we should not carry any kind of deadly weapon on our person". Sorry, but that just plain doesn't make sense

You're right, it doesn't make sense, so why bring it up as nobody has come anywhere close to suggesting it?
[qyote]Regarding the injuries... Are you expecting Zimmerman's skull to be broken open before saying that he could have had his head bounced off of it a few times? Photos don't show hairline fractures, internal bleeding, etc. Again, I'm not saying Zimmerman sustained those injuries, but it is a possiblity (haven't seen anything that proves it either way, so that's just a "for instance" bit on my part.) Needing proof that someone's taken severe damage before you can say they acted in self defense is akin to saying someone has to be shot by a badguy before returning fire.[/quote]
As I mentioned earlier, please don't make things up and then try to associate them with me. I have not and do not take either of those positions.

Another supposition: what if in the course of waiting to take serious injury you lose consciousness/become dazed to the point where you can't defend yourself. Nothing would really stop your attacker from searching you (assuming a street thug) for valuables, finding your weapon, and perminantly putting you down for the count.

Another supposition: what if a magical gun fairy comes down from the night sky and magically shoots everyone who is thinking bad thoughts. Instead of suppositions why not deal with the evidence and the facts as we know them?

[David Armstrong]

That depends on how you define "appropriateness." We're talking about the legal aspect of self-defense. As such, likelihood of conviction seems like a very good measuring stick.

Then OJ really was innocent of killing Nicole and the Goldman boy?? Sorry, but we both know there is a very different truth between the inside of the court and the outside.

You're confusing the burden of proof. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove it; the State has to disprove it. There is case law in Florida to that effect: once the defendant raises a colorable claim of self-defense, the jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self-defense in order to convict.

Not confusing anything. As I said, I don't think there is much of a chance of a conviction at this time. That doesn't mean I have to thnk that his use of deadly force was appropriate. The original arrest and police report indicated manslaughter by unnecessary killing, and I tend to agree with that at this time.

I'll defer to the ECQC grads on that. It's not at all hard for me to imagine a scenario where I couldn't defeat someone who was punching me, but I could access my gun and shoot him off me.

Agreed, but that is different than being helpless.

I'll defer to my favorite Tom Givens quote: The reason there are so few civilian CCW shootings is because there are so few civilians CCW'ing. The fact that it's not happening doesn't mean it wouldn't be justified if it did happen.

But it IS happening. We have hundreds of fights every day. Very few that are non-weapon are considered felonious.

As for the "high school playground" fantasy example, I'm sorry, that's not something I can agree with. This wasn't a couple of kids who know each other, it wasn't on school property. It was a trespasser on private property in the dark of night attacking a stranger.

Huh? What trespasser??? As for who attacked whom, that is one of those unanswered questions. As to the high school fight, rather than a fantasy it appears this is exactly what it was. Two young men, close to the same age and size, little or no training, fighting rather ineffectively, and one of them gets the upper hand, and it ends with relatively minor wounds or injuries. Other than the addition of a gunshot that is pretty much what we have here.

Furthermore, if you'd like examples of "high school playground fights" that turned deadly, I'm quite sure the forum members could provide a deluge with little effort. Q.E.D.

I'm sure they could, just like I could provide examples of people eating in diners suddenly pulling out a gun and shooting folks. That doesn't make it reasonable for me to shoot everyone in the diner myself just in case it might happen.

Still not relevant. Whether he happened to cause the wound to himself as a result of his defensive actions, it was still damage he felt and responded to during the attack.

It is quite relevant given that many keep making a claim that his head was being slammed into concrete/pavement. The injuries are rather indicative that did not happen.

First, the example is a poor analogy because many people have a substantially different threshold for use of force in defense of a stranger than in self-defense.

Nope, sorry, didn't ask what your threshold was for intervention. I asked if you feel you would be justified to do the act.

Second, if it was instead my wife who was lying on the ground being punched in the face repeatedly and I didn't think I could reach her in time to effect immediate assistance, you can be absolutely certain I'd shoot that bastard in the head.

But that wasn't the situation that was presented, was it??

[SouthNarc]

David I'm curious on something and I'd like to ask you a question: Do you believe that all empty hand confrontations are potentially lethal?