The Sanford Florida incident....

[Mitchell, Esq.]

No.

I've explained the subjective/objective test, and how it relates to AOI several times, and was on the phone with people for 3 hours, twice, with written material sent to people in advance of the conference call.

I've tried to make it as clear as I can that the concept needs to be understood before it can be applied to any situation.

It's NOT something that needs to be done in the heat of the moment, it's something that needs to be understood before the situation, and it answers the questions about what happens after the situation.

During the situation, someone has to make decisions within the bounds of the rules for use of force they happen to be in, and if they can't do that in real time, based on training and experience filtered through the rules for the use of force they happen to be under...then that is a problem.

You are making it sound like I'm saying they have to have a criminal law textbook in hand when the fight is going on, and I never said that.

I'm getting a bit frustrated myself when people are taking about what the jury will say, or trying to play with the definition of what reasonable force is as applied to a use of force situation, when they won't even give more than a passing focus on how those terms are explained or applied to the situation in the first place.

It's like talking about speed shooting and accuracy, when you have neither defined what is "fast shooting" or
"accuracy" in anything resembling measurable terms.

"Shooting fast enough to shoot what you need to shoot!" and "Accuracy defined as minute of man!" is as helpful in a discussion of technical shooting and training as taking about "How will we know what a jury will think in looking at a fight and my choices in that fight?"

The information regarding use of force review was presented previously, in this and other threads.

Hopefully in usable, understandable format so that discussion could be had in meaningful terms. If it was not, show me where I was unclear, and I'll be happy to edit/explain.

When someone wants to talk about learning to shoot, they need to understand how to execute a correct trigger press if they want to improve - end of discussion. If they won't go learn that, then they are just not on the same page as people who want to learn how to shoot.

So to here.

To discuss use of force laws in terms of how they apply pre, during and post fight, and the evaluation by reviewing parties after the incident, the terms & standards which are relevant need to be understood, then applied to the facts at hand...Or you aren't discussing anything of value.

People are making much more of it than it really needs to be.

Merely because it involves "law" does not make it complex, any more than shooting fast is complex or boxing is complex.

It is the application of fundamentals in real time.

It's just different fundamentals.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

After posting the above, I thought about it for a second, I have a question:

Is the fear of being unjustified in your action a task overload during action that people are, or fear, struggling with?

If so, how is it best handled?

[LittleLebowski]

Since my last comments, this thread has grown quite a bit. I just wanted to chime in with that I do realize that the prior case I cited regarding Angela Corey is not as cut and dry as many (including myself) thought. I came to this realization by listening to folks in this thread. Nonetheless, I don't think I could have discharged my "duty" as a juror to impose a 20 year sentence on someone for that "crime" and that's a personal beef with mandatory sentencing of mine.

Just wanted to let folks know that learning has occurred

[BaiHu]

No. <<<<REDACTED FOR EASE OF READING>>>>

It's just different fundamentals.

Well said and I think you make the 'complex' a bit more user-friendly, but it is hard, if you don't have a law degree or studied some crim law, to balance the emotional "this is stupid and I feel this way" with the logical/subjective "what If I was Trayvon or what if I was Zimmerman" scenario and then add the logical/objective/subjective interface of the law, and now the conversation gets pretty complicated, but very illuminating.

After posting the above, I thought about it for a second, I have a question:

Is the fear of being unjustified in your action a task overload during action that people are, or fear, struggling with?

If so, how is it best handled?

Prior to knowing you and taking ECQC, I would say I would not have had an overload-I just would've done what I needed to do in order to feel safe. Having taken ECQC and meeting you, I think I might have some pre-fight/flight 'paralysis by analysis', but once 'the fight' occurred, I think I'd probably default to my previous way of being-just doing what I need to do in order to feel safe.

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?

Since my last comments, this thread has grown quite a bit. I just wanted to chime in with that I do realize that the prior case I cited regarding Angela Corey is not as cut and dry as many (including myself) thought. I came to this realization by listening to folks in this thread. Nonetheless, I don't think I could have discharged my "duty" as a juror to impose a 20 year sentence on someone for that "crime" and that's a personal beef with mandatory sentencing of mine.

Just wanted to let folks know that learning has occurred

+1 This thread was getting a bit too pedantic for my taste, but I think Mitchell and Todd have helped turn this discussion back around and I, like LL, am starting to learn more from this thread.

Thanks guys.

[David Armstrong]

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.

Not to step on Mitchell's toes, but it is not complicated at all. It is very simple....if I do not kill this guy right now I will die right now. If you honestly believe that, then you need to kill the guy. If, however, you are basing the decision on "man, this is getting bad, and if I let it go on it might get worse and if it gets worse then I might die" you probably don't need to kill the guy. Either way there will be an after-action that decides if you were right or not.

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.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, a schoolyard brawl does not require mutual agreement to engage in combat. And much as we might wish otherwise, not all criminal attacks lead to deadly force as a defense.

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.

No, we don't know many of those claims, as they are in contention and some seem contradicted by other evidence. We DON'T know that Zimmerman was being pounded repeatedly in the face, nor do we know that Martin was straddling his chest. One of the witnesses says she saw Zimmerman on top at one point during the fight, and the "MMA-punch" witness has now said he is not sure who was throwipunches punces. As for medical treatment, we know the injuries were so minor that Zimmerman was treated and released at the scene, and nobody saw any need for much beyond the "band-aid and aspirin" level of treatment.

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.

You mis-state the issue. AFAIK nobody has said this was some kind of school yard brawl. What has been said is that the level of skill, danger, and damage is like what we see and tend to expect in a relatively minor high school fight or typical bar fight. We generally do not argue those justify a deadly force response, even though the potential for major damage is there, as in all fights.

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.

No, the evidence does not show that. In fact, a fair amount of evidence contradicts that claim.

The suggestion that Zimmerman's only recourse was to "lie back and take it" is repugnant.

I would agree, and if you will show us where anyone has suggested that I think we will all join in a repudiation of that suggestion.

[David Armstrong]

from BaiHu:
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?

I think that is a pretty good way to look at it. Like I said in the other post, "I will die right now if I don't kill this guy right now" is pretty simple. If you honestly believe that, then there really isn't any further need for a decision-making process other than "what is the most efficient way for me to kill him?" We might have made the wrong decision, and you can bet others will look at the decision we made and why we made it. But if our belief was reasonable we don't have much to worry about criminally because, as Mitchell explained, we can show how our training, our knowledge, our experience lead us to that conclusion. The farther we get from that basic concept of "right now" the more we can analyze the situation and the less likely it is we need to use deadly force. Doesn't mean deadly force won't still be the right answer; it just means it is less likely because it is less immediate. My $.02.

[MikeO]

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...

[Tamara]

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...

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. Imagine.

Moving from the eyewitness portion of our program to the forensic, who broke Zimmerman's nose? The one-armed man? And how were Zimmerman's blows on Martin so feeble as to leave no contusions and fractures of his own?

[peterb]

You mis-state the issue. AFAIK nobody has said this was some kind of school yard brawl. What has been said is that the level of skill, danger, and damage is like what we see and tend to expect in a relatively minor high school fight or typical bar fight. We generally do not argue those justify a deadly force response, even though the potential for major damage is there, as in all fights.

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.

[BaiHu]

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.

Dead on accurate, which is why my litmus test is "for me". Perception IS reality, so if Z can articulate his reality convincingly enough to the jury that "their perception" of the situation meshes closely enough with his, then Z will be in better shape.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2