Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He didn't have to still be following him. He provoked an altercation as the aggressor by following him suspiciously in the first place. He left evidence on a 911 tape and the victim told the person he was on the phone with he was being followed 2+2=4 where I come from.

How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.

The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.

This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

AustonT wrote:"are you following him"
"yes"
"we don't need you to do that"
Sounds pretty clear cut.

By this logic you are free to attack anyone walking behind you without reprisal.

Deliberately obtuse statement in deliberately obtuse.

Can I get a legal definition of "following suspiciously" please?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Can I get a legal definition of "following suspiciously" please?

A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Not much proof of that then.

Mr Hyena wrote:How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.

The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.

This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.

Yet the USA has a murder rate triple the UK's.

Back to the topic, I understand that the whole timeline and narrative of the events is disputed. That is of course why there is a court case about it.

The point about Martin doubling back, if he did, is that he would have been justified under SYG in doing so, if he was afraid of the person following him.

All these arguments will be brought out in court, I am sure.

Mr Hyena wrote:How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.

The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.

This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.

But...but...KRAV MAGA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Yet the USA has a murder rate triple the UK's.

Which has nothing at all to do with US concealed carry laws. You can run the statistics to show crime goes down when citizens are allowed to conceal carry, or stays the same, but you won't find any showing it goes up.

Our murder rate isn't high solely due to the fact that we're awash with guns, though that plays a part. We've had this discussion before. It's better to deal with the reality of the situation than pretend we can just get rid of the 210 million firearms in the US.

Before I say anything else, I just want to point out that if you read the 911 call transcript, at no point does the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to "stop" following Martin. The dispatcher tells Zimmerman that he "doesn't have to".

Many people are getting this point confused, and I believe that it will ultimately be a large factor in this case.

Another thing: People are getting "threat of deadly force or grievous bodily harm" confused with general fear itself. The law is designed so that people cannot just kill when they are scared.

AustonT wrote:In the ARS section on self defense that claim cannot be made if you provoke the incident...which Zimmerman did by following Martin.

Simply following someone is not provocation. If Zimmerman had been following Martin with his pistol drawn, or if he was aggressively pursuing him, then that could be considered provocation.

Frazzled wrote:ok I exaggerate. in NY its actually much harder than that.

Amen to that, brother.

Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.

To protect yourself or another from death or grievous bodily injury. It all comes down to an individuals moral views. Do I want to potentially save someone else's life, or do I want protection from litigation? The choice is very clear to me. You cannot put a price tag on a life.

Seaward wrote:I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Albatross wrote:I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.

I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.

That's why the laws state that you must be threatened with deadly force or grievous bodily injury. Sensible people won't shoot someone that puts up their fists.

So then what you're saying is that it's okay for someone to threaten your life and you won't do anything about it? What about the barbarian who is threatening you? Is he alright then?

Albatross wrote:Exalted is right - this law basically amounts to killing another person over what MIGHT happen. That's paranoid.

This is where intent comes into play. If someone walks over to you and pulls out a pistol, what do you think they're going to do? They might say hi and talk about the weather, but they'll probably shoot you.

Have fun pondering the might's and what-if's in heaven, hell, or wherever you end up.

Albatross wrote:That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.

Except that is not a viable legal defense, as has been stated previously in this thread.

Albatross wrote:Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?

When did he say that? He simply stated that he would rather have the ability to defend himself than live in...say, the UK?

AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.

Lets not use words that are incorrect. Stalking is not the appropriate term, and implies that this situation could have been premeditated.
Following is not provocation. Until there is clarification on whether or not Zimmerman was headed back to his car, we cannot be certain that he did not "exhaust every reasonable means to escape such danger."

AustonT wrote:A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

What was the threat? I see no threat. Please clarify.

What exactly is provocation with regard to SYG? If I'm in Florida and say to somebody that there mother was a hamster (without french accent) and get shot, is that provocation.

This is why Shakesphere said kill all the lawyers. Provocation and it's interpretation will make millionaires out of lawyers as they drag this through the Supreme court for many a long year.

The real question is, why was a neighberhood watchmen
1) carrying a gun
2) confronting someone he thought was suspicious
3) doing anything other than being "the eyes and ears of the police"

Exalted Pariah wrote:The real question is, why was a neighberhood watchmen
1) carrying a gun
2) confronting someone he thought was suspicious
3) doing anything other than being "the eyes and ears of the police"

Dunno. It doesn't really matter. The first two are both perfectly legal. They may not be particularly bright, but they're legal.

Provocation is defined as conduct by which one induces another to do a particular deed; the act of inducing rage, anger, or resentment in another person that may cause that person to engage in an illegal act.

In regards to SYG, it basically means that you lose your legal justification to use deadly force if you provoke the individual.

For example. Person A spots someone acting suspiciously. If Person A were to pull a gun on them (even just lifting up the edge of his shirt and making a movement for it), it would be considered provocation. Person A would have no justification to reveal his firearm because there was no forcible felony being committed.

The person that the gun was flashed at (Person B) could assume that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm, and could defend himself accordingly.

If Person B then proceeded to pull out a gun (in response to A's drawn weapon), then the SYG law would be flipped in favor of Person B, provided that Person B was, in fact, not doing anything illegal.

HTH

Nocturn wrote:
For example. Person A spots someone acting suspiciously. If Person A were to pull a gun on them (even just lifting up the edge of his shirt and making a movement for it), it would be considered provocation.

Any place I have been, if a concealed weapon becomes visible, even accidentally, the person with the weapon can be charged with brandishing. If that person had a CCW they would most likely lose it.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:OK, perhaps I have misunderstood. You're a lawyer, correct? Care to explain 'Stand Your Ground' to a layman, and point out where I went wrong?

Stand your Ground means that if you're in a situation where you are in a situation where you have a reasonable, actual, and immediate apprehension of death or serious injury you do not have the duty to retreat prior to using deadly force to defend yourself.

So you can kill someone if you feel threatened by them? How is that different to what I said?

The opposite is what's called "Duty to Retreat" - if you are in immediate apprehension of death or serious injury, you may not use lethal force to defend yourself so long as there is a reasonably safe opportunity to retreat from the danger.

Yeah, that sounds more sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nocturn wrote:

Albatross wrote:I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.

I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.

That's why the laws state that you must be threatened with deadly force or grievous bodily injury. Sensible people won't shoot someone that puts up their fists.

Hmm. Isn't that what we're talking about? The Trayvon Martin case? He was unarmed wasn't he?

So then what you're saying is that it's okay for someone to threaten your life and you won't do anything about it? What about the barbarian who is threatening you? Is he alright then?

How is that person threatening my life? Is he pointing a gun at me? In that case, I'm pretty much dead, as would you be. Even if you were lucky enough to draw your weapon and kill your attacker, you could still claim self-defence, as there is no way a judge would expect you to have outrun the bullets of your assailant.

Albatross wrote:Exalted is right - this law basically amounts to killing another person over what MIGHT happen. That's paranoid.

This is where intent comes into play. If someone walks over to you and pulls out a pistol, what do you think they're going to do? They might say hi and talk about the weather, but they'll probably shoot you.

If that happens, SYG hasn't helped me because I'd be dead either way. He's already got the gun out. SYG appears to allow you to pre-empt that.

Albatross wrote:That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.

Except that is not a viable legal defense, as has been stated previously in this thread.

That post was adressing someone else, who had implied that being given a death-stare was sufficient cause to use deadly force to defend themself.

Albatross wrote:Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?

When did he say that? He simply stated that he would rather have the ability to defend himself than live in...say, the UK?

I'd rather make points than score them, especially if they're crude nationalist ones, but since we're playing that game all of a sudden: We have the right to self-defence here. What we don't have is mountains of corpses every year, like you guys.

AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.

Stalking doesn't mean "aggressor" under any definition of the term.

Nocturn wrote:

AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.

Lets not use words that are incorrect. Stalking is not the appropriate term, and implies that this situation could have been premeditated.
Following is not provocation. Until there is clarification on whether or not Zimmerman was headed back to his car, we cannot be certain that he did not "exhaust every reasonable means to escape such danger."

AustonT wrote:A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

What was the threat? I see no threat. Please clarify.

To lay the ground I am making the assumption that both parties react the way that I would.
First, in Z's shoes I wouldn't call 911 immediately after seeing someone to say the were suspicious, I'd wait and watch long enough to make a judgement, in his case that seems to mean "follow" so I assume that he followed him from somewhere else TO the clubhouse and beyond. The impetus being that as Z I believe M has or is about to commit a crime, when he runs in an attempt to evade me I am now convinced he is a criminal and pursue.
Second in M's shoes some guy is following me in a neighborhood I am unfamiliar with, when I look at him he's watching me intently and I run in fear in an attempt to evade him; he chases me. At this point if I am M I believe this person has implied the intent to harm me by following me first and then pursuing me.
Were I think this will be resolved is the altercation and "John"'s statement.
I feel reasonably confident I could articulate the position of either party: but especially I think I could (and have little doubt the Prosecutor will be able to) convince a jury that Z's pursuit would convince a reasonable person to fear the intent of injury or death:I see Z as the aggressor and I believe that the prosecutor will probably be able to convince the jury of that too. If he was the aggressor then under SYG he has a duty to make every possible attempt to retreat before using deadly force.
On the other side of the coin Z had no credible reason to think M was about to commit a forcible felony, followed him, chased him, and at some point a confrontation happened. M rather than Z has the force of SYG behind him.

Albatross wrote:So you can kill someone if you feel threatened by them? How is that different to what I said?

Only if the threat is immediate, reasonable and actual.

If A points a gun at me, then it's immediate, reasonable and actual.

If I know A is holding a stage gun, it's not actual.

If A points his finger at me (and I actually think he's going to kill me), it's not reasonable.

If A says "I'll kill you next Tuesday" it's not immediate.

Apply the above as you see fit.

Nocturn wrote:...
...

Simply following someone is not provocation. ...

...

I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.

Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?

2nd degree won't stick. The investigation was botched which gives Zimmerman's defense a lot to work with. Manslaughter should stick, but this is Florida we are talking about. You know the same state that acquitted Casey Anthony last year.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Nocturn wrote:...
...

Simply following someone is not provocation. ...

...

I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.

Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?

First you need to define 'following you in a suspicious way' so as to rule out the 'I'm a paranoid git and feel you are following me in a suspicious way' crap.

Also, carrying a weapon isn't to deter 'being followed' or to confront a 'follower at all'. If you pull out the weapon because some one is 'following you' you are gonna get charged with brandishing at a minimum and rightly so.

The weapon is a last resort so that when the guy following you corners you, or grabs you, or shows intent to harm you (perhaps by pulling a knife, displaying a 2 foot length of metal pipe, or what ever, perhaps by approaching you, stopping you and telling you he wants your wallet or he will pummel the snot out of you) you have an option other than being hurt or killed. In the 'being followed' scenario, it may give you the confidence to turn around and ask the guy 'why are you following me?'. His actions at that point are going to determine if you have a valid reason to pull out the gun or not. In most cases you will not.

CptJake wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Nocturn wrote:...
...

Simply following someone is not provocation. ...

...

I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.

Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?

First you need to define 'following you in a suspicious way' so as to rule out the 'I'm a paranoid git and feel you are following me in a suspicious way' crap.

No. All you need to do is feel a reasonable fear for your safety that anyone might feel.

Given that street crime is so rampant, any reasonable person might feel fear in that kind of situation.

Isn't that why so many Americans carry guns? You never know when someone is going to attack, so you have to be ready.

Obviously you don't get it. I'm guessing it is because you don't want to vice incapability. I'm guessing that is the case based on you ignoring the sentences on brandishing and so on which would negate your comments on the one sentence you chose to quote.

That's cool. You are entitled to your opinion and world view. If you choose to base your view of the US and our laws on other than fact, it is up to you.

Seaward wrote:
You are making the rather asinine assumption that every Stand Your Ground case is going to be exactly like Zimmerman's, in which an individual allegedly pursued the individual he ended up shooting. Know what? Most self-defense shootings do not fall under that archetype.

Of course they don't, but since I'm speaking specifically about the Zimmerman case it doesn't really matter.

Seaward wrote:
That, of course, is ludicrous. If you defend yourself using lethal force from an unprovoked attack, there's no reason in the world why you should have to pay so much as a cent.

Sure there is, it makes your decision to kill have real weight, and therefore disincentivizes killing, which is socially disruptive.

Is doing that moral? No, not at all. But morality is secondary.

Again, individuals are irrelevant.

Either way, I think it was Fraz that said it best. To paraphrase, permitting self-defense is all well and good, but the Florida law is poorly written.

Also, while the 2nd degree murder charges are unlikely to stick (though with Zimmerman being recorded as saying "these fething punks, they always fething get away" on the 911 tapes, and a a neighborhood watchmen you are NEVER supposed to be armed or confront anybody, the chance of it sticking and him getting life is too big a chance to rick, so he'll settle on a plea deal) HE is still responsible for Trayvons death, even if he didn't murder him. If anything SYG applie to trayvon, not zimmerman.

Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.

I practice martial arts, but I wouldn't fancy my chances against someone armed with a loaded pistol.

Exalted Pariah wrote:
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.

Clearly someone has never had to deal with multiple assailants.

In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.

Exalted Pariah wrote:
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.

Something about my arms being 3ft long and my effective handgun range being something in the order of 100ft.
Oh that and how easy it is to be stabbed while you think you are a ninja. Having trained soldiers and been trained in 2 different services unarmed combat systems there's one mantra I'll never forget and I taught all my joes: "in a fight the guy who wins is the guy whose buddy shows up with a gun first."

Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.

This is true, though the safer alternative may be to simply book it.

Depends on how quick you are, though.