I don't think you understand how guns or the people who use them work, though, since most of those people will be getting their gun safety lessons from television.
I resent that statement, good sir.
As a CCW permit holder, the training is quite serious and thorough. As "Barraketh" stated...you're taught to draw your weapon as an absolute last resort.
The vast majority of CCW citizens are law-abiding folks that honestly pray they never find themselves in a situation where they'd have to resort to their gun.
But as with anything, there are nuts out there that take it too far. Usually they're dressed in camo w/a confederate flag on them.
I'm a gun owner, I'm talking about the idiots who think drawing their gun to do anything but shoot someone is a good idea.
If you think drawing your gun if you're not prepared to shoot someone in good idea, then I do mean you with good reason.
The first gun safety lesson I always give is "this is the safety, this is the trigger, and this is the end you point at anything you want to die."
I don't think you understand how guns or the people who use them work, though, since most of those people will be getting their gun safety lessons from television.
I resent that statement, good sir.
As a CCW permit holder, the training is quite serious and thorough. As "Barraketh" stated...you're taught to draw your weapon as an absolute last resort.
The vast majority of CCW citizens are law-abiding folks that honestly pray they never find themselves in a situation where they'd have to resort to their gun.
But as with anything, there are nuts out there that take it too far. Usually they're dressed in camo w/a confederate flag on them.
This is completely the opposite of the impressions I've had when my parents recently went out of state to get their CCW permit. (We live in California and they want to Nevada for it, where from what I understand it is much easier to get the permit.) The written test was a complete joke - with questions literally like 'Where is it safest to fire your weapon for practice? A) Straight into the air Toward another person C) At a target in a designated firing range with the proper safety measures. The class they took was more of a paranoid competition, where they were constantly trained that having your gun at the ready wherever you may be in a home invasion scenario is much safer than risking being unarmed.
I found my dad one day pantomiming the motion of drawing a gun and pointing it at somebody, and I asked him if he learned that at the class. He said yeah, that quick draw is important and actually safer than anything else. I asked how he figured that - he says, "Because it speeds up the kill shot."
I know, I know, anecdotal evidence. But my experience with some folks newly entering the gun-world completely supports the impression that a large part of the gun-culture is less about safety and more about pretending to be safe but secretly looking forward to the day where you get to shoot someone dead.
UnknownSaint - I don't think that a Nevada CCW permit works in California. You may want to have your parents look into this.
I don't think making blanket statements about people that decide to get CCW permits is all that helpful. All you really know is that at some point they decided that carrying a gun on them was important, and that they decided to take the steps to do so legally. You could make just about any statement you want about CCW holders, and you will likely be able to find a few people that fit that statement.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
UnknownSaint - I don't think that a Nevada CCW permit works in California. You may want to have your parents look into this.
I don't think making blanket statements about people that decide to get CCW permits is all that helpful. All you really know is that at some point they decided that carrying a gun on them was important, and that they decided to take the steps to do so legally. You could make just about any statement you want about CCW holders, and you will likely be able to find a few people that fit that statement.
It doesn't and they don't think it does, but the reasoning behind is that their friends in the gun-world have told them that it helps their chances at being able to get one in California.
And yeah, like I said, this is just one person's secondary impression of something. I'm not trying to generalize the entirety of gun owners, because there are plenty of responsible and safe folks out there that treat it as seriously as it should be. Probably the vast majority. I'm just responding to someone's statement about the dangerous gun owners being only nut-job confederate fringe cases, because my (limited) experience tells me that is not the case.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
Yeah, she has been convicted, I was reading an old article.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
Oh, interesting. Alexander hadn't been residing at the home for two months prior to the incident. Okay, I think I can see where she's going to lose SYG coverage.
Edit -- incidentally, Angela Corey was the state attorney for this jurisdiction, but she's not the primary attorney who tried the case.
As a CCW permit holder, the training is quite serious and thorough. As "Barraketh" stated...you're taught to draw your weapon as an absolute last resort.
Hi there. Do you have any experience or knowledge at all with the CCW process and training requirements specific to Florida?
Some folks who do training are decent, but there isn't really a great deal of energy spent on quality control. Lot's of it is pretty blowful. I know a fair number of people who received their CCW down here. It's not really at all uncommon, and I don't hold anything against folks with them. I just don't think your giving an accurate representation of CCW classes in Florida.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
Yeah, she has been convicted, I was reading an old article.
I see five points that were raised:
1. The defendant never called 911, not even after discharging a firearm.
2. The defendant asserted that she was unable to leave the house because the garage door wasn't working; however, she never attempted to leave by any other available exit. Moreover, police were unable to find or recreate any malfunction in the garage door, which was apparently working just fine when they arrived.
3. The judge notes that based on the defendant's own testimony, she had to pass by her husband in order to get to the garage and retrieve her weapon (as opposed to making a bee-line for the front or back door, which was apparently unobstructed. That she felt more comfortable trying to bypass her husband in close proximity to him rather than avoiding him undermined her argument that she felt that she was in danger of death or serious physical harm in the judge's view. Moreover, the judge found the decision to reenter the home inconsistent with the actions of someone in fear for her life.
4. The judge notes that the defendant hadn't been in residence at the home for two months. She entered the home of her own volition.
5. Finally, he notes that while the husband has been convicted for domestic battery previously, there was no evidence of any physical injury to the defendant despite her repeatedly being in close contact with him during the incident.
It seems like it was the defendant's own testimony that undermined her case. The fact that the garage door was working when the police arrived is particularly troubling.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
The woman realizes there's only one way out, and it's through me. She charges me, and right as I'm about to tackle her, she maces me in the face. As I'm coughing and rubbing my eyes from the mace, she runs past me and escapes.
Then the state charges her with assault for macing me. And the judge says that because she ran towards me, that's proof that she wasn't in genuine fear for her safety. Because the actions of a person in genuine fear are to... stay trapped in the alley forever, I guess?
If Alexander couldn't escape through the garage, that makes the garage no different from a dead-end alley.
Also, the idea that confronting someone you're afraid of "proves" that you were never afraid to begin with is also strange to me.
The instance of Alexander having 911 called on her for attacking Gray after the night in question. It happened after Gray gave his deposition. That instance has to do with why Alexander's bail bond was revoked, not the Aggravated Assault charges themselves.
I think you missed the bit where they don't' believe that the garage door was malfunctioning. The judge also didn't' seem to believe that she was in any actual danger.
I think you missed the bit where they don't' believe that the garage door was malfunctioning. The judge also didn't' seem to believe that she was in any actual danger.
'm curious how they come to that conclusion, given that he had assaulted her before and admits to threatening her life. Explicitly.
And the "she approached him so she must not have been scared" idea is about on par with "asking a rapist to wear a condom equals consent" idea.
Regardless of the rest, I find these two bits troubling. And it's exactly the kind of shit that people who advocate for more protections for self defense worry about.
I'm also curious how long you're supposed to fiddle with a garage door before moving on. Sure, it worked when they try it. But that doesn't mean it worked when she tried it. Intermittent failures happen, both electrical and mechanical.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
I dont know, could she fear for her life enough that she thinks that without a weapon and some pro-active self defense you will chase down and harm her?
I'm also unsure about if she had a car in the garage at the time or not, or if she was just going to retrieve a weapon registered to her regardless before she vacated the premises (I wouldnt want to leave a firearm registered to myself with an abusive and threatening ex, I dont need some police ruling me a firearm suicide when there is no GSR within 50 feet of me).
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
I dont know, could she fear for her life enough that she thinks that without a weapon and some pro-active self defense you will chase down and harm her?
I'm also unsure about if she had a car in the garage at the time or not, or if she was just going to retrieve a weapon registered to her regardless before she vacated the premises (I wouldnt want to leave a firearm registered to myself with an abusive and threatening ex, I dont need some police ruling me a firearm suicide when there is no GSR within 50 feet of me).
She had parked her car in the garage and closed the garage door herself. It's on page three.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
If I'd been chasing her down the street, then yes, I could see where she would think that in order to escape, she would have to incapacitate me first - or at least present me with the threat of incapacitation.
Because any escape route that's unobstructed to her is unobstructed to me as well. And if I'd demonstrated physical superiority, then it's not much of a stretch to think I would chase and eventually overtake her.
Beyond all this is the fact that under SYG, she still has no duty to retreat - whether by driving out the garage, running out the front door, or spider-climbing up the chimney.
The judge seems to be saying that anyone who "stands their ground" is, by definition of having stood their ground, not afraid of death/grievous bodily harm. Because anyone who was really afraid would run away, and must do so in order to prove their fear.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
If I'd been chasing her down the street, then yes, I could see where she would think that in order to escape, she would have to incapacitate me first - or at least present me with the threat of incapacitation.
Because any escape route that's unobstructed to her is unobstructed to me as well. And if I'd demonstrated physical superiority, then it's not much of a stretch to think I would chase and eventually overtake her.
Beyond all this is the fact that under SYG, she still has no duty to retreat - whether by driving out the garage, running out the front door, or spider-climbing up the chimney.
The judge seems to be saying that anyone who "stands their ground" is, by definition of having stood their ground, not afraid of death/grievous bodily harm. Because anyone who was really afraid would run away, and must do so in order to prove their fear.
See, here's the problem: you are explaining why she makes the decision to retrieve the mace and conflating that with the decision to use the mace. We can stipulate that when she made the first decision, she might have feared that you were going cause her physical harm if you gained the opportunity after successfully chasing her down. However, once she's retrieved the mace, she still has to demonstrate why she was still possessed of a reasonable fear that you were going to do such harm if you got the opportunity, and her argument is undermined by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to cause her physical harm even when you actually had such an opportunity.
It's absolutely true that in Florida, our hypothetical damsel would not have any duty to retreat, but in the event that she uses force and is subsequently charged, she still has a burden to demonstrate a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A judge is perfectly within her right to ask why, if it had become apparent that you weren't actually escalating to violence, she didn't walk away. Or call the police. Or tell you to fuck off and wait for you to leave. Or wait until it was apparent that you actually were going to escalate.
It's absolutely true that in Florida, our hypothetical damsel would not have any duty to retreat, but in the event that she uses force and is subsequently charged, she still has a burden to demonstrate a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A judge is perfectly within her right to ask why, if it had become apparent that you weren't actually escalating to violence, she didn't walk away. Or call the police. Or tell you to fuck off and wait for you to leave. Or wait until it was apparent that you actually were going to escalate.
This makes sense. This also goes to the previous arguments about "lulz trayvon martin stood his ground even if he swung first." Absent actual force or threat of force, Martin would have had zero right to initiate violence against Zimmerman, even if he were being followed, and even if he found that threatening. It takes an imminent threat of physical violence to justify physical force. Absent that, it's just assault and Zimmerman can defend himself from it.
But then he has to show a reasonable belief both that he was in danger of great bodily harm (easy, but not a given) and that deadly force was necessary to end that (harder).
All of this even under the current laws. The law in Florida is not, as we're seeing here, a free pass to kill people. Not unless you run into a lazy prosecutor. Or perhaps incompetent police, except that it seems as though the police were backing charges to begin with so whatevs.
I think the more interesting case to compare and contrast would be John McNeil shooting Brian Epp.
Brain Epp was a contractor with a history of being threatening and beligerent towards his clients. McNeil and his family decided to close on their new home early just so they could fire Epp and finish the work some other way. After he had been fired, Epp showed up on the property anyway trying to finish the job. When McNeil's teenage son asked him to leave, Epp threatened him with a knife. Son calls McNeil, who races home while calling 911. Tells 911 to get police their fast, because he's about to "whoop his ass." McNeil gets to his driveway, pulls a gun out of his glove, loads it, and steps out. Epp comes at him with his hand in his jacket. McNeil fires a warning shot into the ground and tells him "back up, I am not playing with you." Epp continues at him with his hand in his jacket, and gets a deadly bullet in his ugly face. All verified by a witness across the street.
For a year McNeil was left alone, but after several anonymous pleas to the DA, he was eventually charged and found guilty. The determining factors seem to be that 1) McNeil told 911 he intended to harm Epp, 2) McNeil took the time to retrieve and load his gun, and 3) McNeil told police that Epp came at him with a knife, but the knife was still closed and clipped inside Epps pocket when his body was claimed.
Guess who's white and who's black? Zimmerman was arrested a lot faster than McNeil was, at least. But I kinda feel bad for McNeil. What's the point of self-defense and castle and SYG? If a man is on your property illegally, has a history of aggressiveness towards your fmaily and other familes, has been asked repeatedly to leave, threatened your kid with a knife, comes at you with a hand in his pocket, and ignores a warning shot... I'm not a big supporter of carry or vigilantism but hell McNeil should have gotten a medal for shooting Epp, not a prison sentence.
All SYG does is codify that there is no duty to retreat
Castle Doctrine is a common law rule that inside your home there is no duty to retreat.
Some states have extended that to the curtilage of your home but that is based on statute.
You still have to meet the common law requirements of self-defense.
There must be both an actual and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and in addition the person pleading self defense cannot be the aggressor.
The facts you listed point to McNeil being the aggressor.
1. Telling the police to come because he is going to harm Epp
2. Taking time to get his gun
3. Injecting deadly force into the confrontation by brandishing the gun and firing it.
4. The imminent threat of great bodily harm or death from Epp was not present.
He got convicted because he didn't meet the elements of self-defense.
The point of doctrines like Castle and SYG is allow people to defend themselves without having to justify whether escape was possible without putting themselves in danger.
My CCW class was fairly intense, taught by very knowledgeable instructors, who were very detailed. We had to actually qualify at the shooting range, and the test wasn't full of stupid questions like the ones described above. They stressed to the class, that being a CCW carrying does not make you a LEO, and you should not get involved in other peoples business, unless you feel there is an immediate threat to life, and then you are not required to, it's your call. The best thing you can do is stay calm, quite, and be prepared, and be ready to be an excellent witness for the police.
When some of my friends found out I was going for my Montana CCW, they told me it was a waste of time, and I should just go get the Utah one instead, cause it's so much easier to get, and it works in Montana anyways. I told them I don't want some shitty Utah CCW, I'm a Montanan, and life long shooter, and if I can't get a proper CCW, then I don't deserve one.
The only thing that bothers me is Washington state doesn't honor Montana CCW, where it does honor Utah, and I go to WA at least a few times a year.
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Further, after [redacted] exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
If I'd been chasing her down the street, then yes, I could see where she would think that in order to escape, she would have to incapacitate me first - or at least present me with the threat of incapacitation.
Because any escape route that's unobstructed to her is unobstructed to me as well. And if I'd demonstrated physical superiority, then it's not much of a stretch to think I would chase and eventually overtake her.
Beyond all this is the fact that under SYG, she still has no duty to retreat - whether by driving out the garage, running out the front door, or spider-climbing up the chimney.
The judge seems to be saying that anyone who "stands their ground" is, by definition of having stood their ground, not afraid of death/grievous bodily harm. Because anyone who was really afraid would run away, and must do so in order to prove their fear.
See, here's the problem: you are explaining why she makes the decision to retrieve the mace and conflating that with the decision to use the mace. We can stipulate that when she made the first decision, she might have feared that you were going cause her physical harm if you gained the opportunity after successfully chasing her down. However, once she's retrieved the mace, she still has to demonstrate why she was still possessed of a reasonable fear that you were going to do such harm if you got the opportunity, and her argument is undermined by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to cause her physical harm even when you actually had such an opportunity.
It's absolutely true that in Florida, our hypothetical damsel would not have any duty to retreat, but in the event that she uses force and is subsequently charged, she still has a burden to demonstrate a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A judge is perfectly within her right to ask why, if it had become apparent that you weren't actually escalating to violence, she didn't walk away. Or call the police. Or tell you to fuck off and wait for you to leave. Or wait until it was apparent that you actually were going to escalate.
Alexander fired when Gray advanced on her.
- Gray: I seen the gun.
Q: At that time were you going toward her?
- Gray: Yeah, I was going towards her. Q: Were you going toward her when she, as you described it, raised the gun and shot it in the air?
- Gray: Yeah.
That advance was following a death threat made on that same night.
So a death threat + advancing on Alexander != imminent threat of physical harm?
At this point, I'm not sure what would constitute an imminent threat, short of the point where Gray actually begins to wrap his hands around Alexander's neck. I mean, by the judge's logic, our hypothetical damsel would have no reason to think she was in imminent danger of physical harm simply because I'm yelling "I'm gonna kill you!" while running after her (ie, death threat + physical advance on the subject of the threat).
note: Gray also admits that even with the warning shot, the only reason he retreated was the presence of the children. If not for the children, he would have continued his advance - and attacked Alexander - even with the warning shot fired.
Gray: ... if my kids weren't there, I knew I probably would have tried to take the gun from her, you know. I just don't know what would have happened. If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her.
If I pelt a friend with a water gallon and run away, his chasing me yelling "I'm gonna kill you!" does not constitute a credible threat. Context is obviously important.
In this case apparently a jury agreed that the defendants actions suggested the context was not that serious.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
All SYG does is codify that there is no duty to retreat
Castle Doctrine is a common law rule that inside your home there is no duty to retreat.
Some states have extended that to the curtilage of your home but that is based on statute.
You still have to meet the common law requirements of self-defense.
There must be both an actual and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and in addition the person pleading self defense cannot be the aggressor.
The facts you listed point to McNeil being the aggressor.
1. Telling the police to come because he is going to harm Epp
2. Taking time to get his gun
3. Injecting deadly force into the confrontation by brandishing the gun and firing it.
4. The imminent threat of great bodily harm or death from Epp was not present.
He got convicted because he didn't meet the elements of self-defense.
The point of doctrines like Castle and SYG is allow people to defend themselves without having to justify whether escape was possible without putting themselves in danger.
Greatly disagree with (3). The knife was deadly force, so McNeil didn't inject deadly force into the confrontation. And he took the time to get his gun because a man with a knife was on his property, and had threatened his family with deadly force. Lastly, a man walking toward you with a knife is definitely an imminent threat of great bodily harm. With a hand in a pocket, he can't tell if the knife is open or closed. And you'd think the police would be familiar with the threat posed by a man with a knife, given how often they point to Tueller Drills when justifying their own force.
Basically only (1) is really a strike against him.
If I pelt a friend with a water gallon and run away, his chasing me yelling "I'm gonna kill you!" does not constitute a credible threat. Context is obviously important.
In this case apparently a jury agreed that the defendants actions suggested the context was not that serious.
At the same time, I'm not sure how advancing on somebody who is holding a deadly weapon does not imply a credible threat of great bodily harm, especially given the previous verbalized threats. There's no water pelting here.
Though really, it's arguable at that point that Gray's threat of force (by brandishing the gun) was unlawful (the threat from him was no longer imminent) and thus he was actually approaching her...in self-defense? Obviously retreat isn't necessarily a viable solution when bullets are involved.
I read through that case, and it looks like the court wasn't buying, "the garage didn't open" line. Looks like they felt she went, and got her gun then came back to the fight. To me this falls outside of what "stand your ground" or duty to retreat mean.
Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.
Martin would have had zero right to initiate violence against Zimmerman, even if he were being followed, and even if he found that threatening. It takes an imminent threat of physical violence to justify physical force. Absent that, it's just assault and Zimmerman can defend himself from it.
Can you cite a legal precedent for this, please? Cause you're missing some context here. An armed man hunting another person through a residential area at night is a threat that can be confronted physically. Article 1 of Florida's SYG specifically protects this.
Martin would have had zero right to initiate violence against Zimmerman, even if he were being followed, and even if he found that threatening. It takes an imminent threat of physical violence to justify physical force. Absent that, it's just assault and Zimmerman can defend himself from it.
Can you cite a legal precedent for this, please? Cause you're missing some context here. An armed man hunting another person through a residential area at night is a threat that can be confronted physically. Article 1 of Florida's SYG specifically protects this.
So we're assuming now that Zimmerman brandished the firearm prior to the assault (note we are still talking about a hypothetical...though I think this is unlikely in real life as well)?
Because aside from that, no he was not an imminent threat. You don't get to use a gun you did not know about at the time as justification for your assault on somebody.
EDIT: Also, can you cite a legal precedent for the difference between "following" and "hunting?"
Martin would have had zero right to initiate violence against Zimmerman, even if he were being followed, and even if he found that threatening. It takes an imminent threat of physical violence to justify physical force. Absent that, it's just assault and Zimmerman can defend himself from it.
Can you cite a legal precedent for this, please? Cause you're missing some context here. An armed man hunting another person through a residential area at night is a threat that can be confronted physically. Article 1 of Florida's SYG specifically protects this.
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
- taken from wikipedia
So by being followed you can reasonably believe that you need to use force to protect against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force? I don't think that it is reasonable to assume imminent use of unlawful force just because someone is following you.
Do you think that it is reasonable to be able to assault people that are following you?
Except in that case, the man approaching McNeil WAS, in fact, armed. The two cases (Trayvon/Zimmerman and McNeill/Epp) are not similar in that Trayvon was not armed.
Except in that case, the man approaching McNeil WAS, in fact, armed. The two cases (Trayvon/Zimmerman and McNeill/Epp) are not similar in that Trayvon was not armed.
Actually, he was quoting me from my earlier remarks on the case with Gray. She was armed (and the other party was not), but the principle is similar. It seems it was determined that she initiated the use of force absent an actual imminent threat, or at least an imminent threat of great bodily harm.
I was relating it back to the "even if" scenarios regarding Martin, where "even if" Martin did jump Zimmerman, it was somehow self-defense. Except that absent Zimmerman actually brandishing the weapon, you'd have a hard time showing that Zimmerman posed an imminent threat of harm to justify the use of physical force.
It all goes back to what exactly an "imminent threat" is.
EDIT: Or maybe it's "threat of imminent harm" that I'm looking for.
I don't think that it is reasonable to assume imminent use of unlawful force just because someone is following you.
At night? Through alley ways?
Would you be asking me this question if I were a woman?
Also, can you cite a legal precedent for the difference between "following" and "hunting?"
He can frame it how he wants. He still left his vehicle, went searching for Martin, and Martin ended up dead.
When considering use of force minor details can make a difference. If you change the scenario enough I may come to a different conclusion. For the most part though simply having someone follow you should not be justification for you to assault them.
Your use of the word hunting implies that Zimmerman was specifically searching for Martin in order to shoot him. I don't think that this is a likely intent based on what we know. I think the following are more likely.
Zimmerman followed to:
Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.
Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.
None of these are any of Zimmerman's responsibility, nor can you give me a reasonable argument that Zimmerman held any authority over Martin to even make that his responsibility. Further, there is no reasonable expectation on Martin's behalf to consent or respond to Zimmerman's demands, suspicions, or questions.
Martin was a legal resident of the exact same neighborhood Zimmerman was living in and had every right to be walking through it.
If I pelt a friend with a water gallon and run away, his chasing me yelling "I'm gonna kill you!" does not constitute a credible threat. Context is obviously important.
Well, the context here is that the person yelling "I'm gonna kill you":
- is not a friend, but rather someone you have an antagonistic relationship with.
- has beaten you on multiple occasions before, including putting you in the hospital.
- has multiple arrests for beating other people.
- has made death threats against you before.
- has told you that he knows people who would kill you on his behalf.
Context is important, and in this case was decidedly not the context of a water balloon fight.
In this case apparently a jury agreed that the defendants actions suggested the context was not that serious.
It wasn't a jury decision, in this case it was a judge who ruled that SYG would not be allowed as a defense.
I read through that case, and it looks like the court wasn't buying, "the garage didn't open" line. Looks like they felt she went, and got her gun then came back to the fight. To me this falls outside of what "stand your ground" or duty to retreat mean.
Gray (the victim) himself said that the garage door wasn't working properly on the night in question.
- Gray: I went the other way, and she ran through the laundry room into the garage, but I knew she - I didn't know she was going to get a gun but I knew that she couldn't leave out the garage because the garage door was locked, because when I came home that morning my garage door wasn't working because we was having problems with the garage and it wouldn't go up, you know, it wouldn't go up.
Q: You knew she couldn't get out of the garage?
- Gray: I knew she couldn't get out of the garage.
Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.
That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying
And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?
I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"
Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.
None of these are any of Zimmerman's responsibility, nor can you give me a reasonable argument that Zimmerman held any authority over Martin to even make that his responsibility. Further, there is no reasonable expectation on Martin's behalf to consent or respond to Zimmerman's demands, suspicions, or questions.
Martin was a legal resident of the exact same neighborhood Zimmerman was living in and had every right to be walking through it.
While it was not Zimmerman's "job" to do any of the things listed, only the citizens arrest would be doing something illegal. Anyone can walk up a stranger in their neighborhood and ask, "what are you doing here?" The person you are asking can basically give you the finger and tell you to go to hell. Just because you don't have the authority to get an answer doesn't mean that you can't ask.
According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.
Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)
According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.
...
According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.
Impressions:
- This is the first I've heard of Martin turning on his own accord, after being shot, to fall face-down on the ground. Rather than the more naturally assumed scenario of Martin slumping forward onto Zimmerman when shot (unlike in movies, getting shot does not propel the victim backwards as if hit by a car - especially with a 9mm).
For Martin to turn around after being shot would seem to imply that there was some distance between he and Zimmerman. If Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the time of the shot, I would think his torso would want to align with his waist. And if Martin was straddling Zimmerman, then Martin's waist would have been aligned so that his torso fell on top of Zimmerman.
Maybe I'm over-thinking it too much (admittedly, I've never been shot) and when a person gets shot they just crumple into whatever contorted position gravity dictates, like ragdoll physics in a video game. But according to this account, Martin still had the wherewithal to say "Okay, you got it" twice before collapsing.
- This is also the first I've heard of Zimmerman lunging at Martin post-shot.
- Finally, the previous accounts of a hypothetical Zimmerman self-defense talked about Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun. This just says Martin noticed Zimmerman's gun. There's a HUGE difference between noticing a gun and reaching for it. Tell a cop "Nice gun," and he'll say "Thanks". Reach for the cop's gun, and you're in for a very unpleasant time.
Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.
None of these are any of Zimmerman's responsibility, nor can you give me a reasonable argument that Zimmerman held any authority over Martin to even make that his responsibility. Further, there is no reasonable expectation on Martin's behalf to consent or respond to Zimmerman's demands, suspicions, or questions.
Martin was a legal resident of the exact same neighborhood Zimmerman was living in and had every right to be walking through it.
Only the third would give Martin a legal right to use physical force against Zimmerman.
Maybe I'm over-thinking it too much (admittedly, I've never been shot) and when a person gets shot they just crumple into whatever contorted position gravity dictates, like ragdoll physics in a video game. But according to this account, Martin still had the wherewithal to say "Okay, you got it" twice before collapsing.
It's my understanding that they don't necessarily just crumple until the blood loss brings on shock and eventual death (or unless you hit something like the central nervous system or heart). Until then, they can absolutely continue moving, fighting, etc. That somebody could and would move on their own for several seconds after a gunshot is not at all odd to me.
- Finally, the previous accounts of a hypothetical Zimmerman self-defense talked about Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun. This just says Martin noticed Zimmerman's gun. There's a HUGE difference between noticing a gun and reaching for it. Tell a cop "Nice gun," and he'll say "Thanks". Reach for the cop's gun, and you're in for a very unpleasant time.
Noticing a gun of somebody you pass on the street and noticing the gun of somebody you are locked in a physical struggle with are two different things too, though. You don't really want to wait until "noticing" goes to "reaching for" in a fight, because at that point your likelihood of death just went up about a thousandfold.
Kinda reaches back to the reason that you need only be threatened with imminent GBH and not imminent death to use deadly force...because if you wait for imminent death, you are probably going to die.
Posts
I'm a gun owner, I'm talking about the idiots who think drawing their gun to do anything but shoot someone is a good idea.
If you think drawing your gun if you're not prepared to shoot someone in good idea, then I do mean you with good reason.
The first gun safety lesson I always give is "this is the safety, this is the trigger, and this is the end you point at anything you want to die."
This is completely the opposite of the impressions I've had when my parents recently went out of state to get their CCW permit. (We live in California and they want to Nevada for it, where from what I understand it is much easier to get the permit.) The written test was a complete joke - with questions literally like 'Where is it safest to fire your weapon for practice? A) Straight into the air
I found my dad one day pantomiming the motion of drawing a gun and pointing it at somebody, and I asked him if he learned that at the class. He said yeah, that quick draw is important and actually safer than anything else. I asked how he figured that - he says, "Because it speeds up the kill shot."
I know, I know, anecdotal evidence. But my experience with some folks newly entering the gun-world completely supports the impression that a large part of the gun-culture is less about safety and more about pretending to be safe but secretly looking forward to the day where you get to shoot someone dead.
I don't think making blanket statements about people that decide to get CCW permits is all that helpful. All you really know is that at some point they decided that carrying a gun on them was important, and that they decided to take the steps to do so legally. You could make just about any statement you want about CCW holders, and you will likely be able to find a few people that fit that statement.
Whatever it was, I'd assume it was fucking compelling because the jury only took 13 minutes to find her guilty.
3/16/2012 CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO JURY IN FULL
3/16/2012 INSTRUCTION TO JURY
3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25
I'd particularly like to read the judge's initial ruling when he decided that Alexander didn't have immunity from prosecution, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Scribd doens't load for shit here at work - supposedly this is the denial to the motion
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/89763280?access_key=key-2bx8loi7qbrfuufztfx4
It doesn't and they don't think it does, but the reasoning behind is that their friends in the gun-world have told them that it helps their chances at being able to get one in California.
And yeah, like I said, this is just one person's secondary impression of something. I'm not trying to generalize the entirety of gun owners, because there are plenty of responsible and safe folks out there that treat it as seriously as it should be. Probably the vast majority. I'm just responding to someone's statement about the dangerous gun owners being only nut-job confederate fringe cases, because my (limited) experience tells me that is not the case.
It seems like she had ample opportunity to just leave and call 911. She's also had the cops called on her for attacking him. It's the usual domestic abuse tangle.
Yeah, she has been convicted, I was reading an old article.
Oh, interesting. Alexander hadn't been residing at the home for two months prior to the incident. Okay, I think I can see where she's going to lose SYG coverage.
Edit -- incidentally, Angela Corey was the state attorney for this jurisdiction, but she's not the primary attorney who tried the case.
Hi there. Do you have any experience or knowledge at all with the CCW process and training requirements specific to Florida?
Some folks who do training are decent, but there isn't really a great deal of energy spent on quality control. Lot's of it is pretty blowful. I know a fair number of people who received their CCW down here. It's not really at all uncommon, and I don't hold anything against folks with them. I just don't think your giving an accurate representation of CCW classes in Florida.
I see five points that were raised:
1. The defendant never called 911, not even after discharging a firearm.
2. The defendant asserted that she was unable to leave the house because the garage door wasn't working; however, she never attempted to leave by any other available exit. Moreover, police were unable to find or recreate any malfunction in the garage door, which was apparently working just fine when they arrived.
3. The judge notes that based on the defendant's own testimony, she had to pass by her husband in order to get to the garage and retrieve her weapon (as opposed to making a bee-line for the front or back door, which was apparently unobstructed. That she felt more comfortable trying to bypass her husband in close proximity to him rather than avoiding him undermined her argument that she felt that she was in danger of death or serious physical harm in the judge's view. Moreover, the judge found the decision to reenter the home inconsistent with the actions of someone in fear for her life.
4. The judge notes that the defendant hadn't been in residence at the home for two months. She entered the home of her own volition.
5. Finally, he notes that while the husband has been convicted for domestic battery previously, there was no evidence of any physical injury to the defendant despite her repeatedly being in close contact with him during the incident.
It seems like it was the defendant's own testimony that undermined her case. The fact that the garage door was working when the police arrived is particularly troubling.
But under Florida's SYG law, she doesn't have a "duty to retreat".
And even if she did, her story was that she was trying to retreat, through the garage. I assume she wanted to leave in her car, rather than running off on foot and leaving her car at the house of the man who was threatening to kill her. It's probably also easier to escape via car than on foot, simply because you can drive faster than you can run.
I also found this part troubling:
Alexander's testimony was that the garage door wouldn't open, making escape via the garage impossible. All other exits from the property were from back inside the main house. But the judge is saying that because Alexander went back towards Gray, that was proof that there was no genuine fear.
I really don't get this.
Let's say I'm chasing a woman down the street yelling that I'm going to kill her. She turns down an alley thinking there's a door she can escape into. Instead, there is no door, and it's a dead end. I am now at the mouth of the alley, which is the only entrance to, and exit from, the alley.
The woman realizes there's only one way out, and it's through me. She charges me, and right as I'm about to tackle her, she maces me in the face. As I'm coughing and rubbing my eyes from the mace, she runs past me and escapes.
Then the state charges her with assault for macing me. And the judge says that because she ran towards me, that's proof that she wasn't in genuine fear for her safety. Because the actions of a person in genuine fear are to... stay trapped in the alley forever, I guess?
If Alexander couldn't escape through the garage, that makes the garage no different from a dead-end alley.
Also, the idea that confronting someone you're afraid of "proves" that you were never afraid to begin with is also strange to me.
The instance of Alexander having 911 called on her for attacking Gray after the night in question. It happened after Gray gave his deposition. That instance has to do with why Alexander's bail bond was revoked, not the Aggravated Assault charges themselves.
'm curious how they come to that conclusion, given that he had assaulted her before and admits to threatening her life. Explicitly.
And the "she approached him so she must not have been scared" idea is about on par with "asking a rapist to wear a condom equals consent" idea.
Regardless of the rest, I find these two bits troubling. And it's exactly the kind of shit that people who advocate for more protections for self defense worry about.
It's not really a comparable analogy because it doesn't address the judge's point, which was not so much to do with the decisions she made after she armed herself as those that she made beforehand.
At the time when the unnamed victim exited the master bedroom, the Defendant testifies that she made the decision to go to the garage. In order to do this, she had get past her husband, of whom she claims to be in mortal fear. The judges point is that at this time, the Defendant also could have chosen to exit the building by either the front or back door, which were unobstructed. Making the willful decision to take an exit obstructed by a man whom she says intended to cause her death or serious physical harm at a time when other avenues of escape were open to her suggested to the judge that her fear was overstated. If she wasn't too afraid to go near him in order to get to her car, why did she feel that she had no choice but to fire at or near her husband once she had reentered the house after retrieving her weapon?
To bring it back to the language of your analogy: consider that you were yelling at a woman that you were going to kill her. She had at least one unobstructed avenue of retreat available to her, but rather than taking this avenue, she walks past you within arm's reach to retrieve a can of mace from her purse behind you. Then she turns and maces you in the face because she worries that if you'll cause her serious injury if you get too close.
Would that constitute self defense?
I dont know, could she fear for her life enough that she thinks that without a weapon and some pro-active self defense you will chase down and harm her?
I'm also unsure about if she had a car in the garage at the time or not, or if she was just going to retrieve a weapon registered to her regardless before she vacated the premises (I wouldnt want to leave a firearm registered to myself with an abusive and threatening ex, I dont need some police ruling me a firearm suicide when there is no GSR within 50 feet of me).
MWO: Adamski
She had parked her car in the garage and closed the garage door herself. It's on page three.
If I'd been chasing her down the street, then yes, I could see where she would think that in order to escape, she would have to incapacitate me first - or at least present me with the threat of incapacitation.
Because any escape route that's unobstructed to her is unobstructed to me as well. And if I'd demonstrated physical superiority, then it's not much of a stretch to think I would chase and eventually overtake her.
Beyond all this is the fact that under SYG, she still has no duty to retreat - whether by driving out the garage, running out the front door, or spider-climbing up the chimney.
The judge seems to be saying that anyone who "stands their ground" is, by definition of having stood their ground, not afraid of death/grievous bodily harm. Because anyone who was really afraid would run away, and must do so in order to prove their fear.
See, here's the problem: you are explaining why she makes the decision to retrieve the mace and conflating that with the decision to use the mace. We can stipulate that when she made the first decision, she might have feared that you were going cause her physical harm if you gained the opportunity after successfully chasing her down. However, once she's retrieved the mace, she still has to demonstrate why she was still possessed of a reasonable fear that you were going to do such harm if you got the opportunity, and her argument is undermined by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to cause her physical harm even when you actually had such an opportunity.
It's absolutely true that in Florida, our hypothetical damsel would not have any duty to retreat, but in the event that she uses force and is subsequently charged, she still has a burden to demonstrate a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. A judge is perfectly within her right to ask why, if it had become apparent that you weren't actually escalating to violence, she didn't walk away. Or call the police. Or tell you to fuck off and wait for you to leave. Or wait until it was apparent that you actually were going to escalate.
This makes sense. This also goes to the previous arguments about "lulz trayvon martin stood his ground even if he swung first." Absent actual force or threat of force, Martin would have had zero right to initiate violence against Zimmerman, even if he were being followed, and even if he found that threatening. It takes an imminent threat of physical violence to justify physical force. Absent that, it's just assault and Zimmerman can defend himself from it.
But then he has to show a reasonable belief both that he was in danger of great bodily harm (easy, but not a given) and that deadly force was necessary to end that (harder).
All of this even under the current laws. The law in Florida is not, as we're seeing here, a free pass to kill people. Not unless you run into a lazy prosecutor. Or perhaps incompetent police, except that it seems as though the police were backing charges to begin with so whatevs.
Brain Epp was a contractor with a history of being threatening and beligerent towards his clients. McNeil and his family decided to close on their new home early just so they could fire Epp and finish the work some other way. After he had been fired, Epp showed up on the property anyway trying to finish the job. When McNeil's teenage son asked him to leave, Epp threatened him with a knife. Son calls McNeil, who races home while calling 911. Tells 911 to get police their fast, because he's about to "whoop his ass." McNeil gets to his driveway, pulls a gun out of his glove, loads it, and steps out. Epp comes at him with his hand in his jacket. McNeil fires a warning shot into the ground and tells him "back up, I am not playing with you." Epp continues at him with his hand in his jacket, and gets a deadly bullet in his ugly face. All verified by a witness across the street.
For a year McNeil was left alone, but after several anonymous pleas to the DA, he was eventually charged and found guilty. The determining factors seem to be that 1) McNeil told 911 he intended to harm Epp, 2) McNeil took the time to retrieve and load his gun, and 3) McNeil told police that Epp came at him with a knife, but the knife was still closed and clipped inside Epps pocket when his body was claimed.
Guess who's white and who's black? Zimmerman was arrested a lot faster than McNeil was, at least. But I kinda feel bad for McNeil. What's the point of self-defense and castle and SYG? If a man is on your property illegally, has a history of aggressiveness towards your fmaily and other familes, has been asked repeatedly to leave, threatened your kid with a knife, comes at you with a hand in his pocket, and ignores a warning shot... I'm not a big supporter of carry or vigilantism but hell McNeil should have gotten a medal for shooting Epp, not a prison sentence.
Castle Doctrine is a common law rule that inside your home there is no duty to retreat.
Some states have extended that to the curtilage of your home but that is based on statute.
You still have to meet the common law requirements of self-defense.
There must be both an actual and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and in addition the person pleading self defense cannot be the aggressor.
The facts you listed point to McNeil being the aggressor.
1. Telling the police to come because he is going to harm Epp
2. Taking time to get his gun
3. Injecting deadly force into the confrontation by brandishing the gun and firing it.
4. The imminent threat of great bodily harm or death from Epp was not present.
He got convicted because he didn't meet the elements of self-defense.
The point of doctrines like Castle and SYG is allow people to defend themselves without having to justify whether escape was possible without putting themselves in danger.
When some of my friends found out I was going for my Montana CCW, they told me it was a waste of time, and I should just go get the Utah one instead, cause it's so much easier to get, and it works in Montana anyways. I told them I don't want some shitty Utah CCW, I'm a Montanan, and life long shooter, and if I can't get a proper CCW, then I don't deserve one.
The only thing that bothers me is Washington state doesn't honor Montana CCW, where it does honor Utah, and I go to WA at least a few times a year.
Alexander fired when Gray advanced on her.
That advance was following a death threat made on that same night.
So a death threat + advancing on Alexander != imminent threat of physical harm?
At this point, I'm not sure what would constitute an imminent threat, short of the point where Gray actually begins to wrap his hands around Alexander's neck. I mean, by the judge's logic, our hypothetical damsel would have no reason to think she was in imminent danger of physical harm simply because I'm yelling "I'm gonna kill you!" while running after her (ie, death threat + physical advance on the subject of the threat).
note: Gray also admits that even with the warning shot, the only reason he retreated was the presence of the children. If not for the children, he would have continued his advance - and attacked Alexander - even with the warning shot fired.
In this case apparently a jury agreed that the defendants actions suggested the context was not that serious.
Greatly disagree with (3). The knife was deadly force, so McNeil didn't inject deadly force into the confrontation. And he took the time to get his gun because a man with a knife was on his property, and had threatened his family with deadly force. Lastly, a man walking toward you with a knife is definitely an imminent threat of great bodily harm. With a hand in a pocket, he can't tell if the knife is open or closed. And you'd think the police would be familiar with the threat posed by a man with a knife, given how often they point to Tueller Drills when justifying their own force.
Basically only (1) is really a strike against him.
At the same time, I'm not sure how advancing on somebody who is holding a deadly weapon does not imply a credible threat of great bodily harm, especially given the previous verbalized threats. There's no water pelting here.
Though really, it's arguable at that point that Gray's threat of force (by brandishing the gun) was unlawful (the threat from him was no longer imminent) and thus he was actually approaching her...in self-defense? Obviously retreat isn't necessarily a viable solution when bullets are involved.
Also there seems to be an implication of collusion between the defendant and her husband about what they are going to say during their deposition.
Can you cite a legal precedent for this, please? Cause you're missing some context here. An armed man hunting another person through a residential area at night is a threat that can be confronted physically. Article 1 of Florida's SYG specifically protects this.
So we're assuming now that Zimmerman brandished the firearm prior to the assault (note we are still talking about a hypothetical...though I think this is unlikely in real life as well)?
Because aside from that, no he was not an imminent threat. You don't get to use a gun you did not know about at the time as justification for your assault on somebody.
EDIT: Also, can you cite a legal precedent for the difference between "following" and "hunting?"
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
- taken from wikipedia
So by being followed you can reasonably believe that you need to use force to protect against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force? I don't think that it is reasonable to assume imminent use of unlawful force just because someone is following you.
Do you think that it is reasonable to be able to assault people that are following you?
Actually, he was quoting me from my earlier remarks on the case with Gray. She was armed (and the other party was not), but the principle is similar. It seems it was determined that she initiated the use of force absent an actual imminent threat, or at least an imminent threat of great bodily harm.
I was relating it back to the "even if" scenarios regarding Martin, where "even if" Martin did jump Zimmerman, it was somehow self-defense. Except that absent Zimmerman actually brandishing the weapon, you'd have a hard time showing that Zimmerman posed an imminent threat of harm to justify the use of physical force.
It all goes back to what exactly an "imminent threat" is.
EDIT: Or maybe it's "threat of imminent harm" that I'm looking for.
At night? Through alley ways?
Would you be asking this question to a woman?
He can frame it how he wants. He still left his vehicle, went searching for Martin, and Martin ended up dead.
When considering use of force minor details can make a difference. If you change the scenario enough I may come to a different conclusion. For the most part though simply having someone follow you should not be justification for you to assault them.
Your use of the word hunting implies that Zimmerman was specifically searching for Martin in order to shoot him. I don't think that this is a likely intent based on what we know. I think the following are more likely.
Zimmerman followed to:
Keep Martin in sight, so that he could tell the police where he was when they got there.
Approach Martin himself, and ask him what he was doing there, and see if he had any business being in the gated community.
Do a citizens arrest on Martin, and hold him until the police come.
None of these are any of Zimmerman's responsibility, nor can you give me a reasonable argument that Zimmerman held any authority over Martin to even make that his responsibility. Further, there is no reasonable expectation on Martin's behalf to consent or respond to Zimmerman's demands, suspicions, or questions.
Martin was a legal resident of the exact same neighborhood Zimmerman was living in and had every right to be walking through it.
Well, the context here is that the person yelling "I'm gonna kill you":
- is not a friend, but rather someone you have an antagonistic relationship with.
- has beaten you on multiple occasions before, including putting you in the hospital.
- has multiple arrests for beating other people.
- has made death threats against you before.
- has told you that he knows people who would kill you on his behalf.
Context is important, and in this case was decidedly not the context of a water balloon fight.
It wasn't a jury decision, in this case it was a judge who ruled that SYG would not be allowed as a defense.
Gray (the victim) himself said that the garage door wasn't working properly on the night in question.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89762872/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition
That's about the only explanation left for the judge's ruling: that both witnesses to the incident - victim and defendant - were lying
And, I guess, that the judge could somehow divine the truth of what actually happened that night, based on the evidence of... __________?
I know there are cases all the time of wife-beating, where the wife later recants her story. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of any of those cases resulting in a judge saying "Well, the victim is obviously lying under oath, but I know what really happened!"
While it was not Zimmerman's "job" to do any of the things listed, only the citizens arrest would be doing something illegal. Anyone can walk up a stranger in their neighborhood and ask, "what are you doing here?" The person you are asking can basically give you the finger and tell you to go to hell. Just because you don't have the authority to get an answer doesn't mean that you can't ask.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/new-account-zimmerman-told-cops-trayvon-s-last-words-were-okay-you-got-it.html
Impressions:
- This is the first I've heard of Martin turning on his own accord, after being shot, to fall face-down on the ground. Rather than the more naturally assumed scenario of Martin slumping forward onto Zimmerman when shot (unlike in movies, getting shot does not propel the victim backwards as if hit by a car - especially with a 9mm).
For Martin to turn around after being shot would seem to imply that there was some distance between he and Zimmerman. If Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the time of the shot, I would think his torso would want to align with his waist. And if Martin was straddling Zimmerman, then Martin's waist would have been aligned so that his torso fell on top of Zimmerman.
Maybe I'm over-thinking it too much (admittedly, I've never been shot) and when a person gets shot they just crumple into whatever contorted position gravity dictates, like ragdoll physics in a video game. But according to this account, Martin still had the wherewithal to say "Okay, you got it" twice before collapsing.
- This is also the first I've heard of Zimmerman lunging at Martin post-shot.
- Finally, the previous accounts of a hypothetical Zimmerman self-defense talked about Martin reaching for Zimmerman's gun. This just says Martin noticed Zimmerman's gun. There's a HUGE difference between noticing a gun and reaching for it. Tell a cop "Nice gun," and he'll say "Thanks". Reach for the cop's gun, and you're in for a very unpleasant time.
Only the third would give Martin a legal right to use physical force against Zimmerman.
It's my understanding that they don't necessarily just crumple until the blood loss brings on shock and eventual death (or unless you hit something like the central nervous system or heart). Until then, they can absolutely continue moving, fighting, etc. That somebody could and would move on their own for several seconds after a gunshot is not at all odd to me.
Noticing a gun of somebody you pass on the street and noticing the gun of somebody you are locked in a physical struggle with are two different things too, though. You don't really want to wait until "noticing" goes to "reaching for" in a fight, because at that point your likelihood of death just went up about a thousandfold.
Kinda reaches back to the reason that you need only be threatened with imminent GBH and not imminent death to use deadly force...because if you wait for imminent death, you are probably going to die.