tshile Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Depending on the state, I suppose, there is a difference. If you did not contribute to the escalation of the altercation, you are in that "stand your ground" zone of self-defense. But then if you do contribute to the escalation, such as getting into a shouting match or shove person, then you're into a new ground where you have the duty to retreat and attempt to de-escalate the situation. However, if such attempts fail or are impossible, you have not forfeit your right to life and are in a situation of justifiable homicide. The difference is the duty to retreat/de-escalate the situation. In the Zimmerman case, being pinned and having his head slammed into the pavement would put him in the position where even if he has the duty to retreat, he cannot and pulling a gun is his last resort. this is where things get murky for me. i'm assuming you're using the VA laws (i linked above) because they're the same if not... if to be justifiable requires not having played a part in provoking the issue, and you provoked it, then it's not justifiable. if to be excused requires retreating, declaring peace, and being put in a place where they're still coming after you... and you didn't retreat or declare peace... then how are you either? you provoked, you didn't retreat , you didn't declare your desire for peace. you willingly got in a fight and it got out of hand. some would say that if you're pinned on the ground you can't retreat... i would say - that's not what the law says. you didn't retreat, you didn't declare your desire for peace, and you contributed in escalating the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 In the Zimmerman case, being pinned and having his head slammed into the pavement would put him in the position where even if he has the duty to retreat, he cannot and pulling a gun is his last resort. As Sacase said, "This doesn't pass the smell test." How do you get to a gun when you are pinned and head is being slammed against the ground. Maybe it can be done. It just is hard to visualize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 As Sacase said, "This doesn't pass the smell test." How do you get to a gun when you are pinned and head is being slammed against the ground. Maybe it can be done. It just is hard to visualize.Depends on where he holsters his gun and how he was pinned. I picture him pinned in the typical mount position with a shoulder holster, in which case he can easily slip a hand to the breast where the gun is holstered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Depends on where he holsters his gun and how he was pinned. I picture him pinned in the typical mount position with a shoulder holster, in which case he can easily slip a hand to the breast where the gun is holstered. I don't believe he had a shoulder holster. I may be wrong, but I thought I recall him admitting the gun was under him while he was on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Didn't Zimmerman also state that he felt he was losing consciousness? So add that to being pinned down, head being bashed in etc etc....the story doesn't seem to add up. Everything about that night leading up to this point would suggest Zimmerman was the aggressor and one escalating the situation. Martin tried earlier to escape the situation, but Zimmerman tracked him down. I can see and buy that Martin perhaps turned the tables on Zimmerman in the course of the fight, but getting your butt kicked IMO is not reason enough to pull out a gun and shoot someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I don't believe he had a shoulder holster. I may be wrong, but I thought I recall him admitting the gun was under him while he was on the ground. I seem to remember this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I don't believe he had a shoulder holster. I may be wrong, but I thought I recall him admitting the gun was under him while he was on the ground. I seem to remember this too.Me as well. Just a forensics observation: if the gun was still in the back of his pants when M was on top of him, it would hurt tremendously, more than likely causing a very deep bruise or contusion. (I would also think that he would've been hurting the next day during his walk-through of the scene with police.) There was no mention of this with his list of "injuries". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Two questions for you. Why do you insist on using the term stalked? Why can't a person carry a concealed weapon and be peaceful? I use the term because he's not a police officer. He wasn't even part of an organized neighborhood watch team or program. His intent was not peaceful. He decided to go after a person who showed no implication of criminal activity. He was told to stay in his car by the real authoritarian representative but he pursued confrontation. There is no "peace" in that. At all. Wow. I can't understand what you don't understand about that. He was "some dude." He just "decided" to start roaming the neighborhood with his concealed weapon, "fighting crime." He was literally being the supposed people he was after. He was his own gang defending his "turf." It really is simple. Neighborhood Watch programs are organized by the neighborhood and have multiple participants to keep everything kosher. This wasn't kosher. It was a lone stalker with a gun. I'm not saying he intended to use it but he sure intended to have a confrontation in which he had that as an option in case he LOST. That night he saw a person walking. Okay? A PERSON... WALKING. What we think we know about Martin's past is irrelevant. That night he was walking. Not robbing, raping, or killing. NO CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED. Why is this SO hard for the vigilante lovers to swallow? If a crime was being committed, we have a totally different situation here. If someone else were on this "neighborhood watch" team, we have a totally different situation here. So he followed the person in his car. That's scary for a lone person walking. Then he got out and tracked the walking person down. This is dangerous behavior when you don't have any association with ANY law enforcement program and you're carrying a gun. I have no problem with him calling the police even if I think it was unnecessary. Judgement call but a premature one, IMO. I'll repeat though- no crime was being committed or even implicated. None. Nada. Zilch. This is plain-faced stalking. It just is, Sacase. One can put a "law enforcement" dress on it but it's not law enforcement in any way, shape or form. It was literally the same thing gangs do to protect their "turf." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 He was told to stay in his car by the real authoritarian representative I actually agree with your post, but this part right here irks me because it's one of those things you see so often and it's just not correct. 911 operators are not authority figures. you are not obligated, in any way, to follow their instructions. they have no authority. they are not an extension of the police force. *there may be states where they are, but i'm not aware of any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I actually agree with your post, but this part right here irks me because it's one of those things you see so often and it's just not correct. 911 operators are not authority figures. you are not obligated, in any way, to follow their instructions. they have no authority. they are not an extension of the police force. *there may be states where they are, but i'm not aware of any I get that but when you call 911, you don't get a police officer. You get representatives. If you claim to be a part of an organized community activity that aids law enforcement, you cooperate with their representatives. Especially when (God, I can't believe I have to repeat this) no crime was being implicated. However, I mainly stress that part of the night's events to illustrate GZ's frame of mind. He said "Nope. F it. I'm going after this guy." I haven't even mentioned that Zimmerman was rejected for police duty in the past. He'd already been deemed unfit for law enforcement, yet he's now "patrolling" his neighborhood with a weapon. Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 was he deemed unfit cause a little girl could whoop him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 was he deemed unfit cause a little girl could whoop him? No, this Texas girls are tough. Barely women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You must have a different definition of women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So, this is now just another Trayvon thread. Cool....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So, this is now just another Trayvon thread. Cool....... LBK with the Perspective. Thank you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 George Zimmerman assault care dropped; ex-girlfriend recants ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Authorities say they are dropping their aggravated assault case against George Zimmerman after his ex-girlfriend stopped cooperating with authorities. State Attorney Phil Archer said Friday that he wouldn't file a formal charge against Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader who was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin. The killing of the unarmed black teen touched off protests across the country. Zimmerman was arrested earlier this month after his ex-girlfriend told police officers he had thrown a wine bottle at her. She later recanted her story. It was Zimmerman's latest run-in with authorities since his acquittal in 2013. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7a0288c1928b44719d8f521a114679ed/george-zimmerman-assault-care-dropped-ex-girlfriend-recants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 stopped cooperating?....had she cooperated before aside from when the police pulled her over for a traffic violation? recant, decant .....what difference does it make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 shouldn't she be charged with filing a false police report then? why do they never enforce this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 shouldn't she be charged with filing a false police report then? why do they never enforce this? she never filed a report nor a complaint.....nor called the police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So he didn't fail to hit her with a thrown wine bottle? That what this was originally right, the thought that he had thrown but not hit her with a wine bottle? I'm still wondering how that's a real crime. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 she never filed a report nor a complaint.....nor called the police But she told the police he threw a bottle at her and that led to him being arrested, correct? Then charge her with false statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I really thought this would be the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 But she told the police he threw a bottle at her and that led to him being arrested, correct? Then charge her with false statements. fine by me, the law protects women to the point some accountability is in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 But she told the police he threw a bottle at her and that led to him being arrested, correct? Then charge her with false statements. Prove that her statement was false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 This is plain-faced stalking. It just is, Sacase. One can put a "law enforcement" dress on it but it's not law enforcement in any way, shape or form. It was literally the same thing gangs do to protect their "turf." Stalking requires the repeated following and harassing. You can want it to be stalking, but per the legal definition it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.