Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

That certainly plays into it for me, too. I understand trying to get out of consequences, it's human nature, but it's not something that makes people say "Oh, yeah, he's a stand up guy, I trust him."

Trophy Husband wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

I hadn't seen this stated before. Do you have a link I can check out?

Believe Tanglebones is referring to the autopsy report, which revealed a single abrasion, no more than a quarter inch long, on his ring finger. (Full report here as a PDF).

This is not consistent with the kind of beatdown Zimmerman has described.

The funeral director described Trayvon's body as "pristine", and said there were no scrapes, bruises, or other injuries that required covering up.

This is also not consistent with the kind of beatdown Zimmerman has described.

Zimmerman also has a history of violence, and was caught lying to the judge in his case.

Again, it's possible that Zimmerman is trying to tell the truth to the best of his ability here - but Zimmerman doesn't come across as terribly trustworthy, he killed the only other eyewitness, and the autopsy results don't line up with his story. The shoddy police work by the Sanford PD the night of the shooting may mean we never know the actual sequence of events that night, but even in Zimmerman's version of events he pursued a teenager who was armed with nothing stronger than a pack of Skittles, ignored the dispatcher telling him to cease pursuit, and left his vehicle (with a gun) to chase down the teen on foot.

There was also the issue of supposed wounds that are not visible at all in police station footage the night of the incident.

And we've come full circle. Trial is set for June 10th. That seems like an awful long time. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Show me ONE piece of evidence that says Martin was not defending himself.

The party where he was sitting on Zimmerman and continuing to deal damage (a shown in the picture that the prosecution finally released to the defense).

Farscry wrote:

I don't recall that. If true, then yes, unfortunately I can concede that at that point Zimmerman might have had call to fear serious injury.

It also makes the law even more ridiculous and easily abused than I realized.

Why shouldn't one be allowed to use a weapon to prevent death or serious injury? What's so ridiculous about not allowing someone to kill or seriously injure you?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

At almost every point until the physical confrontation began, Zimmerman had reasonable alternative choices that would not have led to any violence at all. Even in his own account, Zimmerman repeatedly chose a path of escalation and conflict - including ignoring the direction from the police dispatcher to cease his pursuit.

In your opinion, does that give Martin the right to initiate a physical conflict and continue past the point of his opponent being apparently defenseless? If I think you're following me, does that give me the right to beat you down?

As for the operator, "you don't have to do that" is hardly concrete direction.

Maq wrote:

At what point when you're being pursued by an unknown armed man are you the one crossing lines?

So now Martin had x-ray vision?

Maq wrote:

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

Since when does someone following a person or saying something make it legal for the other party to start a physical confrontation?

Robear wrote:

Even allowing for Zimmerman's state of mind, he had the upper hand even after he was struck, because he was armed and his opponent was not. Why was the right response not "display the weapon and back off"?

I'm confused, are you saying that Zimmerman should have illegally brandished his weapon before the physical confrontation or that he should have simply wanted the gun around while Martin was on top of him and hoped that he'd win the eventual struggle over the weapon.

Robear wrote:

That's what he'll have to explain to the jury or judge. I don't think he'll be able to do that successfully.

I suspect they'll draw on the multitude of police shootings to show that it would be reasonable for one to fire on a seemingly unarmed assailant. After all, if a trained police officer would be in fear for his life then it's reasonable to say that Zimmerman may have been in equal fear.

SixteenBlue wrote:

There was also the issue of supposed wounds that are not visible at all in police station footage the night of the incident.

Since when? Or are you referring to the original footage where ABC claimed they couldn't see the injuries until they "re-digitized" the video?

Where is the evidence Martin initiated the conflict? You keep saying that.

Cannibal_Crowley wrote:

Robear wrote:

Even allowing for Zimmerman's state of mind, he had the upper hand even after he was struck, because he was armed and his opponent was not. Why was the right response not "display the weapon and back off"?

I'm confused, are you saying that Zimmerman should have illegally brandished his weapon before the physical confrontation or that he should have simply wanted the gun around while Martin was on top of him and hoped that he'd win the eventual struggle over the weapon.

Now I'm confused. How would pulling the gun when he's in fear for his life be "illegally brandishing"? There are a series of things he can do *before* he uses the weapon. If he was being threatened or charged, he'd have been perfectly justified in drawing his weapon. Or even just yelling that he *has* one. But he didn't. As I pointed out, he had a whole range of decision points *before* he was assaulted which he choose poorly each time. I note you don't address those.

Robear wrote:

That's what he'll have to explain to the jury or judge. I don't think he'll be able to do that successfully.

I suspect they'll draw on the multitude of police shootings to show that it would be reasonable for one to fire on a seemingly unarmed assailant. After all, if a trained police officer would be in fear for his life then it's reasonable to say that Zimmerman may have been in equal fear.

You implied before that you felt he would not be able to draw on Martin *before* the assault; now you're okay with him shooting a "seemingly unarmed assailant"? If he was that afraid of Martin, why did he go after him, rather than drawing the gun to take control of the situation? Or even just go back to his vehicle and call the police again? Instead, he *hunted* Martin, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher. Is that the action of a man fearful for his life? It's not. He was not afraid until he was allegedly attacked, and at that point the gun was simply produced and used. It was a completely avoidable killing.

And you're drawing multiple conclusions here, including the fact that a policeman would have been assumed to be armed, trained and experienced in judging the seriousness of a situation, and would have to escalate in steps, clearly delineated by law. It's not the same situation. If Martin attacked as Zimmerman described, he was not aware that Zimmerman was armed. Don't you think that would have changed his actions?

The question hinges on why Zimmerman allowed the situation to escalate when he could have de-escalated (and was advised to) many times. Cannibal, do you feel he used good judgement in the entire situation? That at no time did he have some other reasonable course of action? That he used his deadly force to good effect, and prevented an even worse outcome? That he had *no* non-lethal alternatives?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Where is the evidence Martin initiated the conflict? You keep saying that.

So far there is Zimmerman's testimony backed up by a voice stress test. Do you have any evidence which shows that Zimmerman initiated the physical conflict?

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Maq wrote:

At what point when you're being pursued by an unknown armed man are you the one crossing lines?

So now Martin had x-ray vision?

Yes, please overlook the tiny, insignificant fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

I imagine that if Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, he would have done everything possible to flee. And, knowing what we know about Zimmerman's views of blacks in his neighborhood, he very likely would have interpreted said flight as an admission of guilt and chased even harder.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Since when does someone following a person or saying something make it legal for the other party to start a physical confrontation?

I believe that would be the same Stand Your Ground law Zimmerman's trying to hide behind. I know I would feel threatened if someone was chasing after me.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

At almost every point until the physical confrontation began, Zimmerman had reasonable alternative choices that would not have led to any violence at all. Even in his own account, Zimmerman repeatedly chose a path of escalation and conflict - including ignoring the direction from the police dispatcher to cease his pursuit.

In your opinion, does that give Martin the right to initiate a physical conflict and continue past the point of his opponent being apparently defenseless? If I think you're following me, does that give me the right to beat you down?

As for the operator, "you don't have to do that" is hardly concrete direction.

I disagree about whether it's a concrete direction, though I'd agree it's not an order. That's one of many points during the sequence of events when Zimmerman could have made a different decision and defused the situation entirely, though.

With regard to the physical conflict - I'd be interested in what evidence you've seen that Martin initiated any element of the sequence of events that led to his death. As far as I'm aware, the only testimony that Martin confronted Zimmerman at all is from Zimmerman himself, who (as mentioned previously) has shown a willingness to lie to the judicial system merely when his perceived financial interests are at stake - I'm not sure he would be more likely to find a conscience when his freedom is on the line. That, coupled with the fact that the autopsy of Martin does not jibe with Zimmerman's account of the fight, doesn't make me think his version of events is likely to be truthful. All the most-recent photo shows is that Martin landed at least one good punch. It sheds no light onto the circumstances when that punch (or punches) were thrown. It's at least as plausible to assume that Martin swung at Zimmerman after being threatened with the gun as it is to assume that Martin initiated the physical conflict and continued even after Zimmerman could not reasonably be considered a threat.

As I've repeatedly acknowledged, it's possible that Zimmerman is being honest here - I think it's extremely unlikely, and I'm not sure where I'd come down on the reasonable doubt question based on the evidence so far, but I think it's inexcusable that the Sanford PD did such a shoddy job that night that we may never have an accurate picture of what happened.

In terms of whether Martin was justified to punch Zimmerman? I don't think we have enough evidence to really know for sure, but I would not be surprised if Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law would excuse simple assault if you were chased through a neighborhood in a vehicle and on foot by a stranger, and feared they intended to attack you.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I don't recall that. If true, then yes, unfortunately I can concede that at that point Zimmerman might have had call to fear serious injury.

It also makes the law even more ridiculous and easily abused than I realized.

Why shouldn't one be allowed to use a weapon to prevent death or serious injury? What's so ridiculous about not allowing someone to kill or seriously injure you?

Congratulations! You've successfully dug through all my posts up to this point to once again pull a single quote out of context. Tell you what, you actually put some real effort into making a substantial response to me, and you might actually convince me of... something, whatever it is you're trying to say. 'Cause if you know my P&C posting history, I actually do change my mind when someone makes a good argument backed up with real data -- something I've tried to provide to back up my points, and which you have utterly failed to do in any of your responses to me.

Good day, sir.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

Well, that's because you're moving the goalposts from what you were originally arguing, at least with me. If you want to argue "there's no way Zimmerman winds up in fear for his life" then fine. But remember you started this by saying if you're arguing he was right to shoot, he was right to get out of the car in the first place. That's a different argument. Two people can agree that he was wrong to get out of the car, but disagree that he was wrong to shoot, and their disagreement can be a matter of facts, not logic. That's different from what you were originally arguing.

No. My objection is the idea that Martin has escalated a damn thing. We have the evidence of the phone call to his girlfriend. He knew he was being followed and was scared. What moderate position has Zimmerman taken that Martin has escalated once he gets out of his car carrying a gun? Like I said, anything Martin does from that point doesn't escalate sh*t because Zimmerman went looking for a fight with a child while carrying a gun. The conflict has escalated once he takes that step. All anyone can do from that point is de-escalate it and that's not on Martin.

Maq wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

Well, that's because you're moving the goalposts from what you were originally arguing, at least with me. If you want to argue "there's no way Zimmerman winds up in fear for his life" then fine. But remember you started this by saying if you're arguing he was right to shoot, he was right to get out of the car in the first place. That's a different argument. Two people can agree that he was wrong to get out of the car, but disagree that he was wrong to shoot, and their disagreement can be a matter of facts, not logic. That's different from what you were originally arguing.

No. My objection is the idea that Martin has escalated a damn thing. We have the evidence of the phone call to his girlfriend. He knew he was being followed and was scared. What moderate position has Zimmerman taken that Martin has escalated once he gets out of his car carrying a gun? Like I said, anything Martin does from that point doesn't escalate sh*t because Zimmerman went looking for a fight with a child while carrying a gun. The conflict has escalated once he takes that step. All anyone can do from that point is de-escalate it and that's not on Martin.

There's still room to escalate from carrying a gun to pulling a gun. Is this where the disconnect is, that you see Zimmerman as trying to hunt down Martin, waiting only for a chance to shoot him? What I'm envisioning is a Zimmerman too much of a coward to do anything like that.

It's possible for two people to disagree because they have differing opinions on what kind of low life this Zimmerman is. Therefore, I think it's possible for people to disagree on this issue without anyone throwing around accusations of being on Zimmerman's 'side'.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Maq wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

Well, that's because you're moving the goalposts from what you were originally arguing, at least with me. If you want to argue "there's no way Zimmerman winds up in fear for his life" then fine. But remember you started this by saying if you're arguing he was right to shoot, he was right to get out of the car in the first place. That's a different argument. Two people can agree that he was wrong to get out of the car, but disagree that he was wrong to shoot, and their disagreement can be a matter of facts, not logic. That's different from what you were originally arguing.

No. My objection is the idea that Martin has escalated a damn thing. We have the evidence of the phone call to his girlfriend. He knew he was being followed and was scared. What moderate position has Zimmerman taken that Martin has escalated once he gets out of his car carrying a gun? Like I said, anything Martin does from that point doesn't escalate sh*t because Zimmerman went looking for a fight with a child while carrying a gun. The conflict has escalated once he takes that step. All anyone can do from that point is de-escalate it and that's not on Martin.

There's still room to escalate from carrying a gun to pulling a gun. Is this where the disconnect is, that you see Zimmerman as trying to hunt down Martin, waiting only for a chance to shoot him? What I'm envisioning is a Zimmerman too much of a coward to do anything like that.

It's possible for two people to disagree because they have differing opinions on what kind of low life this Zimmerman is. Therefore, I think it's possible for people to disagree on this issue without anyone throwing around accusations of being on Zimmerman's 'side'.

Fair enough. I just have never lived anywhere where guns are carried by anyone but law enforcement or criminals and don't see how someone carries a weapon without the intent to use it. Especially if it's a firearm. I don't see him as hunting him down but I do believe without the gun in his hand he doesn't pursue and apprehend an unknown black male, especially if he's as big a coward as you envision. Leaving the car holding the gun, to me, defines the parameters. I don't draw the distinction between whether it's holstered or not (which, by the way, is entirely conjectural. From the available facts he could well have had the gun drawn as he pursued) and I don't think anything Martin is culpable in any violence that follows.

Maq wrote:

I don't draw the distinction between whether it's holstered or not (which, by the way, is entirely conjectural. From the available facts he could well have had the gun drawn as he pursued) and I don't think anything Martin is culpable in any violence that follows.

Having lived where open carry was legal, I do make a distinction between whether Zimmerman was stalking Martin with his weapon holstered, or whether he was hunting down Martin with his gun drawn.

And there's the disconnect that you and I are having at least. If Zimmerman did not have the firearm drawn, and did not instigate actual violence, then yes, if Martin threw the first punch then he escalated the confrontation from "threatened" to "violent".

Look, I completely get where you're coming from, and the emotional side of me actually entirely agrees with you. But from a raw empirical standpoint, if someone is following you and is behaving in a threatening manner, but is not actually wielding a weapon and hasn't laid a hand on you, then if you attack the other person physically it is you who escalated things to a physical altercation.

One of the very frustrating elements of this case is that we have no eyewitnesses or footage of the proceedings, so we don't know any of this. You are conjecturing just as much as someone who assumes things progressed differently. All I've said regarding any guilt on Martin's part is that, depending on precisely how things played out, Martin may have been responsible for escalating the confrontation into physical violence without justification (keeping in mind that I dislike violence enough that my bar for what counts as justification is probably higher than most people, and certainly higher than Florida's ridiculously messy and subjective law).

CannibalCrowley wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Where is the evidence Martin initiated the conflict? You keep saying that.

So far there is Zimmerman's testimony backed up by a voice stress test. Do you have any evidence which shows that Zimmerman initiated the physical conflict?

Missed this earlier. In addition to the fact that Zimmerman's already shown a willingness to lie to the court making him a problematic witness, voice stress tests are inadmissible in court. Why? Because they're less reliable than polygraphs, which are also inadmissible in most jurisdictions. In fact, a National Institute of Justice study found that VSAs were "no better than flipping a coin".

And let's be real, everyone says they didn't do it. If Martin were alive, he'd put all the blame on Zimmerman and that wouldn't affect my opinion either.

Farscry wrote:
Maq wrote:

I don't draw the distinction between whether it's holstered or not (which, by the way, is entirely conjectural. From the available facts he could well have had the gun drawn as he pursued) and I don't think anything Martin is culpable in any violence that follows.

Look, I completely get where you're coming from, and the emotional side of me actually entirely agrees with you. But from a raw empirical standpoint, if someone is following you and is behaving in a threatening manner, but is not actually wielding a weapon and hasn't laid a hand on you, then if you attack the other person physically it is you who escalated things to a physical altercation.

Actually if I recall the Florida statute that was posted upthread, if someone is behaving in a threatening manner or puts you in reasonable fear of imminent harm you're pretty much covered by stand your ground, so by Florida law he hasn't escalated anything because imminent violence is essentially assumed. Martin knew he was being pursued, as he said as much on the phone, so he's already aware of a potential threat to his person. Now with that in mind, it remains Zimmerman who instigated that situation as he's the one who pursued Martin.

Maq wrote:

Actually if I recall the Florida statute that was posted upthread, if someone is behaving in a threatening manner or puts you in reasonable fear of imminent harm you're pretty much covered by stand your ground, so by Florida law he hasn't escalated anything because imminent violence is essentially assumed. Martin knew he was being pursued, as he said as much on the phone, so he's already aware of a potential threat to his person. Now with that in mind, it remains Zimmerman who instigated that situation as he's the one who pursued Martin.

I get what your saying, and again I agree with you philosophically. For the legal question, I'm going to reiterate my point about standard laws (will get to the Florida law in a minute): in most jurisdictions, there are some fairly conservative requirements you must meet in order to have justified the use of violence and claim it was in self-defense.

A good summary reading is here.

As you've noted, Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin and the assumed threatening standoff that resulted would meet the requirements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Zimmerman was more physically imposing, older, and exhibiting threatening behavior toward Martin (no one contests these things). Martin had every reason to feel threatened.

Where we run into potential issues is the fourth requirement, Preclusion:

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

We only have Zimmerman's word to go off of, so we do not actually know whether he caught up to Martin and put him into a position where Martin felt cornered, and thus had no other safe option than to throw the first punch (if he was the one to initiate a physical altercation, which we also still don't have proof of either way); or whether Martin got pissed off (quite understandably) about Zimmerman pursuing him and decided to initiate the actual confrontation (this is Zimmerman's claim, but we only have his word to go off of on this).

So by the principle of Preclusion, if the latter scenario is the case, then by the standards of most jurisdictions in the US, Martin was not justified in escalating to physical violence.

Also, by these principles, Zimmerman would not have been jusified in shooting Martin out of "self-defense", regardless of how the conflict was initiated, because given his physical superiority over Martin, he did not need to escalate the conflict from non-lethal force to lethal force.

STAND YOUR GROUND

Here we get to the problem with Florida's Stand Your Ground law (and they're not alone; I did some checking and this is more widespread than I realized, to my great disappointment. Even my current homestate of Iowa has a form of Castle Doctrine, and it's written too vaguely), and why it makes this whole case even messier than it would be if the law were limited to Castle Doctrine.

The Florida law relies too much upon generalities:

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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 provides further details regarding specific circumstances, including the standard elements of Castle Doctrine. None of them are any more relevant to this case than option (1) in this quote.

The biggest problems are that "reasonably" is never sufficiently defined, nor is "great bodily harm." As a result, depending on the circumstances I listed above, Martin may have "reasonably" believed that physical force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. Likewise, again only because these generalized terms are undefined, one could argue that depending on the circumstances, at the point when Zimmerman fired the gun, he may have "reasonably" believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent "great bodily harm."

And again, I do not believe the latter at all, and I'm dubious about the former. But the law is so poorly written that depending on how much rules lawyering goes on, it could be made to apply.

Tanglebones wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

Sorry for the late reply, but this got me thinking. People keep stating this as though it's a fact when it seems the opposite is true:

One witness said a police investigator twice declined her offer to show him "the close and unobstructed vantage point from a partly opened bedroom window where she had watched and heard the struggle." The witness said the detective taped part of her account.

Credit to Dimmerswitch for the link.
Given at least one witness to the fight, hopefully we'll get a clearer picture of the argument and fight that led to the shooting.

Trophy Husband wrote:

Sorry for the late reply, but this got me thinking. People keep stating this as though it's a fact when it seems the opposite is true:

One witness said a police investigator twice declined her offer to show him "the close and unobstructed vantage point from a partly opened bedroom window where she had watched and heard the struggle." The witness said the detective taped part of her account.

Credit to Dimmerswitch for the link.
Given at least one witness to the fight, hopefully we'll get a clearer picture of the argument and fight that led to the shooting.

I hope so too. I knew there were witnesses who heard things, and perhaps saw the very tail end, but I haven't previously read that there was a witness who saw and heard the whole thing from start to finish.

Forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony are actually different things, and the forensic evidence (particularly the autopsy of Trayvon Martin) is at odds with Zimmerman's version of events.

Eyewitness testimony was also discussed in-thread a while back. The folks who police did speak with have a fairly disparate set of accounts of what they witnessed. The fact that a prospective witness was not properly interviewed by the Sanford PD is disappointing, but sadly not surprising.

Here's part of the problem with the witnesses... I see many accounts using initial statements. There are witnesses who say that Martin was on top, beating Zimmerman, and witnesses who say the opposite. Some said Martin chased Zimmerman, others the other way around. One witness only saw one person running. One witness spoke with Zimmerman and said he treated the shooting like "no big deal". And so forth. It's a tangle.

Here's a link to activity in the trial today.

Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

"He's coming right at us!"

Malor wrote:
Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

"He's coming right at us!"

I'm not sure what to make of this thread anymore. There's a lot of seemingly intentional misreading going on.

I suppose this ought to be the subject of a different thread entirely, but can some of our resident legal experts clarify for me what constitutes deadly force? I have a personal interest in this partially because I am concerned that my years of training in particular martial arts for which juries don't have a huge sense of humor sort of put me in legal jeopardy should I ever get into a physical altercation. I am generally conflict averse anyway, but the suspicion that I am legally "constantly armed" makes me even more so.

On a more on-topic note, I find that folks who spend years in similar martial arts training tend to be similarly conflict averse, whereas holster sniffing gravel pit commandos tend to seek it out, get their asses kicked, and end up shooting folks out of panic in a misguided notion of "self defense".

Paleocon wrote:

I suppose this ought to be the subject of a different thread entirely, but can some of our resident legal experts clarify for me what constitutes deadly force? I have a personal interest in this partially because I am concerned that my years of training in particular martial arts for which juries don't have a huge sense of humor sort of put me in legal jeopardy should I ever get into a physical altercation. I am generally conflict averse anyway, but the suspicion that I am legally "constantly armed" makes me even more so.

On a more on-topic note, I find that folks who spend years in similar martial arts training tend to be similarly conflict averse, whereas holster sniffing gravel pit commandos tend to seek it out, get their asses kicked, and end up shooting folks out of panic in a misguided notion of "self defense".

Just wondering, how many "holster sniffing gravel pit commandos" do you know, and can you give me a rough percentage of the ones that have "gotten their asses kicked and end up shooting folks"? I know Baltimore can be a tough place to live, but it sounds like you need to pick your friends a little more carefully.

Edit: you know what? Not worth it. Carry on with ...whatever this has become and I'll just wander back to the picture thread.

Thanks for the run-down, Fars.

If that's the case, suffice to say I'm aghast at a combination of laws that doesn't require you to back down from a fight if you're armed but can hold you culpable for being shot if you defend yourself against someone coming after you with a gun.

The hoops one has to jump through to find a way in which one can justify Zimmerman killing a boy are so contortionate to my mind that it makes me a little nauseous to think about them.