Lessons Learned From Mr. Zimmerman.

[Seeya]

Uhhh just applying a rare commodity, common sense.

You and I do not have the right to pursue someone and use our weapon to stop or detain them, only to use it only for defense.

It is the job/duty of LEO's to go looking for bad guys, that's why we have a sheriff's department, a city police dept, state police, etc.. That is why they have the authority of arrest. They are the ones to pursue the bg, stop his vehicle, detain them on the street, or enter their home to take them to jail, they are on the offense, and carry a firearm as part of those duties. They carry because they are on the offense against the bg, I carry to be on the defense because there are bg's.

The police have no duty to persue another or protect you. The weapon they carry is for their self defence. LEO's are private citizens authorized by our elected to investigate and make or not make arrests afterwards.

 

[BC1]

of course SYG is part of this case.
if there was a pre-trial hearing what you say is correct but zimmerman and his lawyers chose to forego the pretrial hearing and go right to trial. why? because he would have had to prove his case in the SYG hearing and different rules of evidence would apply and the hearing in the politically charged atmosphere probably would not have had a favorable outcome.

In layman's theory, yes it applies. But under the law there is a trial/case procedure law that governs the rules from arrest to lethal injection.

The stand-alone SYG defense is not being used. GZ is using self-defense as an "affirmative defense." SYG, should one file a motion for the hearing, must be addressed at a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not the charges apply in light of the situation. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if the statute applies. The only outcomes of a SYG hearing are either the charges are dropped or the case proceeds because SYG was not available as a defense. According to an interview with Mark Meara he determined that in order to request the hearing he would need to tip his hand on his case of self-defense and did not want to do that. Besides, everyone knows this thing was going to trial for all the wrong reasons. But SYG cannot be raised on it's face once the trial commences. There is a difference between affirmative defense and SYG. An affirmative defense can incorporate elements of SYG provisions through FL Statute 776 and this is available to GZ should he desire. Even those who waive the SYG hearing, or have a hearing that finds SYG did not apply are still entitled to raise an affirmative defense of self-defense. It's confusing as all hell and the primary discussion in our FL CCW class. We teach FL statutes 790 and 776 in that class using an attorney admitted to the FL bar. Even he gets stumped by the commonalities.

 

[BluesStringer]

in fla the castle doctrine extends to wherever it is that you are. this isn't worth a fight, but you do not know as much about the law here as you think you may

I'm not "fighting" with you, but the fact is, I am the only one to post the whole chapter so you could point out what I don't know, and you refused in favor of ambiguous, unsubstantiated claims that I still don't know what I'm talking about. Cite the code. That's a fair request when you're claiming that I don't understand the code. Or, alternatively, read BC1's post and you'll understand what I was saying. He's got it right, and in my opinion, you don't.

Blues

 

[apvbguy]

I'm not "fighting" with you, but the fact is, I am the only one to post the whole chapter so you could point out what I don't know, and you refused in favor of ambiguous, unsubstantiated claims that I still don't know what I'm talking about. Cite the code. That's a fair request when you're claiming that I don't understand the code. Or, alternatively, read BC1's post and you'll understand what I was saying. He's got it right, and in my opinion, you don't.

Blues

I'm not playing that game, I live in FLA, I carry in FLA, I know the laws in FLA. if you think my interpretation of the law is wrong it is on you to prove me wrong.

 

[apvbguy]

We teach FL statutes 790 and 776 in that class using an attorney admitted to the FL bar. Even he gets stumped by the commonalities.

then he sucks at what he is doing, as for zimmerman it was tactical to go to trial passing up the SYG hearing. I don't feel like explaining the thinking behind this, there is another thread where I touch upon their possible thinking. look for it

 

[Rhino]

He wasn't "lost in his own neighborhood" he was on the sidewalk in between buildings where there were no numbers to identify. Why can't people get this straight?

They don't want to let facts get in the way of their opinions.

 

[BC1]

then he sucks at what he is doing, as for zimmerman it was tactical to go to trial passing up the SYG hearing. I don't feel like explaining the thinking behind this, there is another thread where I touch upon their possible thinking. look for it

You need to contact Mark Meara an tell him he's doing it wrong. You need to call our guy and tell him he also doesn't know anything about FL law, despite passing the bar. Because, as you say, you live in FL.

This thing was never ending with a SYG hearing. Know how they say never say never? I'm saying never. His tactic was very smart an the proof is he's winning this case.

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm not playing that game, I live in FLA, I carry in FLA, I know the laws in FLA. if you think my interpretation of the law is wrong it is on you to prove me wrong.

You are a contrarian cuss, aren't you? I went way out of my way to make it clear that I wasn't even trying to challenge what you said, I just used your reply to educate the several people throughout these threads who ignore what the standard is that justifies the use of force in FL (and everywhere else in America that I'm aware of). That standard is the "reasonable belief" standard.

You acknowledged that I was correct on that point, but then challenged me on an unrelated assertion that I had "overstated" FL law because, according to you, FL law provides that all assaults are assumed to be deadly, apparently taking the "reasonable belief" standard completely out of the equation. You cited FL's (completely unrelated to this case) Castle Doctrine, as well as SYG laws as the basis for that assertion. I don't know how I can be correct that the "reasonable belief" standard is, indeed, the standard, while at the same time "overstating" the law that you then say I'm incorrect about, but there it is.

I replied with the entire Code section and stated, again correctly, that the "reasonable belief" standard runs throughout the entire code section covering justifiable use of deadly force, parts of which include the Castle Doctrine and SYG sections that you implied do not require any reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death being imminent. By linking to the code itself, and summarizing that which supports my side of the point in dispute, I have already offered the proof of my position. I said:

Read it for yourself: FL Code Section On Use Of Force

You will find that the "reasonable person" standard applies throughout.

This case has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (inside one's home, in some jurisdictions one's property and/or vehicle), and the defense declined the opportunity to force a SYG hearing before trial. This is a straight self defense case, and all the laws covering the justifiable use of force are covered in the link above, including the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" sections BTW. If you can find a code sub-section that says that all assaults are assumed to be deadly irrespective of all other details and circumstances of the encounter, post it up and I'll cede the point that I "overstated" FL law. Good luck with that.

Blues

Clearly, throughout this exchange, I had no intention of fighting with you, playing games with you, or even challenging you in any way. I simply stated the correct and accurate summary of what I read straight out of the Florida Criminal Code section on use of deadly force.

If I were interested in playing games with you, I would throw a penalty flag here and state that your gross violation of the rules is tantamount to you forfeiting the contest. I have proven my point, you have failed to even attempt to prove yours. Game over. Better luck next season.

Blues

 

[The_Outlaw]

Howdy FN1910,

Actually if you look at the facts of the case there is plenty of evidence that proves that George did in fact follow Martin.

Look at where George's vehicle was parked and where the incident took place and the only way George could have got to where the incident happened was if he was trying to follow Martin.

Based on the girl that Martin was talking to on the phone Martin said George was out of breath from chasing him and the girl said she could hear a man the was breathing heavily.

Since George was 5' 7.5" tall and weighed 204lbs and was NOT muscular it's a safe bet to say he was very out of shape at the time of the incident.

Pretty simple.

Paul

~Howdy Doody~

Actually if 'you' really looked into the facts, you would see that Zimmerman was not breaking any laws if he was following Martin as you stated.
Following someone out in public is perfectly legal.
But blinsiding someone and punching them in the nose without provocation is 'illegal'...Slamming someone's head into the concrete with deadly force is also 'illegal'.

If you don't like the law's then try to change the laws, but please stop your biased bloviating.

Also, Based on statements made by that illiterate girlfriend of Martin (Who has changed her story numerous times) I would not give much creedence to anything that she 'claims' to have heard since she has been proven to be both a racist and a liar on the stand.

Zimmerman is/was not in as good of physical shape as his attacker Martin (I'll give you that)...
That's why 'disparity of force' came into play.

Pretty simple.

~Outlaw~

 

[apvbguy]

You need to contact Mark Meara an tell him he's doing it wrong. You need to call our guy and tell him he also doesn't know anything about FL law, despite passing the bar. Because, as you say, you live in FL.

I don't need to call you guy. why would I? he couldn't care less about my views and I am not impressed by him!
you are easily impressed, the fact that he passed the bar indicates a level of competency it doesn't shed any light on skill. if he says he is confused by the law he isn't much of an attorney, the laws can be ambiguous and they are ambiguous just so guys like him can make a living bending them in favor of their clients so for him to make such a statement that he is confused by the law just proves my point.

This thing was never ending with a SYG hearing. Know how they say never say never? I'm saying never. His tactic was very smart an the proof is he's winning this case.

that is a conclusion I didn't offer, in court, as with anything, winning during the game means little, when he WINS and is not guilty and is a free man then you can say it was a great tactic.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy Outlaw,

~Howdy Doody~

Actually if 'you' really looked into the facts, you would see that Zimmerman was not breaking any laws if he was following Martin as you stated.
Following someone out in public is perfectly legal.
But blinsiding someone and punching them in the nose without provocation is 'illegal'...Slamming someone's head into the concrete with deadly force is also 'illegal'.

If you don't like the law's then try to change the laws, but please stop your biased bloviating.

Also, Based on statements made by that illiterate girlfriend of Martin (Who has changed her story numerous times) I would not give much creedence to anything that she 'claims' to have heard since she has been proven to be both a racist and a liar on the stand.

Zimmerman is/was not in as good of physical shape as his attacker Martin (I'll give you that)...
That's why 'disparity of force' came into play.

Pretty simple.

~Outlaw~

George broke the law when he followed Martin. Here's FL's law......


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Pretty simple.

If you think you have the right to follow anyone as a private citizen take a simple test......

Martin was a minor so, go to your nearest Mall pick out a young lady that I think is a minor and start following her. When the cops show up tell them what you posted in your reply to my post.

So far everyone that took the test found out that in fact you do NOT have the right to follow a person, especially a minor.

Me bias? Nope. Why would I as a blond haired blue eyed 49yo Married White Male why would I be biased in favor of Martin?

Paul

 

[Rhino]

George broke the law when he followed Martin. Here's FL's law......


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Pretty simple.

If you think you have the right to follow anyone as a private citizen take a simple test......

Martin was a minor so, go to your nearest Mall pick out a young lady that I think is a minor and start following her. When the cops show up tell them what you posted in your reply to my post.

So far everyone that took the test found out that in fact you do NOT have the right to follow a person, especially a minor.

Link Removed
.
Stalking? Are you serious? Did you even read it before you linked to it? Simply following someone does not constitute stalking. Not even close. Read it again. And pay closer attention to what it says this time.
.

Me bias? Nope. Why would I as a blond haired blue eyed 49yo Married White Male why would I be biased in favor of Martin?

Because you're very willing to believe to believe things that aren't true without verifying them as fact. Because you let your emotion cloud your judgement. Because you ignore obvious facts when they are presented to you and backed up. Because you obviously can't read or interpret a legal statute correctly. Or maybe just because you're incredibly ignorant?

 

[rekotadrekoj187]

I do not carry +1. I pull from the magazine at least once per day Generally twice a day. I don't like not knowing my Magazine is seated correctly. I don't like not knowing everything is feeding, sliding, cocking correctly. All of this and pulling from the magazine relieves a little pressure on the Mag spring. I only rotate mags about once a week. I also have my favorite magazines that tend to work their way into the rotation most often.

Lesson: Through this thread I Have also learned that I don't care what the state law is concerning what is or is not a "Good Shoot". A Good Shoot is much like a pilots good landing.
(Test to see who knows the saying).

Leaving mags loaded are less stressful on the springs and carrying +1 eliminates the chance of not having a round jacked when someone comes at you. Think about it if someone jumps on you as they walk past you how will you rack the slide if you only havr 1 hand free ??? And don't say I'd use my belt to rack it cause that definitely doesn't always work like it should especially if you are in a struggle with someone !!! I carry daily 13+1 and I won't be giving it up anytime soon.

 

[Rhino]

Springs do not lose their strength by being compressed for long periods. I sure would like to know who started that myth so I could kick his butt.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Leaving mags loaded are less stressful on the springs and carrying +1 eliminates the chance of not having a round jacked when someone comes at you. Think about it if someone jumps on you as they walk past you how will you rack the slide if you only havr 1 hand free ??? And don't say I'd use my belt to rack it cause that definitely doesn't always work like it should especially if you are in a struggle with someone !!! I carry daily 13+1 and I won't be giving it up anytime soon.

I don't see where he says he doesn't carry chambered...he just doesn't put in the extra round after he racks the top round out of the mag. Starting tomorrow I will not be carrying +1, but will be carrying chambered, when I change my primary address. It's not worth the effort to have a loose round in my vehicle when I drive in Washington without a permission slip.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Link Removed
.
Stalking? Are you serious? Did you even read it before you linked to it? Simply following someone does not constitute stalking. Not even close. Read it again. And pay closer attention to what it says this time.
.
Because you're very willing to believe to believe things that aren't true without verifying them as fact. Because you let your emotion cloud your judgement. Because you ignore obvious facts when they are presented to you and backed up. Because you obviously can't read or interpret a legal statute correctly. Or maybe just because you're incredibly ignorant?

And when it is you that is being followed at every turn, I suspect you would consider it stalking.

Sent from my ADR6400L using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Rhino]

Wait! Maybe there's something to this! I think we should all start reducing the stress on our magazine springs right away. From now on, we all have to have only an odd number of rounds in our magazines whenever we're on a street or road whose name begins with the first 13 letters of the alphabet or starts with a 1 through 4. Whenever we're on a street or road whose name begins with the last 13 letters of the alphabet or starts with a 5 through 9, we have to have an even number of rounds in our magazines. However, when changing round counts from odd to even or even to odd, the magazine must first be completely be emptied before reloading it to the desired round count. That way the spring can never be 'used' to being in the same position or positions for too long. Anyone not complying with this rule will be placed on double secret probation.
.
[/sarcasm]

 

[gejoslin]

Wait! Maybe there's something to this! I think we should all start reducing the stress on our magazine springs right away. From now on, we all have to have only an odd number of rounds in our magazines whenever we're on a street or road whose name begins with the first 13 letters of the alphabet or starts with a 1 through 4. Whenever we're on a street or road whose name begins with the last 13 letters of the alphabet or starts with a 5 through 9, we have to have an even number of rounds in our magazines. However, when changing round counts from odd to even or even to odd, the magazine must first be completely be emptied before reloading it to the desired round count. That way the spring can never be 'used' to being in the same position or positions for too long. Anyone not complying with this rule will be placed on double secret probation.
.
[/sarcasm]

I'll do this immediately if not sooner!:wink:

If I can figure out what you just said!

 

[BC1]

I don't need to call you guy. why would I? he couldn't care less about my views and I am not impressed by him!
you are easily impressed, the fact that he passed the bar indicates a level of competency it doesn't shed any light on skill. if he says he is confused by the law he isn't much of an attorney, the laws can be ambiguous and they are ambiguous just so guys like him can make a living bending them in favor of their clients so for him to make such a statement that he is confused by the law just proves my point.


that is a conclusion I didn't offer, in court, as with anything, winning during the game means little, when he WINS and is not guilty and is a free man then you can say it was a great tactic.

Perhaps you haven't heard... this thing is already over. And yes, I trust the knowledge of someone who has proven his abilities by passing a state bar exam. He who guides himself in law despite no education has a fool for a lawyer.

 

[walt629]

Howdy Outlaw,



George broke the law when he followed Martin. Here's FL's law......


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Pretty simple.

If you think you have the right to follow anyone as a private citizen take a simple test......

Martin was a minor so, go to your nearest Mall pick out a young lady that I think is a minor and start following her. When the cops show up tell them what you posted in your reply to my post.

So far everyone that took the test found out that in fact you do NOT have the right to follow a person, especially a minor.

Me bias? Nope. Why would I as a blond haired blue eyed 49yo Married White Male why would I be biased in favor of Martin?

Paul

Well the statute you provided in fact, legitimizes Zimmerman's action, if you keep in mind Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch. He had a legitimate reason to follow Martin. There had been a string of burglaries in the area, and as a neighborhood watch member or heck just a neighborhood MEMBER, he had a right to follow who ever he wanted to in his neighborhood.

Put the same scenario into a public, rather than private, arena and the scenario changes. But since the entire confrontation took place in a gated community rather than a shoping mall, the "stalking" play does not work.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

emphasis added