Whats your opinion on the florida shooting?

[S&W645]

....... There are many who might seek retribution against him. Even if the facts bear-out that he was justified he will undoubtedly be sued in civil court where the standard of proof is lower and only a majority of the jurors need be pursuaded. The complaint will allege the homeowners association and it's board & officers are also negligent. A lot of people are about to incur big legal bills. For the shooter and the homeowners association's officers the costs to be incurred in their defense are potentially a devastating, life-destroying event. Whether one wins or loses the lawsuit doesn't even matter. The legal bills alone makes this a loser. The rest of us should follow this case closely... and learn.

.....

Under Florida law, if he is justified in the use of deadly force, he is not able to be sued in Civil Court. The HOA is a different story.

 

[B2Tall]

I figured she was trademarking the name to be able to stop it from appearing everywhere. Maybe so it wouldn't be used in any gangsta' rap songs and vids, or in other undesireable places. My thoughts were that she just didn't want to see it in public. Hope I'm right... time will tell.

My thoughts exactly. When I first saw this story earlier today I immediately thought she's cashing in on her son's death. Then it occured to me exactly what you stated in your post. I hope she's doing it so that nobody can exploit her son's memory in an unbefitting manner.

 

[wooddoctor]

The more I read about Martin the more it seams he would have ended up in jail sooner or later. (That was Pre judging and not Racial.)

 

[roguejesse]

I don't see how you can be an instructor with all those certifications, without understanding the concept; of an unfamiliar person in an area, being asked what they are doing there, as a safety and security question. But your response and action is to be belligerent because the person doesn't display a hallowed symbol of authority (a badge).

Seems to me; you have an us and them mentality, that if a person is not in your exclusive club of "Cops", the in crowd. You're just another peon, and that the rights to safety, security, and defense; don't apply to you. Typical NY Cop thinking.

With a mindset like that, I question your suitability to possess a firearm.

I can't even remember how many times I've ignored or told someone to ---- off! I would have told Zimmerman to kiss-off and continued about my business.

 

[Fyrewerx]

Rumors Abound... More Facts... (update)

Here is an update to Myths and Facts published in today's Orlando Sentinel (March 28th), by Rene Stutzman (reporter)....

The Volusia County Medical Examiner refused to release Trayvon's body to his family for three days, an unusually long wait.

Not true, according to the medical examiner. It picked up the body at the scene just after 10 p.m. Feb. 26 and notified a Fort Lauderdale funeral home 39 hours later that the body was ready. The funeral home, Roy Mizell and Kurtz, did not pick up the body for an additional 24 hours, the medical examiner reported.

Volusia County spokesman David Byron said it would be impossible to find out the average length of time the medical examiner there keeps bodies, but said it can vary by several days, depending on circumstances — for example, if there's a dispute among family members about what to do.

Dr. Jan Garavaglia, medical examiner for Orange and Osceola Counties, said her office generally releases bodies in 24 to 36 hours.


The Medical Examiner's Office in Monroe County — the Florida Keys — said the average there is five days.

Sanford police failed to collect key evidence in the case: the clothing of George Zimmerman, the gunman who killed Trayvon.

Not true, police said. They took his clothing as well as Trayvon's and packaged it for crime-lab analysis. A spokeswoman for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would not disclose Tuesday where the clothing is now, but she wrote in an email that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement "is assisting with the processing of physical evidence."

Typically, evidence from Seminole County crime scenes is analyzed at the FDLE lab in Orlando.

Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman wasn't arrested because he has a relative on the Sanford police force.

Police have no one named Zimmerman on the payroll nor anyone related to him, Bill Lee Jr. said earlier this month before stepping down temporarily as police chief. That rumor may have started when an Orlando television station misidentified Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern as David Zimmerman.

Police should have simply arrested Zimmerman and let a judge sort it out.

Zimmerman has not been arrested because he told police he acted in self-defense, and then-Chief Lee said police did not have probable cause. Florida Statute 776.032 expressly prohibits police from arresting someone who had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Police may investigate, the statute says, "but the agency may not arrest the person" without probable cause.

That last item seems to explain why Zimmerman wasn't arrested rather clearly. My guess (only an opinion) is that the police chief feared a law suit from Zimmerman, and chastisement from the FDLE, if he arrested Zimmerman. This was undoubtedly based on Zimmerman's claim of events, visible evidence, and testimony by some of interviewed witnesses (obviously none were "eye"-witnesses). Those things seem to support the coverage under the statute.

 

[BC1]

I don't see how you can be an instructor with all those certifications, without understanding the concept; of an unfamiliar person in an area, being asked what they are doing there, as a safety and security question. But your response and action is to be belligerent because the person doesn't display a hallowed symbol of authority (a badge).

Seems to me; you have an us and them mentality, that if a person is not in your exclusive club of "Cops", the in crowd. You're just another peon, and that the rights to safety, security, and defense; don't apply to you. Typical NY Cop thinking.

With a mindset like that, I question your suitability to possess a firearm.

And then you did exactly what you accused me of. You want some authority to question my suitability to own a firearm becuase you disagree with my position of neutrality? Must I bow to your position? Are the CCW police coming to take my license away? Oh no!

What is a "NY" cop mentality? What type of NY cop? NY City? Some hick town up North? Specify where this comes from? Some study been done to show cops from NY all think alike. Does it stop at the state line or do you include Vermont and PA cops? Do I support all cops? Do you know me? Do you know what I teach?

How much self-defense training have you had? Where? Top training academy's? Ever been involved in a shooting? Anyone in the family been murdered? Are you talking from experience or just puffing that bird chest up and running your fingers? Owning a firearm qualifies you in no way to be an expert on self defense much the same as playing computer games doesn't qualify you as a software engineer. Also what rights to safety and security are your referring to under FL or federal statutes? You have a lot of questions to answer so get crackin'.

My job is to teach a skill-set, not a mind-set. I can provide the defensive skills but despite all my education I can't stop the ignorant from applying them poorly. But I CAN educate them on the aftermath of a real shooting. Something the shooter is learning the hard way.

Read my later post. I reserved judgement on this until the facts are known... something you might care to do. You have absolutely no idea what the facts of this case are.

Now go hump some one else's leg.

 

[john1761]

I think we should settle down and wait for the investigation to finish. And after they railroad him or start proposing more anti gun laws is the time to go ballistic.

 

[SGB]

Link Removed

 

[B2Tall]

Link Removed

Great article. My 180 is complete.

 

[cmhbob]

That article is reporting as facts things that are still in dispute.

George Zimmerman had no right to pursue Trayvon.
Zimmerman saw someone in his neighborhood who looked suspicious and he had every right to follow-up with them and talk to them without being assaulted.
In this case however, Zimmerman never even got the chance. He never got close enough to ask Martin anything before he lost visual contact, then headed back towards his truck to meet police.

Martin's girlfriend has said she heard Zimmerman confront Martin.

Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman.
The only way Trayvon would have been justified in punching Zimmerman would have been if Zimmerman successfully chased Martin down until he caught up with him. Even then, it would have been questionable.

But that is not the scenario we are dealing with. Martin initiated the confrontation, and almost certainly didn’t feel threatened while he was fighting Zimmerman.

There is NO proof that this happened.

This article does what you're complaining about everyone else doing, SGB.

 

[mercdragon]

To all,
Seems we have not pointed out what many in the media have screamed loudly from the roof tops. The Florida "Stand your ground" laws DO NOT give one the authority to chase down and accost some one.

Do I agree with the statements made? Some are well thought out and reasonable. Some are the normal "argue anything, right, wrong, indifferent" expected in an open forum. A few need to be investigated for out right stupidity. Hopefully those few do not own a firearm of any type.

Facts are easy to lose in the media hype, political grandstanding (Member of Congress wearing a "hoodie" on the floor of the House of Represntatives) and outright smoke screens.

1) Zimmerman legally owns a firearm
2) Member of a neighborhood watch
3) Followed, accosted, shot an unarmed teen
4) Claims self defense for use of lethal force

Appears very clear that Zimmerman has stepped outside of the "Stand your ground" aspect. Problem is what transpired when he accosted the teen. Did he grab the young chap forcing a confrontation? Did the young chap swing first? Words, then physical contact? All of this and indepth details need to emerge before a legal proceeding is likely to be initiated.

Personally, Zimmerman stepped outside of the legal boundaries we accept with our carry permits and he is in the wrong. The young chap was not committing a crime, just passing through. This leaves open quite a bit of legal territory to cover.

Take care and be safe
pfb

 

[SGB]

You apparently haven't kept very current, and you clearly don't understand Florida law. Here is an excellently articulated summary of what we know to date.

Link Removed

 

[Bttbbob]

To all,
Seems we have not pointed out what many in the media have screamed loudly from the roof tops. The Florida "Stand your ground" laws DO NOT give one the authority to chase down and accost some one.

Do I agree with the statements made? Some are well thought out and reasonable. Some are the normal "argue anything, right, wrong, indifferent" expected in an open forum. A few need to be investigated for out right stupidity. Hopefully those few do not own a firearm of any type.

Facts are easy to lose in the media hype, political grandstanding (Member of Congress wearing a "hoodie" on the floor of the House of Represntatives) and outright smoke screens.

1) Zimmerman legally owns a firearm
2) Member of a neighborhood watch
3) Followed, accosted, shot an unarmed teen
4) Claims self defense for use of lethal force

Appears very clear that Zimmerman has stepped outside of the "Stand your ground" aspect. Problem is what transpired when he accosted the teen. Did he grab the young chap forcing a confrontation? Did the young chap swing first? Words, then physical contact? All of this and indepth details need to emerge before a legal proceeding is likely to be initiated.

Personally, Zimmerman stepped outside of the legal boundaries we accept with our carry permits and he is in the wrong. The young chap was not committing a crime, just passing through. This leaves open quite a bit of legal territory to cover.

Take care and be safe
pfb

Sorry but this is not the law in FLorida you have to read the law to establish whether Zimmerman broke it..What he did was ill advised and stupid but not illegal. Please read 2(a) (b). Even if he was an aggressor originally. He had the right to use deadly force if he was in fear of his life.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

[echoawake]

There is so much more information coming out in the last few days that maybe it is not so cut and dry. In the 911 tape, the dispatcher ask if Zimmerman was following Martin. When he said yes, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that sir" to which Zimmmerman replies "OK". He said he was going back to his SUV when the altercation stated. A witness now says he seen Martin on top punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman had injuries. I think the best thing is let Florida investgate this and if a crime was commited, it should be prosecuted. This is looking more like the Duke rape case every day.

 

[MilShooter]

<Snipped>
1) Zimmerman legally owns a firearm
2) Member of a neighborhood watch
3) Followed, accosted, shot an unarmed teen
4) Claims self defense for use of lethal force

<Snipped>

You should probably amend number 3 for a bit more accuracy to this:

3) Followed, then stopped following teen on suggestion of dispatcher; returned to his vehicle
3a) Zimmerman was then accosted and beaten by unarmed teen
3b) Zimmerman cried for help but no one helped him as he was being beaten

I think you haven't seen all of the extra information that's been made available.

 

[BC1]

Here's some other questions...

Q: Does FL have other laws regarding reckless conduct that might apply? In general, and not per any particular state law, most legal dictionaries define reckless endangerment as when someone recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

I found this on the FL books:

784.05 Culpable negligence.
(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Jury instructions as per the FL courts contain the follwing description of culpable negligence as follows:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing a careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, another person or persons.

Q: Can Zimmerman be charged with a federal civil rights violation? He may not use a FL affirmative defense (defense of justification) in such a charge.

Q: Does a federal civil rights violation open him up to a federal law-suit?

Anyone have info on this? DID I JUST OPEN ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS?

 

[elmuelmu]

Like many have said, the facts are still not out.

Whether GZ initiated the conflict is still not clear. If he did, does that negate the right to defend himself if he was actually in fear of his life when he was getting hit?

The kid's past history may not be the best but GZ apparently has an even worse history with police and actual trouble with the law.

Either way it looks like two troublemakers collided on that night. I would expect someone older to be a little wiser, especially when carrying a handgun. GZ probably will have a lot to explain either way.

 

[cmhbob]

Here is an excellently articulated summary of what we know to date.

No, it's not a summary of what's known.

That article is reporting as facts things that are still in dispute.

George Zimmerman had no right to pursue Trayvon.
Zimmerman saw someone in his neighborhood who looked suspicious and he had every right to follow-up with them and talk to them without being assaulted.
In this case however, Zimmerman never even got the chance. He never got close enough to ask Martin anything before he lost visual contact, then headed back towards his truck to meet police.

Martin's girlfriend has said she heard Zimmerman confront Martin. Martin had every right to ignore Zimmerman and continue to his father's residence.

Trayvon was justified in punching Zimmerman.
The only way Trayvon would have been justified in punching Zimmerman would have been if Zimmerman successfully chased Martin down until he caught up with him. Even then, it would have been questionable.

But that is not the scenario we are dealing with. Martin initiated the confrontation, and almost certainly didn’t feel threatened while he was fighting Zimmerman.

There is NO proof that this happened.

This article does what you're complaining about everyone else doing, SGB.

 

[Bttbbob]

BC1, do you think the folks that have found Zimmerman guilty in the press of murder are going to be happy with Misdemeaner charges?

 

[SGB]

No, it's not a summary of what's known.

That article is reporting as facts things that are still in dispute.

In dispute by who bob? The propagandists?

Martin's girlfriend has said she heard Zimmerman confront Martin. Martin had every right to ignore Zimmerman and continue to his father's residence.

And here is where you've replaced an informed factually arrived conclusion with propaganda driven conjecture bob

There is NO proof that this happened.

Your wrong again bob, Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with his version of the events and he's stated he was attacked. Now that's a fact.

This article does what you're complaining about everyone else doing, SGB.

BS bob, the verified facts support the authors informed conclusions.