# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 269
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5363 "2012-08-20T19:27:52Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > It is my opinion that Bricker gave a hypothetical illustrating his interpretation of what would constitute a legal post assault/shooting detainment under the law in Florida. > > I didn’t have much trouble with that and am really confused why you do. Because he’s obnoxiously wrong. Responding to a punch in the nose with a gunfire is [excessive force](http://www.ehow.com/about_5477305_unlawful-use-force.html). That makes citizen arrest equivalent to battery and false imprisonment. Whether or not any given citizen’s arrest is legal is left up to a judge or jury to determine. It’s not black and white. Martin would need to charged with a felony, first and foremost: if law enforcement decided not to charge the kid with “felony battery” for punching his night-time pursurer, then once again, Zimmerman would be criminally liable for taking it upon himself to detain the kid. And this is even if we ignore him retailiating with his gun. I have a philosophical issue with people like **Bricker**. He’s contaminating this place with misinformation, and then people like you come along and parrot it back like it’s truth. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5364 "2012-08-20T19:50:02Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Like I said before, there is no need to cape for him. I’ve given him multiple opportunities to correct my interpretation of what he wrote, and he has yet to tell me I’ve misconstrued him. You have completely misconstrued me. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5365 "2012-08-20T19:55:49Z")
I take that as a sign you couldn’t wrassle up that lawyer. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5366 "2012-08-20T20:18:07Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Because he’s obnoxiously wrong. > > Responding to a punch in the nose with a gunfire is [excessive force](http://www.ehow.com/about_5477305_unlawful-use-force.html). That makes citizen arrest equivalent to battery and false imprisonment. > > Whether or not any given citizen’s arrest is legal is left up to a judge or jury to determine. It’s not black and white. Martin would need to charged with a felony, first and foremost: if law enforcement decided not to charge the kid with “felony battery” for punching his night-time pursurer, then once again, Zimmerman would be criminally liable for taking it upon himself to detain the kid. And this is even if we ignore him retailiating with his gun. Not true. A citizen’s arrest is valid in Florida when a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. Period. There is no requirement that the person arrested be subsequently charged with a crime. That’s not true. You said it, but it’s not true. You made it up. You fabricated it. You acted as though you knew it, but you didn’t. I did not make it up. I accurately and complete conveyed the law in the state of Florida. You did not provide a cite for your claim that Martin would need to be charged with a felony. You just said it, with no citation to authority. Look, here it is again: > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Martin would need to charged with a felony, first and foremost: if law enforcement decided not to charge the kid with “felony battery” for punching his night-time pursurer, then once again, Zimmerman would be criminally liable for taking it upon himself to detain the kid. No cite! Just a blanket statement. Fantastic tactic, for someone who claims to be interested in correct information. I, of course, can cite my claim: > [@Collins v. State](#): > > A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. This case is quoted with approval by the Florida Supreme Court in Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024 (1985). THAT IS THE LAW IN FLORIDA. If you think it’s not the law in Florida, it’s because you have decided that a lifetime dedication to watching “Law and Order” and “Matlock” is the same as a law school education and years of practice in the criminal courts. Now, there is a separate question: is responding to a punch with gunfire “excessive force” or not? This is a question of fact for the jury. I don’t know how hard the punch was, and whether Zimmerman believed he was in danger of great bodily harm. _IF_ Zimmerman did believe himself in great bodily harm, it’s also a question of fact for the jury to decide if that fear was reasonable. _IF_ the jury decides it was, then that force was not excessive. The Florida courts considered the question of “great bodily harm” in a case styled Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 482 (FL DCA 1974). In this case, they quoted with approval the language from an Illinois case (People v. Smith) in which the accused “struck the complainant twice in the face with his fist.” The accused in that case was convicted of inflicting great bodily harm, and the appeals court upheld that conviction: > [@People v. Smith](#): > > Whether aggravated battery is committed when the injury inflicted does not break the skin, does not injure the bones and does not leave disfigurement or permanent injury of any kind, is a question of fact to be determined by the judge or jury. > > * * * > > "The statutory term `great bodily harm’ is not susceptible to precise legal definition. \* \* \* Defendant asserts that great bodily harm is synonymous with permanent injury. True, it can be argued that all permanent injury constitutes great bodily harm. It does not follow, however, that all great bodily harm consists of permanent injury. Indeed, many serious bodily injuries leave no lasting effect on the health, strength, and comfort of the injured person. All that is to support the statement that a punch in the face, especially one that breaks the nose, is LEGALLY SUFFICIENT as great bodily harm. And that means it is LEGALLY SUFFICIENT to allow the use of deadly force. See FSA § 776.012 on use of deadly force to prevent great bodily injury. None of these mean that a jury must agree. The jury in this case may not decide that the punch was serious. I have no idea whether it was. But as a matter of law, it’s sufficient. Each and every statement made above is a correct statement of Florida law, and citations are provided. The statements made by **you with the face** , in contrast, are not. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5367 "2012-08-20T20:29:22Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > I would be interested as well. But the cite has to deal with the precise injuries delivered to Trayvon Martin, not any old case of significant trauma to the heart/lungs. I want to see cases dealing with a destroyed ventricle, not a shooting where the bullet nicked the heart. And it’s not immediate cessation of all movement: it’s whether or not Trayvon had the power to sit up and keep talking after the shooting. Look up Man Survives Bullet Wound To Heart on your search engine. The right ventricle supplies blood to the lungs, the left ventricle to the rest of the body. There have been verified cases of people who have been shot in the right ventricle of the heart and survived. You’re pretty much immediately dead if you hit the left ventricle. In Trayvon Martin’s case, I suppose, the damage to the right ventricle was too extensive, though I haven’t seen the x-rays. (hard to imagine but some people have actually carried bullets in their right ventrcle for years and survived.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5368 "2012-08-20T20:31:27Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I take that as a sign you couldn’t wrassle up that lawyer. Okay. No. The last time I asked **BottleBlondeJeanie** to come in here and verify what I was saying, she was kind enough to do so. [Here is the relevant point in the thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15267776#post15267776): > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Oh good grief. Substitute “respond appropriately” for the exact language in the law, if it pleases you. It alters my point not one whit. > > **BBJ** , I have no idea what your point is. You don’t have to use Lexis to find laws and read them and show they don’t mean what people say they mean. After all, the same court case **Bricker** linked to supposedly to support his erroneous claim about the aggressor instructions is the same case I used to show he’s wrong. > > This has nothing to do with me having a problem with the law. Sorry if you’re mad at my refusal to blindly believe the bullshit **Bricker** keeps peddling, but when people spread misinformation on this board, it needs to be challenged. Even if it’s a lawyer spreading misinformation about the law. > [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > Body of law is a concept with which you’re unfamiliar? I sincerely doubt you can easily find every case construing that statue online without killing yourself. I could not find a public link to one of the cases I cited and felt it was unfair, but somsomeone cited the case presumably removing headnotes and the like. As to the instigation issue I suggest you dig up one of the old BBQ pit threads where there were cases cited in response to a Stoid argument. I don’t think you understand about shifting burdens of proof or the whole slightly wacky SYG law. No insult intended. > > Was this not an issue as to whether the prosecution has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Because that is true assuming it’s appropriately substantiated. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why have you butted your nose into a discussion that you still haven’t demonstrated you understand? The prosecution’s burden of disproving self defense was never in dispute. The question being debated is what they have to do to do that. > [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > You keep changing your arguments, and as far as “butt[ing] my nose in” I wish I wouldn’t have. But, unless you have staked a flag somewhere in here (I mean it is true most of the comments here are yours), I can waste my time trying to explain something to you if I like. Again, not that this ridiculous effort on my part will enlighten you. I am willing to ask her if she’s willing to enter into another discussion with you, but if you intend to simply dismiss her as you did before, what’s the point? Is there another lawyer on these boards whose word would convince you? ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5369 "2012-08-20T20:53:10Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > Look up Man Survives Bullet Wound To Heart on your search engine. The right ventricle supplies blood to the lungs, the left ventricle to the rest of the body. There have been verified cases of people who have been shot in the right ventricle of the heart and survived. You’re pretty much immediately dead if you hit the left ventricle. In Trayvon Martin’s case, I suppose, the damage to the right ventricle was too extensive, though I haven’t seen the x-rays. (hard to imagine but some people have actually carried bullets in their right ventricle for years and survived.) I neglected to mention that Trayvon Martin had cyanotic nail beds, which would tend to verify he didn’t die immediately. The heart kept pumping blood, but it was leaking out, and eventually the nails turn blue due to lack of oxygen, which wouldn’t happen if he had died immediately. It’s not beyond the realm of possibilty that if it hadn’t been a hollow point bullet Trayvon Martin might even have survived. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5370 "2012-08-20T21:01:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I have a philosophical issue with people like **Bricker**. He’s contaminating this place with misinformation, and then people like you come along and parrot it back like it’s truth. You think **Bricker** is the major source of misinformation here. :rolleyes: And just what kind of a person am I since you seem to have me all figured out? I am beginning to imagine you are someone who is regularly engaged in public policy making. Someone dealing often in generalities and the premise that all things can be defined succinctly in a policy statement. The law does not work anything like public health policy. I’ll continue to go with the lawyers (yes plural) being right in regard to the law here. When the topic is public health policy or veterinary medicine I’ll put my money on you. Again, still not sure why the vitriol for **Bricker**. I don’t think he has come out in support of Zimmerman. Maybe I missed it, but I got the distinct impression that he too thinks wrong was done, but is honestly admitting that the facts in the public record probably aren’t sufficient to get a conviction. What I’d like to know from **Bricker** , in his opinion how much of the facts do we likely know at this point? All? Some percentage less than all? 10% less, 20% less, more? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5371 "2012-08-20T21:15:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not true. A citizen’s arrest is valid in Florida when a felony has been committed Who decides that a felony was committed? That is a thing that is determined by court. If a cop disagrees that there was probable cause for a felony or a qualifying misdeamor, then that makes the citizen arrest unlawful. > [@](#): > > [http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/160](http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/160)]P.C > > §§ 834, 837: A private person may make an arrest under the following circumstances: > > Whenever the person has reasonable (or probable) cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime, and > **Whenever a criminal offense has in fact been committed.** > > While a private person may be mistaken as to who committed a particular crime, **there is no room for error as to whether a crime actually occurred.** A single punch to the face is generally considered a misdemeanor [not a felony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)), so it’s stupid to state matter-of-factly that this constitutes felony battery anyway. > [@](#): > > Now, there is a separate question: is responding to a punch with gunfire “excessive force” or not? > > This is a question of fact for the jury. But somehow a citizen can determine that a single punch constitutes a felony. You’re really slaying us here, yup you are. Every [cite](http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm) I’ve been able to find on excessive force say that you can’t use [deadly force](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22excessive+force%22+non-deadly+force+deadly+force+punch+gunfire&oq=%22excessive+force%22+non-deadly+force+deadly+force+punch+gunfire&gs_l=hp.3...3328.12717.3.13638.15.13.2.0.0.2.499.1892.6j5j1j0j1.13.0.les%3Beqrwrth..0.0...1.15wz7skRQjw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=921050aa8b783672&biw=1280&bih=829) in response to [non-deadly force](http://www.ehow.com/about_5477305_unlawful-use-force.html). > [@](#): > > None of these mean that a jury must agree. Which means we can’t say it’s use would be legal. By extension, we also can’t say a citizen’s arrest under that condition would be legal either. The weasling works in both direction. > [@](#): > > But as a matter of law, it’s sufficient. This is a meaningless statement. For review, here is what you posted: > [@Bricker](#): > > If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin, and if the bullet had merely grazed Martin, following which Zimmerman had leapt upon him and restrained him… \*\*That would have been perfectly legal, both for a police officer and a “regular schmoe.” \*\* You have declared something to be legal, when in reality all of this hinges on what a jury or judge determines. You are wrong and not only that, irresponsibly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5372 "2012-08-20T21:58:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Who decides that a felony was committed? That is a thing that is determined by court. If a cop disagrees that there was probable cause for a felony or a qualifying misdeamor, then that makes the citizen arrest unlawful. But having PROBABLE CAUSE to believe a felony was committed – that is a matter of law. What facts existed to support the determination are a matter for a court to determine, yes…which is why I carefully said, “IF the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman…” > [@](#): > > A single punch to the face is generally considered a misdemeanor [not a felony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)), so it’s stupid to state matter-of-factly that this constitutes felony battery anyway. A single punch to the face that breaks a nose is not automatically a felony. But it is automatically probable cause to arrest for a felony. You don’t understand the difference because that was never covered on “Law and Order.” > [@](#): > > But somehow a citizen can determine that a single punch constitutes a felony. You’re really slaying us here, yup you are. PROBABLE CAUSE. All that is necessary to support an arrest is PROBABLE CAUSE. > [@](#): > > Every [cite](http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm) I’ve been able to find on excessive force say that you can’t use [deadly force](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22excessive+force%22+non-deadly+force+deadly+force+punch+gunfire&oq=%22excessive+force%22+non-deadly+force+deadly+force+punch+gunfire&gs_l=hp.3...3328.12717.3.13638.15.13.2.0.0.2.499.1892.6j5j1j0j1.13.0.les%3Beqrwrth..0.0...1.15wz7skRQjw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=921050aa8b783672&biw=1280&bih=829) in response to [non-deadly force](http://www.ehow.com/about_5477305_unlawful-use-force.html). Not correct. In Florida, you can use deadly force in response to a threat of great bodily harm. Cite: FSA § 776.012 > [@Florida Statutes § 776.012](#): > > UHowever, 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 … And as I previously cited in Owens v State, a broken nose alone is sufficient injury to qualify as great bodily harm. > [@](#): > > Which means we can’t say it’s use would be legal. By extension, we also can’t say a citizen’s arrest under that condition would be legal either. Wrong. Because all a citizen’s arrest needs to be legal is PROBABLE CAUSE. Even if the ultimate resolution is that the citizen was wrong, as long as probable cause Estes, the arrest is legal. > [@](#): > > This is a meaningless statement. For review, here is what you posted: > > [Quote=Bricker] > > If the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, continued to Zimmerman shooting Martin, and if the bullet had merely grazed Martin, following which Zimmerman had leapt upon him and restrained him… That would have been perfectly legal, both for a police officer and a “regular schmoe.” You have declared something to be legal, when in reality all of this hinges on what a jury or judge determines. You are wrong and not only that, irresponsibly wrong. [/QUOTE] No, that is a precisely accurate statement. IF the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman, then at that instant Zimmerman had probable cause to effect a citizen’s arrest of Martin. The job of the judge or jury would be to determine if that’s how the conflict began, sure. But I said, “IF the conflict began …” that way. If. Assuming. Postulating. Supposing. Accepting for the purposes of argument. Isn’t there an episode of Franklin and Bash you should be studying? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5373 "2012-08-20T22:12:14Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > The law does not work anything like public health policy. I’ll continue to go with the lawyers (yes plural) being right in regard to the law here. When the topic is public health policy or veterinary medicine I’ll put my money on you. My biggest fear is that people are actually reading **you with the face** and thinking, “Hey, she has a point.” Thank goodness you posted this. > [@](#): > > Maybe I missed it, but I got the distinct impression that he too thinks wrong was done, but is honestly admitting that the facts in the public record probably aren’t sufficient to get a conviction. Right you are. I assume, based on the charge by an experienced prosecutor, that there exists something beyond what we know. What we know now does not defeat the self-defense claim. > [@](#): > > What I’d like to know from **Bricker** , in his opinion how much of the facts do we likely know at this point? All? Some percentage less than all? 10% less, 20% less, more? We’ll never know all. Only Zimmerman knows what happened, and he has demonstrated his deep regard for truth already. What we need to know is what happened in the period between Zimmerman leaving his truck and the police arriving on the scene. We can make good guesses. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5374 "2012-08-20T22:34:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …which is why I carefully said, “IF the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman…” _That still doesn’t mean it’s a fact that a crime has been committed._ That has to be established by judge or jury. If the arresting LEOs determine that the punch was justified given the circumstances, we can’t say a crime has been committed. > [@](#): > > A single punch to the face that breaks a nose is not automatically a felony. But it is automatically probable cause to arrest for a felony. You don’t understand the difference because that was never covered on “Law and Order.” And you don’t understand what the word “and” means when it comes in parsing the law. It’s not enough that a private citizen has probable cause. They have to have probable cause _AND_ a crime has to have been committed. > [@](#): > > PROBABLE CAUSE. All that is necessary to support an arrest is PROBABLE CAUSE. Let’s go over this again: > [@](#): > > [http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/160#cont162](http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/160#cont162) > > §§ 834, 837: A private person may make an arrest under the following circumstances: > > Whenever the person has reasonable (or probable) cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime, and > **Whenever a criminal offense has in fact been committed**. > > While a private person may be mistaken as to who committed a particular crime, **there is no room for error as to whether a crime actually occurred**. > [@](#): > > And as I previously cited in Owens v State, a broken nose alone is sufficient injury to qualify as great bodily harm. But _with with respect to specific usage of deadly force_, a jury or judge has to decide whether that force was legal. Owens vs State doesn’t automatically make it legal to respond to punch with gunfire. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Because all a citizen’s arrest needs to be legal is PROBABLE CAUSE. Even if the ultimate resolution is that the citizen was wrong, as long as probable cause Estes, the arrest is legal. Please visit the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5375 "2012-08-20T23:29:27Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > _That still doesn’t mean it’s a fact that a crime has been committed._ That has to be established by judge or jury. If the arresting LEOs determine that the punch was justified given the circumstances, we can’t say a crime has been committed. > > And you don’t understand what the word “and” means when it comes in parsing the law. It’s not enough that a private citizen has probable cause. They have to have probable cause _AND_ a crime has to have been committed. > > Let’s go over this again: > > But _with with respect to specific usage of deadly force_, a jury or judge has to decide whether that force was legal. Owens vs State doesn’t automatically make it legal to respond to punch with gunfire. > > Please visit the Pit. I did. And I will make the same observation here: you are quoting California law for some reason – maybe because lots of legal TV shows are set in California? You are correct that it is not automatically legal to respond to a punch with gunfire. Never said otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5376 "2012-08-21T00:44:53Z")
It should be mentioned that Zimmerman didn’t respond to a punch with gunfire. He responded to a punch by falling to the ground and calling for help. He responded to a sustained beating with gunfire. If you have a cite from _Florida_ law, **you with the face** that shows that that is automatically illegal, show it. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5377 "2012-08-21T00:49:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What we need to know is what happened in the period between Zimmerman leaving his truck and the police arriving on the scene. We can make good guesses. That’s all. I’d say the time from when Zimmerman hung up on the NEN operator until W#11 called 911. I don’t see any evidence that a felony was committed before then. Knowing what happened before that would be nice, but a jury doesn’t need to know it. Before then, both Zimmerman and Martin had a legal right to be where they were. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5378 "2012-08-21T01:06:27Z")
What an embarrassment of a thread on a board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance. It makes a mockery of that motto. Bricker, og bless you for doing this, but I hope you harbor no hope of ywtf actually ever saying “oh, I see the error of my ways, thank you for all the time you’ve spent fighting my ignorance.” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5379 "2012-08-21T01:14:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > He responded to a sustained beating with gunfire. According to GZ’s story, GZ responded with gunfire to TM announcing his intent to kill GZ and then reaching for GZ’s weapon. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5380 "2012-08-21T01:28:44Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > According to GZ’s story, GZ responded with gunfire to TM announcing his intent to kill GZ and then reaching for GZ’s weapon. actually he said or inferred both but the trigger (no pun intended) was his shirt riding up and a race for the gun. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5381 "2012-08-21T01:51:34Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What an embarrassment of a thread on a board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance. It makes a mockery of that motto. > > Bricker, og bless you for doing this, but I hope you harbor no hope of ywtf actually ever saying “oh, I see the error of my ways, thank you for all the time you’ve spent fighting my ignorance.” ``` Hopefully, someone is filling out the application for Bricker's sainthood as we type. ``` ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/5382 "2012-08-21T02:27:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > actually he said or inferred both but the trigger (no pun intended) was his shirt riding up and a race for the gun. I don’t recall him saying that. Which version does he say that in? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=268) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=270)