When you say “carrying” do you mean holding in the hand, or in a holster?
Why do we care? Zimmerman doesn’t need reasonable grounds to call the police. I have no problem assuming for these discussions that Martin was doing absolutely nothing suspicious and that Zimmerman had no reasonable grounds whatso ever to regard Martin as suspicious.
Zimmerman had no reasonable grounds to suspect that Martin was a criminal.
So, if I’m driving down the street in a lawful manner and somebody walks out into my lane and starts shooting at me, is it okay for me to mow him down?
Both were equally suspicious (or un-suspicious).
Yes.
The difference lies in how they behaved, not what they suspected. Suspecting Martin of criminal activity did not give Zimmerman the right to use force against him. Suspecting Zimmerman of criminal activity did not give Martin the right to use force against him.
Maybe evidence will surface that Zimmerman acted criminally. It hasn’t so far, but it might. If it does, that will change things.
Regards,
Shodan
By “mow him down” you mean run over him?
In what state?
These questions all boil down to what a “reasonable person” would do in a given situation. You may say that doesn’t really answer the question, but it’s the best the law can do. Could you imagine a million page long code of every conceivable life situation with physical, verbal, and non-verbal clues added, along with lighting conditions and location and body sizes of each individual, to give you a “shoot” “don’t shoot” scenario?
But case law does answer some of your questions. The force you use must be proportional to the fear, and that will vary given the situation. If we are friends at a gun range and you have a gun in your hand, that’s not threatening. If we are strangers at a baseball game and you are walking towards me with a gun in your hand, that is likely threatening. But are you a cop trying to break up an event behind me? Then a reasonable person wouldn’t consider that threatening.
That’s why you can’t have a law that says “gun in hand=threatening”. It’s not an area of law that leads to a bright line rule. It’s very fact specific and requires police, prosecutors, judges and juries to decide if what a person did was reasonable under the circumstances.
The problem with this case is that first, and no disrespect to the OP, people woefully misunderstand the SYG law to the point that some say you can stand in traffic blazing away under this law.
Second, nobody knows all of the facts in the Zimmerman/Martin situation. The people taking sides tend to believe one side more than the other, but that will be the same in any self defense case. In a parallel universe, where Martin grabbed Zimmerman’s gun and killed him, Martin would be the one explaining to police, prosecutors, and a judge and jury why the facts of his case entitled him to self-defense.
Lastly, I don’t understand some of the comments to the effect that this law is bad because only one side gets told and the other guy is dead. That’s lethal self-defense in every situation. Nothing about SYG changes any of this except to take away an element of self-defense that the person using the argument must try to flee first.
There are people who think God’s law dicatates they blow up abortion clinics; there are people who think God’s law dictates they lop the head of their daughter for talking with boys.
Do you think that jurors who share those beliefs should hold out for acquittals, or is it only your understanding of the God’s law that merits the exemption?
Hmm. Perhaps we could compile a large body of approved rulings, in which courts define and clarify how laws apply to various situations. We could call this body of knowledge “case law,” and make sure every lawyer has a big wall of such books in their ofice…
Good thing Christians aren’t in charge then.
Personally, I think it’s disgustingly dishonourable that any person would give a giant middle finger to their sworn duty as a juror and decide they were the sole arbiter of right and wrong depending on what some bronze age goatherds, heavily paraphrased and altered innumerable times through history, allegedly may or may not have dreamed up. But hey, that’s just me.
I’m guessing BigT you follow Leviticus 18:22 to the letter as well. After all, it’s “God’s law,” right?
In the state in question in the discussion, which would be Florida, I’m assuming.
Okay, at what point are you allowed to defend yourself against a criminal? Do you have to wait until after he’s committed the crime in order to be sure that’s genuinely his intent?
And then people could ask the kind of question I asked. And the people who have this information would answer those questions.
Yes, that would be ideal. But it’s not what’s happening here.
I’m asking what the case law is. All you’re doing is telling me that answers to my questions exist. That’s great. Now please tell me what those answers are.
As you have been repeatedly told, no, you don’t. This question has been answered for you several times, so I don’t know what you’re missing.
If you have a reasonable fear that you are at risk of a violent crime, you may defend yourself. If you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (as it is phrased in the Florida law) you may use lethal force.
No.
But before I can tell you what point, you need to tell me what’s going on, specifically. All you’ve said is “Defend yourself against a criminal.” how do you know he’s a criminal, and what is the threat against which you need defense?
Answer specifically.
You have to wait until he asks you a question. Then you punch him in the face (allegedly).
Regards,
Shodan
What I’m trying to do is establish there’s a consensus that it is possible in some circumstances for somebody to use force first and yet still be acting in justifiable self-defense.
Yes, it is, if there is a credible threat.
The decision on what constitutes a threat is the “reasonable person” test - that is, would a reasonable person in that set of circumstances perceive a threat. So, one is not justified in using force if one is paranoid, and can’t simply claim without justification that they felt threatened.
Following someone, and asking them questions, is not in and of itself a threat.
Yes, if you are threatened. However, I believe the consensus is that asking someone a question does not constitute a threat.
If Zimmerman approached Martin with gun drawn, saying “Freeze, nigger, or I’ll blast you!”, that would be a threat. If Zimmerman approached Martin with gun drawn, saying “What are you doing?”, that would (in my non-lawyerly opinion) probably be a threat. If Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun tucked away, saying “What are you doing?”, probably not. It would seem to me to be premature to decide whether or not Martin, or Zimmerman, was justified until and unless we know which of these scenarios are the ones established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps Bricker or another of the Great Legal Minds of the SDMB[sup]TM[/sup] can clarify - if Zimmerman goes to trial, and what happened cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, would Zimmerman be acquitted? I would expect that he would. Would SYG then immunize him from civil action?
I know this has been discussed, but I’m still not clear.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely possible.
But would you agree that if Martin had reasonable grounds to believe that Zimmerman was going to commit against him (without saying whether or not Martin did actually have such grounds) then Martin had justifiable cause to defend himself from Zimmerman?
That’s not a particularly useful question, as there’s no way to find out if Martin could have had a reasonable fear. However, if he did, he could have defended himself. That, however, has no bearing on whether Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself.