IMO, this guy in Florida kissed his "self-defense" and "stand your ground" protection good-bye when he pursued the teen. But that's colored from my fuzzy recollection of CO law (which may not be the same as FL). IIRC, if you start a confrontation and start getting your rear end handed to you, you do not have the right to use deadly force. I know I went over this in my CCW class, but I can't recall the specifics off hand. I'd have to look it up. Anyone know offhand?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
CO protection of Zimmerman?
- Thread starter mahkagari
- Start date
Dynamite Rabbit
Regular Member
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
I am fairly confident that many other states have similar language.....well, two states anyway.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
Ky law is the same...http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/060.PDF
If Zimmerman provoked Martin with "What are you doing here?" and prevented Martin from going about his business, tried to physically restrain him, further provoking Martin to use lawful or unlawful physical force to escape, he wouldn't be protected under CO law for "self-defense". But that's under a) and only counts if Zimmerman intended to harm Martin versus just restrain him. However, if Zimmerman clearly backed down after the altercation began and Martin continued, then maybe he'd be protected. No telling that without witnesses.
So, if you start getting your @$$ beat after starting a fight, you back down and don't wanna play anymore, and your opponent continues, then you can still claim self-defense. I remember that annoying me in my class now.
Last edited:
Red Dawg
Regular Member
just my opinion, but I think there was just one messed up confrontation. Everyone did things wrong. Both anyway...An a#$ beating is still no reason to use your gun...Skittles don't count as a weapon. Sorry. If he has his hands out and is whopping your tail end, then he is not using deadly force..Again, my opinion, and we've talked about this situations in various state forums, and all over. Bottom line, when you break leather, your life changes for ever. If you are loking for trouble, it will find you, and it's probably best you are not armed.
Gray Rider
New member
FDLE Use of Force Matrix
Lets start with a description of "great bodily harm". You won't find it statutorily defined, but is quantified in formal training according to what force courts generally accept as "great bodily harm".
Force LIKELY TO CAUSE :
Broken bones
Require stitches
Disfigurement
Permanant disability
Unconsciousness
Each case is somewhat unique unto itself, and is viewed in light of the "totality of the circumstances". Notice the force does not actually have cause any of the above, just normally be expected to have that result.
An @$$ beating in a fistfight involving moderate injuries not likely to cause great bodily harm ( just brusing or a nose bleed for example) is called "aggressive resistance" and justifies using intermediate weapons or a lateral neck restraint hold.
A head beating against the concrete is likely to cause great bodily harm or death. In the FDLE force/resistance matrix, blows or attempted blows to the head qualifies as "aggravated physical resistance" and justifies a deadly force response.
Justifiable self defensive levels of force to match the level of attack is essentially the same regardless of acting in an official capacity or not.
Lets start with a description of "great bodily harm". You won't find it statutorily defined, but is quantified in formal training according to what force courts generally accept as "great bodily harm".
Force LIKELY TO CAUSE :
Broken bones
Require stitches
Disfigurement
Permanant disability
Unconsciousness
Each case is somewhat unique unto itself, and is viewed in light of the "totality of the circumstances". Notice the force does not actually have cause any of the above, just normally be expected to have that result.
An @$$ beating in a fistfight involving moderate injuries not likely to cause great bodily harm ( just brusing or a nose bleed for example) is called "aggressive resistance" and justifies using intermediate weapons or a lateral neck restraint hold.
A head beating against the concrete is likely to cause great bodily harm or death. In the FDLE force/resistance matrix, blows or attempted blows to the head qualifies as "aggravated physical resistance" and justifies a deadly force response.
Justifiable self defensive levels of force to match the level of attack is essentially the same regardless of acting in an official capacity or not.
F350
Regular Member
No one outside the investigation knows all the details, an eye witness says Zimmerman was returning to his car, presumably after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow Martin. Martin was aware of Zimmerman (as indicated by his girl friend on a cell conversation) and attacked Zimmerman from behind, had him down and beating his head on the sidewalk. IF that is the true account of what happened then Zimmerman could very likely be protected by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
Just like NBC editing out the dispatchers inquiry of Martins race to make Zimmerman look like a raciest, I think there are many things that the general public is not aware of in this case.
Just like NBC editing out the dispatchers inquiry of Martins race to make Zimmerman look like a raciest, I think there are many things that the general public is not aware of in this case.
since9
Campaign Veteran
That's not provocation.
Depending on what Martin was doing at the time, that may or may not be provocation. Some passengers recently tackled a wacky airline captain to the floor, in direct violation of about two dozen federal regulations, EXCEPT for two things, either of which would have exonerated them: A) The flight attended asked for their assistance, and B) The Captain was acting erratic in a manner dangerous to both himself and the other passengers. Without those exceptions, the actions of the passengers would have been hugely provocative. Given either exception, their actions were justified.
In Zimmerman's case, the only thing we know for sure is that he followed Martin for a short distance before returning to his vehicle, at which point Martin attacked him.
There were three: Martin (dead), Zimmerman, and the gent who witnessed Martin beating the snot out Zimmerman and called 911.
Yep! Although it's best to avoid confrontations altogether, if at all possible. The old line about "An armed society is a polite society" took on new meaning for me after I began OCing. I found myself being more polite than I usual am!
NavyVA
Regular Member
Different perspective
The problem with this tragic incident is not whether or not Zimmerman was justified per "Stand your ground" law, but that the encounter even took place. Look at the situation in this way, let's say that Zimmerman was an LEO. On what grounds does that LEO have to approach Martin to begin with? There must be probable cause to even question a person. Because someone looks suspicious does not give them authority to violate your rights. Martin would not be required to show an ID or even identify himself if he didn't want to. Last I remember, this is a free country and there is no law requiring "papers please" to travel from one location to the other.
As far the audio from the 911 call of the citizen reporting the gunshot, I don't recall hearing any yelling telling Martin "Stop, I have a gun". But it's difficult to understand what happened without all the facts. Granted he isn't required to say he has a gun, but usually that will de-escalate almost any aggressor.
Just my 2 cents.
The problem with this tragic incident is not whether or not Zimmerman was justified per "Stand your ground" law, but that the encounter even took place. Look at the situation in this way, let's say that Zimmerman was an LEO. On what grounds does that LEO have to approach Martin to begin with? There must be probable cause to even question a person. Because someone looks suspicious does not give them authority to violate your rights. Martin would not be required to show an ID or even identify himself if he didn't want to. Last I remember, this is a free country and there is no law requiring "papers please" to travel from one location to the other.
As far the audio from the 911 call of the citizen reporting the gunshot, I don't recall hearing any yelling telling Martin "Stop, I have a gun". But it's difficult to understand what happened without all the facts. Granted he isn't required to say he has a gun, but usually that will de-escalate almost any aggressor.
Just my 2 cents.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
There is a somewhat "noble, and civilized" concept know as " non-violent conflict resolution."
A verbal dispute, or confrontation can not become a physical confrontation unless one, or more parties involved initiates, physical (hands-on) contact purposed to either constrain, subdue, or disable the other.
This will be the primary question of fact for a jury to determine in this case.
A verbal dispute, or confrontation can not become a physical confrontation unless one, or more parties involved initiates, physical (hands-on) contact purposed to either constrain, subdue, or disable the other.
This will be the primary question of fact for a jury to determine in this case.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Neither law enforcement nor myself require any grounds to "approach" a person. I can approach a person simply to ask them the time of day.
"Excuse me, Sir, but do you have the time?" That does NOT require probable cause. FYI, "probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered."
Probably cause is NOT required to approach or even question a person. No one, neither law enforcement nor residents of an apartment complex, requires PC to approach or question an individual.
Neither approaching an individual nor questioning an individual constitutes a violation of their rights.
This is your first accurate statement.
Your previous statement hit the nail on the head. Zimmerman had every right to approach and even question Martin. But Martin had every right to ignore Zimmerman completely.
That's difficult to do after you've been punched in the nose so hard you're knocked to the ground and the aggressor is sitting on top of you slamming your head onto the concrete sidewalk.
The fact is that Martin approached Zimmerman, punched him in the nose so hard he fell backwards onto the ground, sat on top of him, and began slamming his head against the sidewalk. So say both Zimmerman and the only other eyewitness.
The police report contends that Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun when it went off. At that point, whether Zimmerman pulled the trigger on purpose or Martin pulled it during the scuffle is immaterial. The situation is that Martin was committing felony assault and either:
1. Zimmerman lawfully used deadly force in defense of himself.
2. While Martin was attempting to grab Zimmerman's gun, either Zimmerman, Martin, or both accidentally caused it to fire.
Bottom line, the "special" prosecutor who caved to media and political pressure when she filed murder 2 charges against Zimmerman VIOLATED HER OATH OF OFFICE. She's a disgrace to the system of Justice in the State of Florida, and should be impeached without hesitation.
Seriously. Here in Colorado, it takes at most a couple of days to determine whether or not a shooting is justified. The original prosecutor already made the correct determination that it was either an accident or that Zimmerman was lawfully justified under Florida law. In either case,
The parents kept begging for an arrest, yet Zimmerman was ALREADY arrested the day of the shooting. Check the video as he entered the police station: Handcuffs. They weren't for kicks... Murder charges were filed ONLY because the Florida system of justice caved to media and political pressure.
What SHOULD have happened is the Florida prosecutor should have held a media conference and explained in no uncertain terms precisely WHY no charges should or would be filed against Zimmerman. The response might be wild, but so what? That's the result of their own racism and ignorance, not adherence to the truth and the law. Now we have a situation where both truth and the law have been thrown out the window merely to appease a squeaky wheel. It's time to tell the wheel to GROW UP AND QUIT WHINING. The kid went astray. He beat up the wrong guy, and paid the price. That's life. Sorry for your loss. Get over it.
Out.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Navy!
Let me step in and see if I can muddy the waters!
The rights to which you allude are rights of a citizen vs. government. The Bill of Rights stipulates limitations on government. It does not follow that a citizen asking questions of another citizen is infringing on their rights. As an agent of government, an LEO must uphold certain rights. As a private citizen, I do not.
Let me illustrate my point.
I am a bounty hunter. I am not an agent of the government. I am an agent of a private citizen who has made a contract to get a defendant out of jail. That defendant has somehow or another violated the terms of his bail agreement and is now subject to arrest and return to jail. So they hire me to go after them and fetch them back to custody. The defendant, in order to secure bail to get out of jail, will sign a legally binding agreement. In that legally binding agreement, he will give up certain rights. Among them are quite a few that an LEO MUST follow, but I am not bound to observe. I can go to his home. If the owns the dwelling, and refuses to answer, I can kick down his front door and go inside to arrest him. (Taylor v. Taintor) I can cross state lines to effect an arrest. I am not required to carry a warrant for his arrest, because technically, he has never been released from arrest by having his case adjudicated. I can also search his dwelling or his vehicle or his person without a warrant. I am not required to 'read him his rights', or Mirandize him. I am authorized by law to use an appropriate level of force to effect the arrest. Whatever force I am confronted with by a defendant, I am authorized to overcome with the same or slightly greater degree of force to take him into custody.
As a Process Server, I also am beyond the normal rule of law as affects others in our society. A process server is a private citizen who engages in the business of serving court papers on behalf of a client, typically an attorney or private citizen. Often those papers are subpeonas or summons and complaint. We can enter upon private property, despite the presence of a 'no tresspassing' sign or 'private property, keep out' notice posted on the grounds. We have the right to approach the front door and make that serve.
In both cases, questions are going to happen. A bounty hunter is going to interrogate other citizens to determine the location of his defendant in order to make an arrest. He doesn't need Reasonable Articulateable Suspicion of Probable Cause to question anybody or anybody in the course of his investigation. A process server can also question anybody necessary to obtain information to locate a missing defendant.
Both jobs I do will require me to ask questions. I'll question neighbors to determine when was the last time they saw my defendant. When does he tend to be around? Does he live in that dwelling? What sort of car does he drive? I will interrogate relatives, friends, employers, coworkers, supervisors, and most importantly of all... their co-signer. Bear in mind, through all that questioning of a wide array of fellow citizens, I am not a police officer but a private citizen engaged in lawful investigation. A private investigator enjoys many of the same protections to get things done that cops cannot.
A couple of days ago, I had a woman tell me that she didn't want me to come back, that her home is on private property, and if I returned she'd call the cops! I laughed out loud. "I absolutely encourage you to call the Arapahoe county sheriff's office and ask them to come out here. In fact, I'll let you use my cellular phone to accomplish that right now. Or even better, I can make that call for you and get them here quicker. As I am a process server attempting due dilligence to deliver court papers to your husband and he is evading receiving them, you'll discover that they'll back me up in my right to be here making this attempt. The right of the process server to deliver such papers trumps private property rights per Colorado Revised Statute, and I'd be happy to show you that specific statute. Now.... where is your husband or shall I call Arapahoe county out here to discuss things further?
She declined that particular offer. She was wise to do so.
Another woman quoted her 5th Amendment rights to me the next day. "I refuse to answer any of your questions on the grounds they may tend to incriminate me." Again, I had to laugh.
"Lady, I am not law enforcement or an agent of the government. I could care less about incriminating you or whether you answer questions or not. I'll get answers by conducting an investigation on the defendant, and everybody he knows... including you. Likely as not, I'll find out things that you really wish never got exposed. You might find that answering my questions is easier than having me discover evidence that will incriminate you more deeply than anything you might say! So where is this guy?"
She denied knowing his whereabouts, but also stopped trying to avoid questions considering I am not there to uphold her rights but to serve papers.
The point is.... Verbose as I may have been getting here,.... the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government over a citizen. The Bill of Rights does not affect a private citizen interaction with another private citizen. Then there is the subject of contracts. Ever see that line that says "I waive certain rights" in a contract? Ever see "Will be liable for any collection costs" in a contract? Ever take a job that has certain policies that affect your rights in one way or another? Freedom of movement, freedom to carry a firearm (even with a CCW), freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc, etc, etc?
The whole point is that I can ask anybody anything anytime. It is part of my freedom to talk to other people. They can refuse to answer. That's peachy neat too... But not always prudent.
And what do you want to be that when I ask questions... I make it pretty clear that I expect answers. They throw their rights down like a gauntlet, I simply pick up the gauntlet and hand it back to them as I explain why their rights are real limited when it comes to a bounty hunter or process server or private investigator. In almost every case, the person refusing to cooperate is in one way or another jeopardizing themselves to legal action against them. i.e. Aiding and abetting, harboring a fugitive, impeding due process, etc, etc.
Having a cop on your tail is not nearly so worrisome as a determined and relentless Process Server or even more forceful, the Bounty Hunter!
Rights have limits too, upon government, but not nearly to the same extent upon private citizens.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
NavyVA
Regular Member
The following quoted information was found at the following Neighborhood Watch manual. Not sure what was followed in that community, but according to this, nothing was appropriate except the initial 911 call.
http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf
"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped for their duties. For example, flashlights or searchlights are necessary for night patrols. Many mobile patrols use cell phones or two-way radios to contact a citizen-manned base station, which in turn contacts law enforcement officials when necessary. Remember your partnerships and ask for donations from local businesses."
"REMEMBER:
Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities."
To: M-Taliesin
Thanks for your comments! I understand your explanation of being a bounty hunter, but that is like comparing apples to oranges in this situation.
To: since9
I agree that anyone has the authority to question, but like you said everyone has the right to refuse to answer as well. Think my comment was misunderstood.
As far as the "fact" that Martin approached and punched Zimmerman is only a statement, not fact. We all know that a statement is not necessarily the truth. For example in the case of Phil Mocek, had he not had video/audio recording of his incident with TSA and LEO, the statements of the TSA and LEO would have probably been enough to convict Mr. Mocek. However, with A/V proof, the statements were proven false.
I dislike this situation and don't take either side. I just believe that it was something that could have been unavoidable.
http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf
"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped for their duties. For example, flashlights or searchlights are necessary for night patrols. Many mobile patrols use cell phones or two-way radios to contact a citizen-manned base station, which in turn contacts law enforcement officials when necessary. Remember your partnerships and ask for donations from local businesses."
"REMEMBER:
Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities."
To: M-Taliesin
Thanks for your comments! I understand your explanation of being a bounty hunter, but that is like comparing apples to oranges in this situation.
To: since9
I agree that anyone has the authority to question, but like you said everyone has the right to refuse to answer as well. Think my comment was misunderstood.
As far as the "fact" that Martin approached and punched Zimmerman is only a statement, not fact. We all know that a statement is not necessarily the truth. For example in the case of Phil Mocek, had he not had video/audio recording of his incident with TSA and LEO, the statements of the TSA and LEO would have probably been enough to convict Mr. Mocek. However, with A/V proof, the statements were proven false.
I dislike this situation and don't take either side. I just believe that it was something that could have been unavoidable.
since9
Campaign Veteran
"Should" is not synonymous with "will" or "shall." "Should" represents the author's opinion, not the law. In the case of Neighborhood Watch, it's neither binding nor a condition of being allowed to participate in a Neighborhood Watch program.
In fact, any group of citizens can organize their neighborhood watch and participate in it with or without the blessing of local law enforcement: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Provided they're obeying the written law, there's nothing local law enforcement can legally do to stop them.
It was reported as fact by the only two eyewitnesses present. Their stories corroborate one another.
All the more reason we should all carry audio-visual recorders with us at all times.
I grew up in the South and witnessed some fairly disgusting racism. I hate it in all forms, whether it's used to suppress minorities or by minorities to attack their supposed oppressors.
Could the situation in Florida have been avoided? I think so. That's not a test of guilt, however, and I'm not sure I'd have handled things any differently. What matters is who was doing what to whom and why at the moment the gun went off. If Zimmerman had continued to pursue Martin, he'd have been provoking him, and under Colorado State law, he'd have seriously weakened his defense, but it would not have evaporated for the simple fact that Martin was sitting atop Zimmerman, having decked him in a punch to the face, and was slamming his head into the ground. Under Colorado State Law, that constitutes immanent threat of life and limb, a valid defense justifying homicide.
Again, the fact of the matter is that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked. Therefore all arguments about him "pursuing" Martin are null and void. At that point, it was Martin who did the pursuing and attacking, and Zimmerman who was fighting for life and limb.
The reason I hate racism is that it's biased. It's not objective. It takes some of the facts (if any), leaps to errant conclusions, and acts on the basis of logical fallacy, emotion, and prejudice rather than objective fact. The objective facts in this case are fairly straightforward, and the 911 tapes, the eyewitness accounts, Zimmerman's injuries, and the account given by Martin's girlfriend are all in relative agreement. That agreement tells an objective tale of lawful self-defense:
- Were errors made? Probably.
- Could it have been avoided? Probably.
- Was Zimmerman acting in a lawful manner? Yes.
- Was Martin acting in a lawful manner? No.
- Did the police act in a lawful manner? Yes.
- Did the original prosecutor assigned to the case act in a manner commensurate with the law? Yes.
- Is the current "special" prosecutor acting in a manner commensurate with the law? I don't rightly know, as I don't know the laws governing their behavior.
I do know it would take one unbelievably horrendous stretch of the imagination before I'd ever arrive at charge of murder 2. I also know many people in similar positions who've always stopped the buck instead of bending to either political or media pressure.
It is for the above reasons that I'm firmly convinced the special prosecutor who filed murder 2 charges against Zimmerman is violating her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I further contend that anyone who violates their oaths of office are, by so doing, domestic enemies of our Constitution, and as our Constitution is the basis of all law in the United States of America, they have also chosen, willingly or not, to be enemies of the United States of America.
Gray Rider
New member
+1 to since9
I have followed and commented about this case on 3 forums. Your responses are the most direct, best supported , easily digested, and to-the points of the major factors involved.
I have followed and commented about this case on 3 forums. Your responses are the most direct, best supported , easily digested, and to-the points of the major factors involved.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Thank you, 6-shooter! It's nice to see the media finally producing some facts in the case. The most recent thing I read is that the prosecutor is now claiming that if Zimmerman hadn't made contact with Martin that the shooting wouldn't have happened. Naturally, she's completely ignoring the fact that Martin still committed aggravated assault and either the gun went off when Martin tried to grab it or Zimmerman simply fired in self-defense as allowed by Florida State Law. Can't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of railroading a law-abiding citizen, though...
*hands clapping*
You can't possibly know that to be true or not.
Gray Rider
New member
Justice for George
Well yes, if one assumes this incident was merely an elmentary schoolyard playground level scuffle... but,
Banging or attempts to bang a person's head against a hard surface easily meets the elements of Aggravated Battery, and sometimes also Attempted Murder. Both are forcible felonies justifying a deadly force response.
Well yes, if one assumes this incident was merely an elmentary schoolyard playground level scuffle... but,
Banging or attempts to bang a person's head against a hard surface easily meets the elements of Aggravated Battery, and sometimes also Attempted Murder. Both are forcible felonies justifying a deadly force response.