Feds to investigate fatal shooting of Florifda teen

[Stanley]

No, I don't assume that. I, do, however, assert that he lost any right to defend himself once Z begged him to stop / for help.



Unconscious = dead if your assailant doesn't decide to stop. Sorry, but my life is too valuable to give someone that benefit of doubt.



Not the same scenario. If the robber was lying on the ground, bleeding out, then you're damn right I'd stop shooting. There is no right to a coup de grace. I might be prepared to shoot him further were he to draw a gun, but I would not be justified in continuing to shoot once the robber was no longer a threat. A robber might still be a threat if he were calling for help, but a person is not still a threat in a hand-to-hand altercation once you're on top of him beating the tar out of him and he's begging you to stop / for help.

Don't most self defense laws state you can't start the situation then back off and use the threat as justification???

That's what he did. Even if not purposefully.

At that point, Z had it coming.

Now would I have shot him in his place! He'll yeah but that is not the same as removing responsibility.

He's still RESPONSIBLE for the entire situation and the death.

 

[wrightme]

Don't most self defense laws state you can't start the situation then back off and use the threat as justification???

That's what he did. Even if not purposefully.

To qualify, it would need to be a purposeful act. An unintentional act would not count.

 

[marshaul]

Don't most self defense laws state you can't start the situation then back off and use the threat as justification???

Not in the state in which we share residence. In Virginia, one may not continue to use force after the threat has ceased, and an original assailant regains his own right to self-defense should his original victim do so. (You may have a hard time convincing a jury of that if you tried to knife someone, but if you started a fistfight, and it devolved to something like this scenario, you'd still retain the right to defend yourself, if you actively demonstrated intent to cease the altercation or escape.)

BTW, as a firearm carrier, keep that it mind. It might save you some legal hassle should you be forced to defend yourself.

Now would I have shot him in his place! He'll yeah but that is not the same as removing responsibility.

Do you think you would deserve life in prison for doing so?

He's still RESPONSIBLE for the entire situation

That may be.

and the death.

Nope. Martin is responsible for his own death by continuing the assault after Z was no longer a possible threat.

It's a shame Martin didn't live to be old enough to learn about his responsibility. Kind of like the kid in the sports car, eh? It's a real shame. His parents did him the ultimate disservice.

I was raised carefully enough that I know no youthful indiscretion would have led me to think that it would be acceptable or remotely safe for me to do what Martin did. I am very fortunate.

IMO, that's what this comes down to: irresponsible parenting. And, on the off chance his parents let him think that physical altercation outside self-defense could ever be acceptable, a tad barbaric too.

 

[Chaingun81]

Not in the state in which we share residence. In Virginia, one may not continue to use force after the threat has ceased, and an original assailant regains his own right to self-defense should his original victim do so. (You may have a hard time convincing a jury of that if you tried to knife someone, but if you started a fistfight, and it devolved to something like this scenario, you'd still retain the right to defend yourself, if you actively demonstrated intent to cease the altercation or escape.)

BTW, as a firearm carrier, keep that it mind. It might save you some legal hassle should you be forced to defend yourself.



Do you think you would deserve life in prison for doing so?


That may be.



Nope. Martin is responsible for his own death by continuing the assault after Z was no longer a possible threat.

It's a shame Martin didn't live to be old enough to learn about his responsibility. Kind of like the kid in the sports car, eh? It's a real shame. His parents did him the ultimate disservice.

I was raised carefully enough that I know no youthful indiscretion would have led me to think that it would be acceptable or remotely safe for me to do what Martin did. I am very fortunate.

IMO, that's what this comes down to: irresponsible parenting. And, on the off chance his parents let him think that physical altercation outside self-defense could ever be acceptable, a tad barbaric too.

+100

Excellent responses and fair and balanced reasoning Marshaul. I wish media would report it like that.

 

[Sky1]

What scares me is how people jump to conclusion over misleading one sided information provided by the media.

Everyone knows the media does not tell the whole truth! Haven't we learned?
Remember the Lacrosse Case? Almost sent innocent kids to jail
Remember the Gulf? There is just a small leak, shouldn't cause any harm to the environment!
Remember the Economy? We are on the road to recovery, the economy is improving!
Remember Fukushima? "Everything is under control, trust us!!"

If I was Zimmerman I would sue the media, they intentionally used false information to cause this controversy for the sake of financial gain.

 

[wilsondeacon]

Cutting through it all, though, certain questions remain. And this is part of the reason that anti-gun folks don't want guns allowed in public parks, etc. Would Z have done all that he did if he had not been armed? Would he have pursued and/or continued looking? No one other than Z will ever know for sure what was said and done in the last minute or so before TM was shot. But did Z say and do things differently than he would have if he had not been armed? Did he have more courage because he had a gun? I don't know and don't think anyone will ever know. But that's really part of the problem that gun opponents have. And gun owners need to understand and address these issues instead of side-stepping them.

In addition to all of this, another question would be whether TM would have done all that he did if he knew that Z was carrying a gun. I would think that most would agree that he would not have. Is that a reason to allow open carry? (This ignores the question of whether he would have seen it had Z been open carrying a gun -- but it raises the question.)

Of course, the response is that there have been many occasions that people have been injured because they were not allowed to carry a weapon at a public park, restaurant, store, etc. And, now we see of situations where the FL law allowed someone like TM to be shot because Z was allowed to carry a gun. If Z did not have a gun, would this altercation have occurred? Would Z have allowed himself to be there?

I suppose that there will be bad stories either way. We are humans and cannot be perfect. It boils down to questions about rights and safety and personal protection. The world is not a safe place. And we cannot have rules that protect all people at all times. And LEOs cannot be everywhere. And there will be criminals with bad intentions. And there will be mistakes when people fear situations unreasonably. And there will be times where people are not afraid and are hurt or killed.

I don't think that there are any bright lines or clear answers here. And there never will be. It's a shame that the incident forces everyone to jump to conclusions about who was right or wrong -- or about what laws should allow or not.

May TM rest in peace. And, just as importantly, may Z and TM's family find peace, too.

 

[marshaul]

+100

Excellent responses and fair and balanced reasoning Marshaul. I wish media would report it like that.

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing (not to toot my own horn).

I say that because there's a fair amount of bias on "our side" too, and I've done my best to avoid that and be neutral. I have done my best to recognize the mistakes made by both sides, and to come to a fair determination given the facts known. I came into this discussion with no prior bias, and in fact have slightly changed my judgement of certain aspects as more facts have come to light.

 

[marshaul]

In addition to all of this, another question would be whether TM would have done all that he did if he knew that Z was carrying a gun. I would think that most would agree that he would not have. Is that a reason to allow open carry? (This ignores the question of whether he would have seen it had Z been open carrying a gun -- but it raises the question.)

Indeed. I have (not by any means for the first time) questioned the prudence of allowing CC only, on these very grounds. This time, I believe the wording I used in regards to Florida's open carry prohibition was "criminally insane". Which I think about sums it up.

I should be allowed to deter conflict before I am forced to draw a firearm, which at that point leaves few options open for both parties. I don't want to have to kill or even shoot someone. I'd much rather they decide I'm too hard a target and leave me alone. There's even a chance they'll think twice next time, knowing that many armed individuals carry concealed.