Case to watch

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.newser.com/story/254192/teen-is-dead-after-daring-gunman-to-shoot.html

A motorist was involved in an accident with another vehicle carrying two teenagers. One of the teens confronted the driver of the other car and, according to his friend's admission, "got in his face." The motorist shot and killed the 17-year old.

The part that gets me worried is that the police department's view is that no punches were thrown so therefore the motorist wasn't entitled to claim self defense. I don't know Minnesota law but it's my understanding that in most states harsh words are legally construed to be "assault." I would also hope that the same "reasonable man" standard applies in Minnesota as applies in most other states. Personally, if I were alone and I had two teenagers ganging up on me, I think a reasonable man would decide that I had reason to fear for my life or to fear serious bodily injury.

[Jamisjockey]

http://www.newser.com/story/254192/teen-is-dead-after-daring-gunman-to-shoot.html

A motorist was involved in an accident with another vehicle carrying two teenagers. One of the teens confronted the driver of the other car and, according to his friend's admission, "got in his face." The motorist shot and killed the 17-year old.

The part that gets me worried is that the police department's view is that no punches were thrown so therefore the motorist wasn't entitled to claim self defense. I don't know Minnesota law but it's my understanding that in most states harsh words are legally construed to be "assault." I would also hope that the same "reasonable man" standard applies in Minnesota as applies in most other states. Personally, if I were alone and I had two teenagers ganging up on me, I think a reasonable man would decide that I had reason to fear for my life or to fear serious bodily injury.

In Texas this sort of situation is covered under threat of lethal force.  Pretty much the idea that you can threaten lethal force in an attempt to de-escalate a situation. 
I'm not sure I could make that leap. I'd think you'd be in fear of life or injury, but an assault hasn't actually happened yet to justify the shoot. 

[RoadKingLarry]

I think it should fall to the "reasonable person" standard.
I'm in agreement with Hawkmoon, If both the teens were threatening the shooter then a threat of disparity of force comes in and my personal standard is that I'm not going to wait until after I've been physically assaulted to defend myself.

My guess is the shooter will lose this one though.

[mtnbkr]

So, there was an accident.  The teens hit the older guy (25 per article, not "old").  When they got out, the older guy wanted to fight.  Younger guy got mouthy.  Older guy pulls a gun.  Younger guy attempts to call his bluff and catches a bullet as a result.

Nothing to watch here.  Both guys acted stupidly.  One is dead, the other is facing charges.  Both should have kept their traps shut, assessed the damage, called the police, and moved on with their lives.  If I had to pick one who was more at fault, I'd pin that on the older one.  He's the one challenging others to fights, then pulling out his gat.  You don't do that when you're armed.

Chris

[RoadKingLarry]

All we have to go on for the sequence of events is the story from the other teen. I'm going to wait till (if) more info comes out.

[Scout26]

IIRC,  Assault is the threat to use force.  E.g.  "I'm going to beat you."   Battery is actually following through/touching the other person. 

[Ben]

I'll wait for more info. However, if it's the way mtnbkr heard it, I think the shooter is going to get some punishment. As much as people don't want to hear it, if you wear a gun, in many ways you have to do things some would call "cowardly". Walking down the sidewalk and see some hoodlums ahead blocking your way? Cross the street or take a detour. Someone calls you out for a fight? Turn and walk away, at least until there's nowhere to walk.

In the case here, you get out of your car, remain calm, exchange insurance info, and drive on. Or call the cops if the other party starts to get verbally belligerent. If they approach you after you've done everything possible to avoid a fight, that's a different story. Especially two against one. But if you're being the mouthy one, well, sorry, you can't have a big mouth while you carry a big gun.

[mtnbkr]

IIRC,  Assault is the threat to use force.  E.g.  "I'm going to beat you."   Battery is actually following through/touching the other person. 

That is correct.

Chris

[Scout26]

All we have is friend of dead teen's words. 

If shooter gets out to exchange info and shootee comes angrily charging up, I too might pull my gun (in an attempt to prevent getting my *expletive deleted*ss beat).

The question is when can you pull the trigger.  If shootee continues his assault (threatening words, not necessarily any touching), with threatened assault, there may be a point in which shooter reaches that point of being in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

Especially if the display of force does nothing to deter the shootee....

[Brad Johnson]

From what I can tell most states use some variation of "threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death" for justification of use of deadly force.

If motorist was smaller person and mouthy teen was hulking brute with an aggressive attitude, there's some reasonable expectation of serious bodily injury. If it was the other way around, then no. Lots of variable to consider, some of which are frustratingly subjective.

Brad

[KD5NRH]

The question is when can you pull the trigger.  If shootee continues his assault (threatening words, not necessarily any touching), with threatened assault, there may be a point in which shooter reaches that point of being in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

Especially if the display of force does nothing to deter the shootee....

That would be my argument; if I'm clearly armed and prepared to fire, I have no real choice but to assume that the person still approaching/threatening me is either completely, dangerously irrational or has some plan not yet fully known to me for dealing with their potential victim being armed.

[De Selby]

That would be my argument; if I'm clearly armed and prepared to fire, I have no real choice but to assume that the person still approaching/threatening me is either completely, dangerously irrational or has some plan not yet fully known to me for dealing with their potential victim being armed.

Cool story bro.

This shooting is a total *expletive deleted*it sandwich. If you cannot clearly articulate to yourself a lethal threat, probably best not to touch the gun.  Everything about this article screams road rage.

[dogmush]

Cool story bro.

This shooting is a total *expletive deleted*it sandwich. If you cannot clearly articulate to yourself a lethal threat, probably best not to touch the gun.  Everything about this article screams road rage.

Well judging by past performance this post pretty much guarantees an acquittal.

[Scout26]

Well judging by past performance this post pretty much guarantees an acquittal.

Not only that, but my assessment/appraisal of the what happened is pretty much spot on then....

[De Selby]

Well judging by past performance this post pretty much guarantees an acquittal.

1) this didn’t happen in FL
2) there’s a surviving witness

Zimmerman benefitted greatly from a podunk prosecution. He also killed the only other witness.

It would be a great illustration of the risks with these threads if the shooter was all over the internet explaining how so many scenarios could justify him shooting someone, including “the other guy was big!” or “he saw the gun and didn’t run - he must’ve been crazy!”

That sort of thing would just be putting smiles on the prosecutions faces

[Hawkmoon]

1) this didn’t happen in FL
2) there’s a surviving witness

The surviving witness is not exactly impartial, yet even he stated that the deceased "got in the face" of the shooter.

Zimmerman benefitted greatly from a podunk prosecution. He also killed the only other witness.

Correction: Zimmerman killed the only other participant. There were no witnesses.

[T.O.M.]

I would have said that most people would recognize the danger a pair of unarmed people would present to one person.  Some recent events have caused me to reassess this and realize that more people are stupid than I thought, and it appears that many people don't realize that someone can beat/kick a person to death, and two people can do so quicker.  So, with that said, I respectfully decline to predict how this will play out, and will watch to see what happens.

[T.O.M.]

Oh, and I think De  Selby and I were the two predicting conviction in the Zimmerman case.  I acknowledge my prediction was wrong.   That said, I see one significant difference here.  Zimmerman was actually attacked and injured.  Doesn't appear that in this case there was any actual physical contact.  I know that in Ohio, there is case law that holds words alone are insufficient to serve as justification for self defense claims.  Don't know the law here.

(fixed a typo)

[MechAg94]

The surviving witness is not exactly impartial, yet even he stated that the deceased "got in the face" of the shooter.

Correction: Zimmerman killed the only other participant. There were no witnesses.

Actually, there were one or two witnesses who saw/heard portions of the incident.  What they saw/heard backed up Zimmerman's story.  

[MechAg94]

I tend to agree that we only have the one person who is giving us the story told in the article so it is safe to assume there is more to it even if it may end up being true.  Unless there are other witnesses or camera footage or history, it is his word against the shooter's.  The shooter is in for a long haul even if he wins unless there is something solid to back him up.

Does anyone know the standards for issuing permits to carry there?  I would assume that means he has no criminal history. 

[HankB]

Zimmerman benefitted greatly from a podunk prosecution. He also killed the only other witness.

We beat this topic to death when it happened, but here we still have people trying to promulgate multiple untruths.

Though he didn't see the entire incident, another witness (who wasn't involved in the incident) testified he saw the perp (Martin) on top of Zimmerman, beating on him. It's incorrect to refer to the expired perp as a witness. And as for the "podunk" prosecution, note that local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies investigated the hell out of this case and all of them COMBINED were unable to come up with enough evidence to successfully convict, even with support and pressure from POTUS. This means either Zimmerman was a criminal genius on the level of the fictional Prof. Moriarty in order to concoct a story on the fly that held together, or he was a dumb shlub telling the truth.

I see no evidence of genius in Zimmerman's actions and statements.

As for the current case . . . it's troubling from the snippets I've read, and right now I don't know where I would put the lion's share of the blame.

[Hawkmoon]

Though he didn't see the entire incident, another witness (who wasn't involved in the incident) testified he saw the perp (Martin) on top of Zimmerman, beating on him. It's incorrect to refer to the expired perp as a witness.

I had forgotten that there was that witness. I fully agree that Martin was not a "witness." He was a direct participant.

[TommyGunn]

I had forgotten that there was that witness. I fully agree that Martin was not a "witness." He was a direct participant.

Can't a participant also be a witness too?  Or does being a  participant mean that,  being involved,  he's not a disinterested bystander and thus not considered a witness?

[T.O.M.]

Can't a participant also be a witness too?  Or does being a  participant mean that,  being involved,  he's not a disinterested bystander and thus not considered a witness?

I think this all depends on the context in which the word "witness" is used.  In the system, you have  a defendant (the person charged), the victim or complaining witness (the person who suffered as a result of the criminal act), and witnesses (people with direct knowledge about the incident).  With this in mind, Zimmerman would be the defendant, and Martin would have been the victim.  Yeah, I know, hard to think of Martin as a victim given the circumstances.

[grampster]

One wonders if there is a racial issue in this situation?