Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[De Selby]

I live in the Austin, TX area. Some parts of Austin have unpleasant panhandlers, who can be a bit . . . persistent.

According to DeSelby's writings, if I'm on foot and some disagreeable panhandler follows me for a bit, I can beat the <expletive> out of him.  If at some point he stops following me to return to his corner, I can then chase him and administer a beat down when I catch up, and the panhandler's only recourse (since he started it all by following me) is to fall to his knees and beg forgiveness.

Is this about right?

And if I do so . . . will the Austin Police Department have the same take on the situation as DeSelby?

Okay, let's modify that a bit to better fit the situation:  Let's say you're walking along quickly, and that panhandler yells out from across the street.  After you refuse to acknowledge him, he crosses to be closer.   You then run away from the street into a row of houses.    The bum chases you....and after running from him, you hide in the bushes and spring out as he runs past you (still away from the street, still in the dark row between the houses) and whoop on him.


Actually, yeah, I'm 100 percent certain the Austin PD would have zero case on you.  I'd defend myself, having gone to law school in Austin.

Hey gunsmith, I'm an American lawyer.  

[De Selby]

Or had Zimmerman been unarmed, found a brick during the struggle, and killed Martin with a blow to the head, how would this change your analysis of the case?

In no respect would it change my analysis - Zimmerman would still be guilty of a crime, irrespective of whether Martin (Travyon, Trayvon Martin, not George, George Zimmerman) was also guilty of a crime.

[HankB]

. . . The bum chases you....and after running from him, you hide in the bushes and spring out as he runs past you (still away from the street, still in the dark row between the houses) and whoop on him . . .

Can't I wait until after he stops following me and is on his way back to his corner before I bushwhack him? It would still be his fault then, right?

[De Selby]

Can't I wait until after he stops following me and is on his way back to his corner before I bushwhack him? It would still be his fault then, right?

Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime.  I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety. 

[makattak]

Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime.  I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety. 

Can you tell me what the crime I'd be guilty of? "Aggravated following"? "Premeditated creepiness?"

[T.O.M.]

HankB, I thinkDeSelby has said that Treyvon is guilty of assault, and George is guilty of manslaughter.

My choice of a Terry stop was poor, as there's no evidence that George was going to frisk Treyvon.  But, I think that my point in asking the question is along with what DeSelby said, when George left his car, he changed the dynamics of the situation, and that may have taken his actions out of the self-defense category.  Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm not going to spend hours doing the research I have in a career of work as a criminal lawyer in Ohio in the issue of self-defense.  For what it's worth, I've no-billed a few cases in my time as a prosecutor on the grounds of self-defense and also defense of others.  And I firmly believe in 2A rights.  (So, the PM  I got questioning why an anti-gun lawyer is on this board promoting an anti 2A adgenda is completely wrong.)  I believe that George may not easily prevail, if at all, on his self-defense argument because of the choices he made to leave his position of safety, follow Treyvon into unknown circumstances, and then rely on self-defense when he fired.  To be honest, I'm also worried that the injuries he suffered from a bare hand attack may not result in a jury believing that he was reasonably in fear for his life when he fired.

And, again, as an armed citizen, I worry that this incident may cause stupd legislators to enact stupid laws regarding self-defense that will make it worse for those of us who choose to carry a weapon to protect ourselves and our families.

[makattak]

HankB, I thinkDeSelby has said that Treyvon is guilty of assault, and George is guilty of manslaughter.

My choice of a Terry stop was poor, as there's no evidence that George was going to frisk Treyvon.  But, I think that my point in asking the question is along with what DeSelby said, when George left his car, he changed the dynamics of the situation, and that may have taken his actions out of the self-defense category.  Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm not going to spend hours doing the research I have in a career of work as a criminal lawyer in Ohio in the issue of self-defense.  For what it's worth, I've no-billed a few cases in my time as a prosecutor on the grounds of self-defense and also defense of others.  And I firmly believe in 2A rights.  (So, the PM  I got questioning why an anti-gun lawyer is on this board promoting an anti 2A adgenda is completely wrong.)  I believe that George may not easily prevail, if at all, on his self-defense argument because of the choices he made to leave his position of safety, follow Treyvon into unknown circumstances, and then rely on self-defense when he fired.  To be honest, I'm also worried that the injuries he suffered from a bare hand attack may not result in a jury believing that he was reasonably in fear for his life when he fired.

And, again, as an armed citizen, I worry that this incident may cause stupd legislators to enact stupid laws regarding self-defense that will make it worse for those of us who choose to carry a weapon to protect ourselves and our families.

I've asked this questio before, but your post seems to indicate that citizens have no right of self-defense if the approach any other citizen and "initiate an incident."

Do citizens not have a right to observe or even speak to someone else on the street? No right to ask them what they might be doing in the neighborhood?

[Jamisjockey]

Then, as cordex points out, you'd both be guilty of a crime.  I'd be happy to send you pictures of his mugshot in jail as a client nicety.

Snort. 

I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?
Not that I've seen.  Anything else is conjecture.
And gz's statement is he was going back to his car after he stopped following Martin.
This may go down as an epic dead horse around here. You sure have a knack for flogging them.

If the Florida statute is written similarly, then you are wrong, counselor.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Jamis, I'm pulling this from one of the previous threads that was locked - let me know if you need me to edit it down - I was a little steamed at this point....

Sorry De Selby,  but following someone,  even chasing someone,  whether you are armed or not, is not "an act imminently dangerous to another."

Furthermore, you're twisting the law around to try to fit your preconceived notions.  For that law to apply,  the act that causes the unlawful killing must be the imminently dangerous act.  So if Martin had keeled over and died from being chased, then yes,  that law would apply.  And that law specifically states "the unlawful killing." Killing someone in self defense is not an unlawful killing.

Now let's look at the second statute you quoted....

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Let's walk through that, shall we?  Hrm... "Without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776"....   Wait.  Would self defense be lawful justification???  Oh my, it looks like chapter 776 is exactly that, Justifiable Use of Force!   Hrm.  Let's see what all is in there, shall we???  Oh lookie...   776.012 - Use of force in defense of person.  776.032 - Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

Oh, here's a good one....

776.041 - Use of force by aggressor.  Shall we see what Florida has to say about this???  Even if Zimmerman was the "aggressor"?

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Ok.   #1 doesn't apply.  Zimmerman was not attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony.  Strike 1.

#2 - "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself."  -  Hmm.. could it be...  Maybe *that's* the law you were thinking he broke....  But wait.  there's more to be read-

"UNLESS" (my, that's an important word in this case)

"(a) - such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" yeah, getting punched to the ground and then having your head slammed into the cement sidewalk would fit that definition "and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;"  Whoopsie.  Zimmerman was under Martin, having his head pounded into the cement.  I don't see any reasonable means to escape that danger....  Strike 2.

"or (b) - In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."  Let's see. Zimmerman stopped following/chasing Martin.  He's walking back to his car.  Yup.  Withdrew from physical contact...  Oh wait.  THERE HADN'T EVEN BEEN ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT YET!   According to his statement to police, after he started walking back to his car, this exchange occurred:

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

Wait, what's this? "Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose" oh no!  "and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."    Strike 3, and you're out!

Oh, but guess what, I'm not done yet!  "and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide"

Gee, I wonder what fits the definition of excusable homicide???   Oh, that's right, SELF DEFENSE!


Guess again, Counselor.

So again, De Selby, is it your contention that being followed, or if you like, chased by another person put Trayvon Martin in REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury?  Because my understanding is that is the standard that would justify Martin using deadly physical force. 

[HankB]

 . . . I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?

That's the crux of the matter - so far, I have seen ZERO evidence that Zimmerman initiated any confrontation.

Chris, DeSelby et.al., - IF Zimmerman cornered Martin, assaulted him, or tried to illegally detain him, he would clearly be the aggressor and his claim of self defense wouldn't hold up in court; in such a circumstance I doubt anyone on this board would say otherwise, and most would agree that Zimmerman would and should be convicted; perhaps not Murder 2, but something.

But if Zimmerman's assertion holds up that he stopped following Martin before any confrontation with Martin occured and that it was then Martin who pursued him and initiated a violent assault, that's quite a different matter. One can argue persuasively that Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car to follow Martin on foot, but most don't see following a suspicious individual - note that's following, NOT assaulting, NOT cornering, NOT detaining - as a criminal action, particularly when the person doing the following is on the phone with police. (How often do people with criminal intent call 911?) Most people see the person who actually initiates violence as the perp. And the public evidence available today though not conclusive and fully corroborated suggests that the person who initiated violence was Martin.

If following Martin was not a crime, and turning back to his car without confronting Martin was not a crime, then evidence suggests that Martin assaulted a man who'd committed no crime. Now, does self defense against a violent assault become a crime based on the victim's non-criminal, repeat, NON-CRIMINAL activity prior to his suffering the criminal assault, particularly since the assault happened as he was returning to his car having had no actual contact with the individual he'd deemed suspicious?

I expect more arguments, analysis, and EVIDENCE will surface in court, and we'll see what happens; maybe something credible will surface that will put a different slant on things. But if there's something there, I haven't seen it in the public record yet.

[MechAg94]

See, we do know that he at least walked behind a row of houses - that's another proven fact.  George Zimmerman followed a person who ran from him into a dark, rainy walkway between a row of houses and away from any public street.   Yet another bizarre move for an armed person to take, both setting himself up for an ambush and giving the other person every reason to believe there's a risky situation developing.

Carrying concealed and chasing people who try to get away from you, if you could foresee that that person would not want you to get near them, is indeed something that strips you of a self defenc claim.  As well it should - why on earth should we be saying that it's ok to engage in conduct that's likely to create a confrontation when carrying a gun!?

With your question about why Martin didn't go back home, that isn't terribly relevant to the self defence claim.  Maybe trayvon did commit a crime against Zimmerman.   That doesn't mean Zimmerman is in the clear.   Both can be guilty of something in the same case if both contributed to the violence.

De Selby, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places.  I don't think I have seen that.  

What exactly happened after Zimmerman ended the 911 phone call and before the actual fight seems to be the area where a lot of us diverge on how we see things. 

[CNYCacher]

De Selby, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places.  I don't think I have seen that.  

As I stated previously, DeSelby is not describing the events which took place, he is describing the dramatization which he sees in his head when he listens to the tape.

[cordex]

De Selby, please explain to me what evidence you are looking at the shows that Zimmerman followed Martin into all those places.  I don't think I have seen that.

That's where the shooting took place - in a cut-through between two rows of homes.

[zxcvbob]

This was a whole lot simpler early on when we thought "Zimmerman" was white.   

[De Selby]

Snort.  

I can't speak to Florida, but in Texas if you clearly disengage from a conflict even if you started it, and the other party tries to kill you by, oh, I don't know.....bashing your head repeatedly on the sidewalk.....it is an affirmative defense to the use of lethal force.
Is there solid evidence that Gz initiated a confrontation?
Not that I've seen.  Anything else is conjecture.
And gz's statement is he was going back to his car after he stopped following Martin.
This may go down as an epic dead horse around here. You sure have a knack for flogging them.

If the Florida statute is written similarly, then you are wrong, counselor.

Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense.  The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.  

Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted.  Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case. 

[AJ Dual]

It's obvious you want a Zimmerman conviction so very badly DeSelby...

Be honest and come clean about your real reasons for wanting Zimmerman to be guilty. You're dying to make some sort of point about white privilege, the American gun culture... something. It's obvious.

You should just tell us the point you really want to make here. You'll probably get hacked off enough to make it sooner or later anyway.

[Jamisjockey]

Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense.  The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.  

Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted.  Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case.  

BS.  I took my CHL class from the man who is pretty much the authority on CHL law in Texas and has helped write most of the statutes on it.  We had some very good class discussions on mutual combat and withdrawing from a situation.  

If Zimmerman's account is accurate his being charged and convicted in Texas would be highly unlikely.

You're basing your desire to lynch the man on the conversation with TM and his girlfriend.  He told the 911 operator he was going back to the street to get the address of where they were.

Zimmerman:

It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

911 dispatcher:

OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

Zimmerman:

Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …

Zimmerman:

Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]

911 dispatcher:

OK, that’s no problem.

Zimmerman:

My number … you’ve got it?

911 dispatcher:

Yeah, I’ve got it. 435-2400?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, you got it.

911 dispatcher:

OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]

Zimmerman:

Thanks.

His statements to the 911 operator. His statment during questioning.  Both support that he was done following Martin and heading to meet the officers on the street.  
You, sir, are full of crap.  

[AmbulanceDriver]

Don't worry Jamis, De Selby won't let the facts get in the way of his damning of Zimmerman

[De Selby]

Jamis, before you get carried away, you might want to consider the fact that our Merry Magistrate, who is an experienced prosecutor and judicial officer, is saying pretty much the same thing I am saying.  Two lawyers posting on the thread and agreeing should give you a bit of hesitation before you decide this conduct is okay.

I'm basing my view on the Zimmerman case entirely off of the recorded 911 call, and the location of the body - Zimmerman followed someone who was running away from him into a dark space between two houses. 

In Texas, again, where I got my law degree, you have no claim to self-defense if you provoked the situation.  That is the word in 9.32: "provoke."  Now that doesn't mean the other guy can't commit a crime by doing something to you.  It just means you can't claim self-defense against a homicide

Seriously, I encourage you to ask your CHL instructor about this case and let me know what he tells you.  See what advice he gives you on your prospects of a successful self-defense claim in Texas under the circumstances.  I'd be mighty surprised if he tells you that you'd be legally safe after getting out of your car, following someone who ran away from you into a back-yard type area, and then shooting the guy after he ambushes you.  That includes with you turning around and walking back to your car, as long as you're still near the guy you followed.

From those tapes, the only thing that would have made Zimmerman safe after getting out of the car and pursuing would be clear, easily understood communication with Trayvon Martin that would have left Martin in absolutely no doubt about who Zimmerman was and why he was following him.  Not even Zimmerman claimed that he spoke to Martin before the fight. 

[MechAg94]

Please spell out what he did to "provoke" him in your mind.  You are being a bit vague on that point.  Following him at some unknown distance is not enough.

[roo_ster]

Sorry there champ, but I learned this subject on the basis of Texas law - Zimmerman conduct in Texas would NOT, definitely not, constitute self-defense.  The evidence being where Zimmerman said on tape "these a-holes always get away" and admitted he was following Martin.  

Absolutely 100 percent that would make you toast in Texas if a shooting resulted.  Once you initiate a situation, the standards for "withdrawing" such that you regain the right to self-defence essentially make it impossible to prove your case. 

Might not be as cut & dried as you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

No bill.

I also recall much discussion of this sort of thing at my CHL class(es).  Mine were not taught by the man who wrote the bill, though.

[De Selby]

Mech, the key feature of Zimmerman's behaviour is on the tapes - he followed someone who was trying to get away from him.  That's where the problem for him is.  He knew Martin was running away from him, and took steps to get closer.  Although he claims he was going back to his truck, the shooting didn't happen on the street (where I presume the addresses he was reading from are?), it happened behind the homes. 

Roo ster, there is a HUGE difference in your example:  Joe Horn witnessed a crime.  Getting out of your car to address a crime in progress is an entirely different universe from getting out to follow someone who's only "crime" is trying hard not to let you get close to them. 

[Regolith]

Mech, the key feature of Zimmerman's behaviour is on the tapes - he followed someone who was trying to get away from him.  That's where the problem for him is.  He knew Martin was running away from him, and took steps to get closer. 

Following someone is not a crime. As people have repeatedly told you.

Although he claims he was going back to his truck, the shooting didn't happen on the street (where I presume the addresses he was reading from are?), it happened behind the homes. 

Keyword there is going back. Unless you are not a native speaker, you should recognize that verb form strongly implies that the action is not yet finished, and therefor he would not have been at or near his truck when he stated he was going back. In other words, the fact that the confrontation did not happen at his truck in NO WAY contradicts his statement there. I really don't know how you keep missing this point.


Edit: The thing that doesn't add up to me is how people think that Zimmerman was in anyway capable of running Martin down. I had a friend who was pretty much the same height, weight and build as Martin, and he regularly outran cops who were in much better physical shape than Zimmerman was. I don't have any reason to believe Martin was in any worse physical shape than my friend was. I have heard that the confrontation took place less than 100 yards from the house Martin was staying in. A kid in his shape could easily cover that distance in 11-15 seconds. We know Zimmerman stopped running at one point because there's no more wind noise in the audio and his breathing calms down.  Given that Martin had a head start and Zimmerman stopped running, there is absolutely no way Martin couldn't have gotten home and locked the door long before the confrontation started. That to me says that Martin probably doubled back and was looking for fight.

[AmbulanceDriver]

So again, De Selby, is it your contention that being followed, or if you like, chased by another person put Trayvon Martin in REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury?  Because my understanding is that is the standard that would justify Martin using deadly physical force. 

De Selby, I'm going to (again) guess you didn't see this...   care to answer this question?

[De Selby]

De Selby, I'm going to (again) guess you didn't see this...   care to answer this question?

It doesn't really matter to Zimmerman's case, and we can't answer that without talking to Martin.  

FYI, we've been over that multiple times on this thread - both people can be guilty of a crime.   The victims reaction only has to be a foreseeable consequence, not a legally justified or sensible one, to give the shooter a problem.