Beth is pretty right on here.
In most states you can use force but not deadly force to stop a non violent crime in progress.
You cannot in most states use deadly force to protect property.
As for following a criminal while talking to police you have to be very careful about that. Doing so cost nearly cost George Zimmerman his life, 1.2 million in legal fees plus he nearly ended up doing in life in prison all because as well intentioned as he was that night, it went very bad, very quickly.
While I was playing devil’s advocate, I agree, you do have to be careful about that, that is why I said discreetly and monitoring the situation. One key difference between this scenario and Zimmerman, is that the person you are carefully following actually committed a crime where in the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman reported a suspicious person walking through the neighborhood who had not committed a crime in Zimmerman’s presence. So, in our scenario while carefully following them, you know you aren’t going to engage. Zimmerman said in his statement Martin approached him, but we have other witness accounts stating Zimmerman approached Martin, asking him what he was doing in the neighborhood, potentially creating the situation that evolved. As Zimmerman was a part of the neighborhood watch and the police had documented previous accounts of him doing just that, it is believable that it might have happened the way witnesses reported it.
You might want to review that case. There were no other witnesses present.
Martin was on the phone with Jeanne? who’s story was completelycontradictory. She claimed that Martin was scared and fleeing and she also said that Martin told her he was going to confront Zimmerman.
Either way Zimmerman was attempting to discretely follow him as well and from all of the evidence Martin disappeared around a corner and then jumped him from an ambush position in the dark.
Point being when you attempt to follow a criminal you are putting yourself at a heightened risk of being forced into a physical and potentially deadly conflict so before the average self defender makes that decision they need to consider the possible consequences that could follow.
Exactly, and by playing devils advocate, people can think through the process and see what can potentially occur with said scenario.
One problem most people have these days is that they don’t seem to have the attention span or desire to consider the consequences of any of their actions.
Just hit the freeways around any major city for a few hours and you’ll see what I mean.
I equate self defense to “Defensive Driving For Life”. I was taught from a very early age to always keep my distance, to look ahead at least five cars or a half mile, to always be aware of what is happening behind me and to always leave myself an out.
This forces me to consider every possible scenario when I make a lane change, hit the brakes, speed up, and to always be looking ahead and behind for potential problems.
I also trained me from a very early age to play, “What If XYZ happens”, and to plan constantly for those scenarios.
If you are aware of all the possibilities and keep a plan of action available no matter what happens you won’t freeze up in an emergency or find yourself killed or injured while trying to decide what to do.
Warrior Expert theory teaches us that recognition is what separates the experts from the rest. The expert recognizes threats and already has thought through and probably practiced extensively for how to deal with them.
Trayvon Marton was not committing a crime walking home when he was killed. Was he looking into cars while attempting to open them; Knocking on home doors while attempting to breach them; following people while attempting to rob or assault them; vandalizing property; or breaking noise ordinance laws? NO, so to equate Martin a citizen, as a criminal in that scenario, and Zimmerman as “well-intended” CCW holder after disobeying law enforcement is WRONG! So please re-frame from demigod’n George Zimmerman who was blessed to have not profiled and stalk me, in his civilian capacity. George Zimmerman is the reason why I and many Black Americans possess Utah permits, as well as why we have a reasonable fear to use deadly force in that same scenario. Please stop using Zimmerman as an example, he’s an a-hole, and irresponsible person, and case law for Black Americans!
Now to the topic of the post, the scenario does not warrant a non-response, you have the right to pursue someone who takes your property from your person. You have the right to use reasonable means and or force to get it back, pepper spray is an example. However, if there is an escalation to where you are put in a lawful deadly force scenario, follow suit. Know your laws and use them to your legal advantage!
IMO these scenario post are nothing more than an indirect insurance policy for USCCA. They don’t want what happening to the NRA to happen to them! This is the last time I’m responding to these kinds of post!
Ronald, what is different about the Utah permit? By your statement, I am guessing you are not in Utah but have a Utah permit? I thought if you were CC with an out of state permit, you would have to follow the rules of the state you are in. Or am I missing something?
All of Zimmerman’s actions that night were lawful. He was lawfully present, and acting in a completely lawful manner.
All of the evidence supported his version of events which is why it was a travesty he was even indicted much less tried which conflicts directly with the Florida statutes.
Martin was killed lawfully and justifiably when he failed to cease his attack on Zimmerman which is why he was acquitted in the end.
You’re not teaching anything I don’t already know! I’m only addressing the inaccuracy of what you wrote:
Zimmerman was not following a criminal while talking to the police. Apparently, from what you have written, you hold the position that a citizen (Zimmerman) has the right to PROFILE then label another citizen (Martin) as a criminal even though he did not witness that citizen commit a crime while he was on the phone with police. Thereafter, pursue a citizen (Martin) after the police told him not to! Now if Martin would have shot and killed Zimmerman after all that was recorded, there would not have been a trial because Martins actions would have been reasonable as he attempted to retreat when he did not have to. Zimmerman was the only one acting crazy that night if we are honest about the fact of the case!
And because of that event, I feel blessed to have the privilege and the precise ability if needed to counter those who think they have the same right Zimmerman thought he had.
My mindset, as well as others like me, are set in stone because of that night, and nothing is going to change it. Cause and effect; just staying frosty!
There’s nothing inaccurate in what I wrote.
He followed a suspicious person, that is perfectly lawful conduct.
No PO told Zimmerman not to follow, the operator simply said “we don’t need you to do that”.
You have no lawful use of deadly force against another person who is lawfully present and acting in a lawful manner.
Only one person involved in that conflict had a lawful use of deadly force an that was Zimmerman.
Now, we can talk about all the mistakes Zimmerman made that night starting with trying to follow Martin after having lost sight of him if you like but those mistakes did not affect his right to lawful self defense.
If you’re indeed going to carry I’d urge you strongly to put the politics aside and learn the law so as to avoid ending up on the wrong side of it one day.
I’m not wanting to inflame, but, though I have some misgivings about what happened earlier, the finding was Zimmerman shot in self defense as he had Martin on top of him beating his head into the walk. Argue about what lead up to the armed confrontation, but the man on the bottom being beaten shot the aggressor. See how many things can change the outcome? Should Zimmerman have pursuedas he did? Should he have made verbal contact? We don’t know a lot about either man. Should Martin have attacked Zimmerman? We could go on and on. The best thing we can do is use all the training we have to avoid armed conflicts if possible.
Why do I feel like I just messed up and stuck my finger in a hornet nest?
I’d say you’re right on BB.
We could have a long discussion about everything Zimmerman did wrong that night but in the end all of his actions were lawful and he was the only one of the pair that had a lawful use of deadly force that night, at least based on the evidence.
That was my point. The shooting was judged as being a response to being attacked and beaten.
Thanks
Well @Bugleboy, you’ve jumped into the deep end of the pool. I have been disconnecting my keyboard to stay out of this, but I might as well jump in.
The Martin/Zimmerman case is so tragic because unfortunately neither one of them can re-live that night. In my heart I think both of them would have done things entirely differently knowing the ultimate result of their actions.
The reality of it all is none of us can change what happened that night. None of us can change the outcome of the trial. We can all learn from this tragedy and do our best to never let ourselves be involved in anything similar.
I hate that it can be perceived as a racial issue, but we cannot allow ourselves to be consumed with it. That is not healthy for any of us. We all have our unique reasons we have chosen to become responsibly armed individuals. If this incident has inspired others to become responsibly armed citizens, and this leads to protecting good people and their families, then we need to embrace that something good came out of all of this.
I feel terrible for both of them, their families and friends.
My point is the act was adjudicated one way. Quite possibly it could have gone another. I’m not considering the right or wrong of eithet man’s actions. I am pointing out the results in court all had to do with perception. Frankly (here I’m on that limb) I believe Zimmerman overstepped his authority. I believe he was out of bounds. The court saw a man defending himself. The court might have just as easily claimed Zimmerman pursued Martin.
Even in situations where the CWP holder is going about his business peacefully and is assaulted or robbed by an obvious miscreant, the victims actions in retaliation or pursuit can have far reaching consequences.
I would not have used the Martin case as an example. But it was used.
I don’t know all the facts in that case. I’m just saddened things turned out like they did. Many people ended up hurt.
The only flaw in your logic here is that following Martin was not an unlawful act.
Under FL SD law you have your self defense rights in tact as long as you are lawfully present and acting in a lawful manner.
Any good atty will tell you that anything can happen once you get in front of a jury which is why so many cases end up in plea bargains but there’s no question that based on the evidence his actions that night were lawful.
Were they smart? Obviously many of the decisions and actions he took that night were not smart but, they were lawful.
No.
You wrote:
You equated Martin to a criminal! So what made Martin suspicious in his father’s neighborhood (please be specific);Was he looking into cars while attempting to open them; Knocking on home doors while attempting to breach them; following people while attempting to rob or assault them; vandalizing property; or breaking noise ordinance laws?
I never within this thread questioned if Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. I don’t give “0” flying fig trees about clown Zimmerman, so there is no need to discuss his actions. However you need to explain what made Martin suspicious in Zimmerman’s mind, and why Zimmerman to Martin did not look suspicious or criminal sneaking around following people.
Lastly, this isn’t about politics, but who has the right to stalk and profile a citizen without a cause. If you subscribe to the Zimmerman school of profiling, I strongly suggest you through that book in the trash, so as to avoid ending up on the wrong side of it one day.
Don’t forget to describe what was suspicious about Martin (“He looks like he’s up to no good, or on drugs or something; it’s raining and he’s JUST WALKING LOOKING ABOUT” ; These ■■■■■■always get away! : He’s running…) Note in the 911 call, Martin was supposed to be walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his waistband, however, never reached Zimmerman. Sounds like Zimmerman was setting a narrative me!
Bottom-line; “Never Martin” is my motto!
This has all been moved from
the What would you do Wednesday: A stranger steals your valuables? - #49 by Robert_2Swords post.
You want to make this all about Martin’s race, I’ll stick with facts.
You’re turning this into an emotional rant rather than a reasoned discussion hence there’s no more room to discuss it.
No Sir I’m not making this about his race. You did, using a high profile case where race was a consideration.
My question to you and will be again and again is what evidences or facts do you have that Martin was acting criminal from the store to his father’s house. Here again are examples, please choose one or more, or add to them. Was he looking into cars while attempting to open them; Knocking on home doors while attempting to breach them; following people while attempting to rob or assault them; vandalizing property; or breaking noise ordinance laws?
But if you can’t describe Martin’s so-called criminal behavior other than walking in the neighborhood, then stop responding. You’ve made my point!