Man on your property

[Bear44]

First off I don't know if Zimmerman was a "Good Shoot"
If it was he screwed his own case himself.

The law is not there to trip someone up. But people trying to cover their ass and add or delete specifics about their incident cause questions, that the prosecutors feel should be answered by a jury.
Listen to Protective Measures, he is usually correct.

Yes he is. That's why I'm pursuing a clear answer.

Also, what information has Zimmerman changed in his statements? That's a legit question, not a smart ass one.

 

[wozbean]

Here are my replies.

1. To the OP, I would not have shot unless he made it as far as onto the stairs of my porch. If you don't see me or hear me until your cross my yard (50 feet?) and on my stairs (where I am likely 10 feet from you, yelling at you now AND ARMED). AND you are disobeying my commands then "I believe you are intend on doing me harm". You're likely getting shot. You are not going to get close enough to me or my son to strike with a knife.

2. If you are carrying a gas can & pouring it. Trying to burn my house down, your going down too.

3. In Zimmerman. IF he did stop following, was on the way back to his car, did get jumped and did have Trayvon on top of him, then I would probably shoot too.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Anytime they are actually trying to kill you. A man walking in my yard, even if he looks menacing and does not respond to me, is not trying to kill me and I have no reason to believe that is his intent...yet.

- - - Updated - - -



He's a dead man.

Your first response is that a situation in which you "have" to kill someone is when they are trying to kill you? And then you turn around and say that you'd kill someone for raping your mother, even though you are in no direct danger?

You never "have" to kill anyone, even if they are trying to kill you....and I'll answer for protective measures and to go on record for myself....no, deadly force would not have been an option in the situation as presented by the OP.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

. But, if you draw down cocked and loaded on someone for tresspassing and they are of no threat to you, its assault.

Um, no...it's not. If you do it on the street corner, yes...but on a trespasser? No. Trespassing is, by default, a threat....not one that can be met with deadly force, but a threat none the less.

If you go inside, come back out with a gun, its premeditated murder.

Except its not...not even close.

While we do have a stand your ground law, if you retreat and come back, no judge will be on your side.

Well I guess it's a good thing judges don't decide who goes to jail, then, huh?

If you've ever been hunting, think back to your first deer. Its not in our human nature to be killers. Whether in self defense or other reasons, to end a man's life is not something you'll do with a clear conscience. If you don't want blood on your hands, wait until you have no other options but to shoot to stop a threat. As Monte said, if you're unsure, you obviously don't need to squeeze off.

Surviving a righteous gunfight will clear your conscience like nothing else. One should never feel ill at killing those who wish to kill them should they have to...now A bad gunfight? well that's another story.

 

[protective measures]

I never said that my decision to let them burn the house down was based in my interpretation of the law. In fact, I reinforced the idea that it would not be necessary to retreat if a person enters your home and I believe deadly force would be justified if they tried to burn it down while they knew you were still in it. My choice is based on the idea that I do not trust the judicial system and it's vagaries. Just ask George Zimmerman about that. From all of the evidence that has been made public this was a good shoot, but Zimmerman's life has been ruined regardless of whether he is acquitted or not.

Now, back to my original questions. Based on the exact information presented by the OP, do you believe deadly force would have been justified? What if the same exact situation happened within the house rather than in the yard? I know, we were not there, but a DA, judge and jury would not have been there either and they are the ones that would determine the OP's fate.

The reasons that I am so focused on this are because I don't want to see an otherwise good and law abiding person go to jail because they did not understand the law and because it would not take many bad shoots by people misinterpreting the law for those laws to be radically changed to make it even more difficult for a person to legally defend themselves.

As usual, you are in the right ballpark in many ways. "Bear" it's obvious you are a good man & have given lots of very sound advice on this forum.

Phewww.... where to start?

I think the O.P did pretty well in that he did not "escalate" the situation ( unlike G. Zimmerman who I THINK meant well but MAY have mistaken himself for an Officer & started a chain of events that led to the death of someone who was apparently not the "angel" he was made out to be.
His "job" as a n'borhood watchman was to "watch" unlike an Officer. Not saying that G.Z. was right or wrong but that will be a tough one cause there are good arguments for both sides. But that is a whole 'nother story).

Based on the information given I think it would not have need a good idea to draw a weapon. At no point did the O.P. indicate that he was in fear of his life or that anyone else's life was in danger.

As I said there literally are millions of variations & slight nuances that would impact what the correct responses would be.
One additional thing the O.P should have done ( which is easy for me to recommend as I sit here on my sofa after cleaning guns after a LONG day of shooting) is to call the police/911.

The court USUALLY favors the first person to call 911 & it sometimes helps position the caller as the "good guy"... not always but it helps.

Where it gets tricky is that the court expects us to use the LEAST amount of force necessary to deal w/ a threat. The challenge as civilians is how to do that w/o getting behind in the power curve while dealing w/ an attacker who may be concealing a weapon & is closing distance w/o betraying their full intent.

Use of deadly force USUALLY (you have to remember there are few absolutes as the conditions/ definitions will be decided/defined by the judge /jury) requires that the "bad guy" have disparity of force which could mean a weapon or superior numbers or superior strength or specialized training.

Without the attacker having those advantages it will be harder for the defender (or defendant) to justify why they had to use deadly force.

Also, you should know that the attempt to take your weapon or disarm you can be considered justified use of deadly force as it is logical to assume that the attacker could use the weapon on you & that could be their intent.

As a civilian one of the key components of successful use of deadly force (or not) is to use as much restraint as is possible to keep either distance &/ or cover between you & a potential attacker(s) who has/have not displayed a weapon yet but is/are showing possible signs of malicious intent.

Which is why I like the idea of having some form of less lethal option to "manage" a threat that doesn't require the application of lethal force.
I like to say that if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

There is a reason that most L.E. officers have 2-3 less lethal options in addition to their gun. They do also however have training in the use of those options which most civilians do not. If a civilian misjudges the "power curve" of violence they are facing... it could be the last mistake of your life.
On the other hand, if you over-react & pre-emptively "whip out your peacemaker" w/o legal justification to "scare" the other party or to show them how big & bad you are & that no one is going to push you around so to speak than at best you may lose your permit & at worst you could go to jail or be killed.

If you have or carry a gun for self-defense it is critical to educate yourself on these laws. I do sort of agree w/ the thought that you do have to survive a bad situation first... but like some other professional Instructors like Mas Ayoob & Marty Hayes I also believe AFTER you survive the fight that you have to survive the aftermath.

Many people talk "BIG" & say they don't care about any of that but I've never heard of anyone after the fact that either lost their permit, went to jail, or went bankrupt paying an attorney to stay out of jail who kept that opinion.

That is just the "tip of the iceberg" on this topic & one of the reasons why my classroom portion runs 3 hrs. long on average.

 

[Bear44]

Your first response is that a situation in which you "have" to kill someone is when they are trying to kill you? And then you turn around and say that you'd kill someone for raping your mother, even though you are in no direct danger?

You never "have" to kill anyone, even if they are trying to kill you....and I'll answer for protective measures and to go on record for myself....no, deadly force would not have been an option in the situation as presented by the OP.

Actually, I have said many times that deadly force is justified when defending another from serious harm. I did make the mistake that when I said if you HAVE to kill someone that it would be assumed by all that it would be required to defend yourself or others.

 

[protective measures]

Actually, I have said many times that deadly force is justified when defending another from serious harm. I did make the mistake that when I said if you HAVE to kill someone that it would be assumed by all that it would be required to defend yourself or others.

I believe it was Jesus who said, "Let the person who is without sin be the first one to cast a stone."

We all make mistakes now & again.

 

[Bear44]

As usual, you are in the right ballpark in many ways. "Bear" it's obvious you are a good man & have given lots of very sound advice on this forum.

Phewww.... where to start?

I think the O.P did pretty well in that he did not "escalate" the situation ( unlike G. Zimmerman who I THINK meant well but MAY have mistaken himself for an Officer & started a chain of events that led to the death of someone who was apparently not the "angel" he was made out to be.
His "job" as a n'borhood watchman was to "watch" unlike an Officer. Not saying that G.Z. was right or wrong but that will be a tough one cause there are good arguments for both sides. But that is a whole 'nother story).

Based on the information given I think it would not have need a good idea to draw a weapon. At no point did the O.P. indicate that he was in fear of his life or that anyone else's life was in danger.

As I said there literally are millions of variations & slight nuances that would impact what the correct responses would be.
One additional thing the O.P should have done ( which is easy for me to recommend as I sit here on my sofa after cleaning guns after a LONG day of shooting) is to call the police/911.

The court USUALLY favors the first person to call 911 & it sometimes helps position the caller as the "good guy"... not always but it helps.

Where it gets tricky is that the court expects us to use the LEAST amount of force necessary to deal w/ a threat. The challenge as civilians is how to do that w/o getting behind in the power curve while dealing w/ an attacker who may be concealing a weapon & is closing distance w/o betraying their full intent.

Use of deadly force USUALLY (you have to remember there are few absolutes as the conditions/ definitions will be decided/defined by the judge /jury) requires that the "bad guy" have disparity of force which could mean a weapon or superior numbers or superior strength or specialized training.

Without the attacker having those advantages it will be harder for the defender (or defendant) to justify why they had to use deadly force.

Also, you should know that the attempt to take your weapon or disarm you can be considered justified use of deadly force as it is logical to assume that the attacker could use the weapon on you & that could be their intent.

As a civilian one of the key components of successful use of deadly force (or not) is to use as much restraint as is possible to keep either distance &/ or cover between you & a potential attacker(s) who has/have not displayed a weapon yet but is/are showing possible signs of malicious intent.

Which is why I like the idea of having some form of less lethal option to "manage" a threat that doesn't require the application of lethal force.
I like to say that if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

There is a reason that most L.E. officers have 2-3 less lethal options in addition to their gun. They do also however have training in the use of those options which most civilians do not. If a civilian misjudges the "power curve" of violence they are facing... it could be the last mistake of your life.
On the other hand, if you over-react & pre-emptively "whip out your peacemaker" w/o legal justification to "scare" the other party or to show them how big & bad you are & that no one is going to push you around so to speak than at best you may lose your permit & at worst you could go to jail or be killed.

If you have or carry a gun for self-defense it is critical to educate yourself on these laws. I do sort of agree w/ the thought that you do have to survive a bad situation first... but like some other professional Instructors like Mas Ayoob & Marty Hayes I also believe AFTER you survive the fight that you have to survive the aftermath.

Many people talk "BIG" & say they don't care about any of that but I've never heard of anyone after the fact that either lost their permit, went to jail, or went bankrupt paying an attorney to stay out of jail who kept that opinion.

That is just the "tip of the iceberg" on this topic & one of the reasons why my classroom portion runs 3 hrs. long on average.

I agree with all of this with the exceptions of your analysis of the Zimmerman case and the "in fear" statement.

Zimmerman did nothing that would justify an attack from Martin. Once Martin escalated the encounter, none of Zimmerman's previous behavior is relevant to the case. A man can walk two feet behind you screaming obscenities at you and that alone does not justify attacking them in the eyes of the law. Of course, all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's account of what happened is true.

Fear is not a sound component of a legal defense for the use of deadly force. If you recall, Ayoob addresses this in great detail in his classic "In the Gravest Extreme". Under no circumstances does fear alone justify use of deadly force. You must have good and reasonable reasons for that fear and it is those reasons that can justify deadly force. Not fearful emotion. This is why understanding of the three elements is so important. For those that may have missed them before; You must have reasonable cause to believe a person has the Ability, Opportunity and Internet (Jeopardy) to cause you or a third person serious harm. If any one of those three elements does not exist, or you do not have RCB they exist, deadly force is not legally justified.

A man with a knife yelling that he will kill you, but is 50 yards away, does not have opportunity.

A man that is standing next to you saying he will kill you, but is unarmed, half your size and falling down drunk, does not have the ability.

A man that has a loaded gun within easy reach and is ten feet away, but is simply walking past you on the street while in open carry, does not have the intent.

Stand your ground and castle laws do not effect the need for these elements. All they do is legally clarify under what situations you do not have a responsibility to retreat safely if you can.

I have found that examining these elements carefully and then "Gaming" them in discussion of a variety of scenarios is the fastest way for a person to learn how they apply and give them the ability to recognize when they exist instantly. Just as importantly, they learn to recognize when they DON'T exist.

A good example of RCB would be something like this:

There is an intruder in your home. You yell to the person that you have a gun and they keep coming. It is reasonable at that point for you to believe this person is exhibiting all three elements. If they kick in the door of the room that you and your family have retreated to, use of deadly force would be completely justified. Even if it turned out the three elements did not exist, you certainly had RCB that they did.

This is also why I break from many instructors as far as brandishing and, under rare circumstances, a warning shot may be called for. You would do these things to firmly establish RCB. I doubt seriously if anyone could seriously challenge the idea that you had RCB if the person kept approaching after a warning shot was fired or even if you obviously placed your hand on a weapon and told them they need to back the **** off. Make no mistake, I DO NOT tell people to do this if it will reduce their ability to defend themselves or if it could be interpreted by LE as anything other than a legitimate attempt to defend themselves without application of deadly force to the person. If the guy with a knife 50 yards away starts to approach, I would first make sure he knew I was armed. If that didn't stop him, the weapon comes out of the holster. If he is still coming, that is when I may fire a warning shot, but only if he is still far enough away for me to fire without compromising my safety and only if there was somewhere to put the round without endangering others.

 

[Bypass]

Why are you running away? Hug me!!!

 

[DaveTheMinion]

Um, no...it's not. If you do it on the street corner, yes...but on a trespasser? No. Trespassing is, by default, a threat....not one that can be met with deadly force, but a threat none the less.

Except its not...not even close.


Well I guess it's a good thing judges don't decide who goes to jail, then, huh?

Surviving a righteous gunfight will clear your conscience like nothing else. One should never feel ill at killing those who wish to kill them should they have to...now A bad gunfight? well that's

another story.

1. So I'm legally within my rights to draw down on the neighbors
coming to get their ball out of the
yardd, or the Jehovah's
witnesses? How does tresspassing
constitute drawing of
weapon?
2. If I am in fear for my life outside
of my home, but unarmed,
and then retreat into my home, grab
ye old 12 gauge, come back
out and shoot someone, exactly
what is that considered then?
3. You're sitting in an anti gun
courtroom with a prosecuting
attorney that tells the jury "this
man had the chance to retreat into his home, barricade himself and dial 911, but instead came back out with a loaded weapon and shot the man down.
4. Glad you can have a clear conscience about killing someone regardless of. reason.

Maybe you know the laws better than I do, but I'm dealing with enough stress from an insurance battle, **** sitting infront of the wrong jury. As I've stated, if I'm deploying my weapon, its because I've tried to retreat, I've tried to avoid the encounter, my life or my families life is in jeapordy and I HAVE to shoot. Drawing down on someone for failure to respond is bull****. Until they're a direct threat that requires lethal force, there's no reason to display lethal force. Why escalate a situation? But hey, I'm sure you have a very expensive attorney and a couple hundred grand for legal fees.