George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[OKTexas]

You don't know what you are talking about.....martin violently attacked zimmerman.....

At Trial, Witness Says Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense

Under questioning by Zimmerman's lawyer Mark O'Mara today, Good confirmed some key parts of Zimmerman's version of events.

MARK O'MARA: The person who you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top. Correct?

GOOD: Correct.

O'MARA: And he was the one who was raining blows down on the person on the bottom, George Zimmerman. Right?

GOOD: That's what it looked like.

Since Zimmerman was bigger, older, and stronger, it is unlikely Martin would have held a superior position very long.
But it does not matter, because the use of deadly force is not legal in a hand to hand fight.

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.


Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

The self defense laws in TX are very similar to FL, the protection of ones property is the only real exception.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't know what you are talking about.....martin violently attacked zimmerman.....

At Trial, Witness Says Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense

Under questioning by Zimmerman's lawyer Mark O'Mara today, Good confirmed some key parts of Zimmerman's version of events.

MARK O'MARA: The person who you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top. Correct?

GOOD: Correct.

O'MARA: And he was the one who was raining blows down on the person on the bottom, George Zimmerman. Right?

GOOD: That's what it looked like.

Since Zimmerman was bigger, older, and stronger, it is unlikely Martin would have held a superior position very long.
But it does not matter, because the use of deadly force is not legal in a hand to hand fight.

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anyhow..... when I speak of stupidity I am referring mostly to white folks who do have intelligence but for whatever reason cannot think properly and also we have a huge problem with dishonesty....also usually white liberals.....especially the ones in the media.

I think you are conflating intelligence with logic. Many liberals are educated and do have high IQs, but that doesn't mean they have a lick of logic. Lack of logic is what makes one say stupid sounding things.

For instance, the Democrat party morphed into the anti-white party. Their entire goal is to make whites a minority in our country ASAP. Yet, white people still support them. What would make a person support a party trying to dilute their power? Lack of logic.

They claim the way to lower gun crimes in this country is to make it virtually impossible for law abiding citizens to buy or own guns. Can anybody explain the logic behind that?

If you want to change your gender, simply wear the opposite gender clothing and makeup, and you magically changed your gender. Is there any logic to that thinking?

To stop mass shootings, simply limit the size of magazines in guns. Again, zero logic.

So it's not that they''re stupid (although some really are) it's the void of logic in their thinking that makes you wonder about them.

 

[OKTexas]

Since Zimmerman was bigger, older, and stronger, it is unlikely Martin would have held a superior position very long.
But it does not matter, because the use of deadly force is not legal in a hand to hand fight.

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

Anyone who carries and encounters law enforcement that doesn't inform the office is a damn fool. Personally, if I'm ever stopped while carrying, I would roll my window completely down, turn on the interior lights and keep both hand on the wheel. Then I would inform the officer that I was armed, where the firearm was and tell him I would not move my hands until instructed to do so. That's only common sense.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

Anyone who carries and encounters law enforcement that doesn't inform the office is a damn fool. Personally, if I'm ever stopped while carrying, I would roll my window completely down, turn on the interior lights and keep both hand on the wheel. Then I would inform the officer that I was armed, where the firearm was and tell him I would not move my hands until instructed to do so. That's only common sense.

.

I couldn't agree more. Even if they scrapped the officer advisement law, I would still go by the current rules. What their claim was (a CCW group in our state) is that officers were abusing the law. The law is before anything comes out of your mouth during a traffic stop, you tell the officer you are carrying. So some anti-CCW cops used the law to arrest people who legally had a gun on them.

It's reasonable to understand how you could forget to advise the officer, especially if you carry all the time. Most everybody gets nervous when they see those flashing lights behind them, trying to figure out what they did wrong, or what they are going to say to the officer, so it could be an easy thing to forget. However they should change the law so that it's not the end of the world. If you forget and tell the officer anytime during the stop instead of up front, just a ticket or something.

 

[IM2]

George Zimmerman, the onetime neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, is suing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming both 2020 Democratic presidential candidates defamed him in an attempt to "garner votes in the black community."

The lawsuit filed in Polk County, Fla., Tuesday argues Warren and Buttigieg’s two separate tweets on Feb. 5, which would have been Martin’s 25th birthday, used the killing “as a pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.”

Buttigieg tweeted to his 1.6 million followers. The message garnered 42,000 likes, 13,300 replies and 6,600 retweets in just three days, the lawsuit states.

“My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free,” Warren tweeted to her 3.6 million followers on the same day, sharing four photos of Trayvon Martin as a small child, between the ages of 4 and 10. The message received 7,300 likes and 1,000 retweets in three days, in addition to national media coverage, the lawsuit states.

George Zimmerman sues Warren, Buttigieg for $265M, accuses them of attempting to garner black votes by defaming him

Any chance at him winning? Who knows. I'm sure he has a lawyer that made this decision, so I'm guessing he can.

There was nothing racial about the shooting of Martin. Zimmerman, a minority himself, lived in a very diverse gated housing complex. If I remember correctly, he attended his school prom with a black girlfriend. But because he was a white-Hispanic and not black himself, the lying MSM tried to make it a racial incident.

Have the Democrats finally crossed the line with using blacks to promote their hate? We'll see. Should be a very interesting election with this in the works.

Shut the fuck up. The shooting was racial. Zimmerman is not going to get anything. Because no one defamed him.

 

[IM2]

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

Anyone who carries and encounters law enforcement that doesn't inform the office is a damn fool. Personally, if I'm ever stopped while carrying, I would roll my window completely down, turn on the interior lights and keep both hand on the wheel. Then I would inform the officer that I was armed, where the firearm was and tell him I would not move my hands until instructed to do so. That's only common sense.

.

Zimmerman was not law enforcement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

George Zimmerman, the onetime neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, is suing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming both 2020 Democratic presidential candidates defamed him in an attempt to "garner votes in the black community."

The lawsuit filed in Polk County, Fla., Tuesday argues Warren and Buttigieg’s two separate tweets on Feb. 5, which would have been Martin’s 25th birthday, used the killing “as a pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.”

Buttigieg tweeted to his 1.6 million followers. The message garnered 42,000 likes, 13,300 replies and 6,600 retweets in just three days, the lawsuit states.

“My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free,” Warren tweeted to her 3.6 million followers on the same day, sharing four photos of Trayvon Martin as a small child, between the ages of 4 and 10. The message received 7,300 likes and 1,000 retweets in three days, in addition to national media coverage, the lawsuit states.

George Zimmerman sues Warren, Buttigieg for $265M, accuses them of attempting to garner black votes by defaming him

Any chance at him winning? Who knows. I'm sure he has a lawyer that made this decision, so I'm guessing he can.

There was nothing racial about the shooting of Martin. Zimmerman, a minority himself, lived in a very diverse gated housing complex. If I remember correctly, he attended his school prom with a black girlfriend. But because he was a white-Hispanic and not black himself, the lying MSM tried to make it a racial incident.

Have the Democrats finally crossed the line with using blacks to promote their hate? We'll see. Should be a very interesting election with this in the works.

Shut the fuck up. The shooting was racial. Zimmerman is not going to get anything. Because no one defamed him.

How was it racial? You do know Zimmerman's high school prom date was black, don't you? Zimmerman is a Hispanic and a minority himself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

Anyone who carries and encounters law enforcement that doesn't inform the office is a damn fool. Personally, if I'm ever stopped while carrying, I would roll my window completely down, turn on the interior lights and keep both hand on the wheel. Then I would inform the officer that I was armed, where the firearm was and tell him I would not move my hands until instructed to do so. That's only common sense.

.

Zimmerman was not law enforcement.

Do you have a point behind that comment???

 

[OKTexas]

It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.

There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.

You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.

.

Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.

But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.

The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.

Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.

I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.

Anyone who carries and encounters law enforcement that doesn't inform the office is a damn fool. Personally, if I'm ever stopped while carrying, I would roll my window completely down, turn on the interior lights and keep both hand on the wheel. Then I would inform the officer that I was armed, where the firearm was and tell him I would not move my hands until instructed to do so. That's only common sense.

.

Zimmerman was not law enforcement.

You're correct, he was a citizen who lawfully defended himself. Deal with it race baiter.

.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Unfortunately due to all the gun hysteria the bar on self-defense is being lowered. particuarly if the aggressor is an unarmed black.

We had a recent case here in Florida where a white man was violently assaulted by a black....knocked to the ground very violently....whereupon the white man pulled his pistol out of his pocket and shot the black dead.

What happened next of course is to be expected these days when a black is killed by a white man no matter what he is doing.....the media got involved and like in the Trayvon case the white dude was not indicted at first but after media pressure, demonstrations etc. the white guy was charged with manslaughter and convicted.

He was found guilty of manslaughter with the use of a firearm. On October 10, 2019, Drejka was sentenced to 20 years in prison with credit of 92 days for time served.


There was a video of the whole incident...as it happened on a conveinence store parking lot....the huge problem with the case was that that the prosecution was allowed to use a slow motion version of the video which altered the reality of how fast the whole thing went down...as in how the white dude only had a second or two to decide whether or not to use lethal force and also unfortunately he did not have a good legal team.

The jury made a huge mistake...obviously overly-influenced by the slow motion version of the incident...which made it appear the white dude had a lot of time to decide to analyze what was going on and what he should do.

Also the big factors that Florida is heavily dependent on tourism and they do not want to be labeled as a racist state fearing that would hurt their tourism and also the white dude was thoroughly demonized by the media before the trial.

After the conviction the jury foreman spoke out admitting that the video was what determined their decision...they concentrated on the video as they were instructed to by the prosecutdor in his summation...very powerful and effective prosecutor...unfortunately they did not give much if any consideration regarding whether or note the white dude was in fear of his life and reasonably so....which of course is the core essence of the law on self-defense in Florida.

This unfortunate fellow will probably die in prison as he is already in poor health....and it was just on the news the other day that he was violently assaulted in prison.

A terrible tragedy that a guy will most likely die in prison for defending his life from a violent Negro who had a history of assault....not even to mention the white dude had never been arrested for anything. A great miscarriage of justice. It is being appealed but due to the fact his legal team is so lacking...I doubt anything will come of that.

I mention all this particuarly as a warning to all those who carry....if you do...you must really be up on the law as well as the political climate where you reside and also recognize when you cross the state line...you are not under the law of the state where you reside regarding self defense as well as the laws on who can legally carry a firearm.

I used to carry but I switched from carrying a pistol to carrying a knife which in close combat is very effective if you know how to use it.....and most violent encounters happen at very close range.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".

Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.

On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.

Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?

In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

All those on here using their imagination to conjure up a false narrative of this case should have watched the actual trial...you know where all the evidence is presented.

One does need to go beyond the trial alone because the prosecutor was unmotivated.
He was harming his political career by prosecuting the son of a powerful judge, so was deliberately throwing the case.

I have always wondered about that, why they didn't go for manslaughter, which they could prove, instead of murder.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

All states do not allow the use of deadly force if you caused the situation to happen, as Zimmerman did.
If you caused it, then you have to find another way out than deadly force.

Also as long as Martin had no weapon, was not disproportionately larger or stronger, than Zimmerman has no claim of defense against a deadly attack. Zimmerman should easily have been able to defend against any attack Martin could have mounted, without relying on the use of deadly force.

Your doughnut shop example is wrong.
You do NOT have the right to use deadly force in response to a physical attack, even if you think you are losing.
You can only resort to deadly force if you have reason to believe you are going to be killed.
And there is no reason to believe that in an fair fight situation.

Take a concealed carry permit class, and that is what you will be taught, and be shown the legislation that establishes it.
Of just ask any cop.
You can not kill a physical attacker unless there is some over ridding factor like a weapon, martial arts training, immense size difference, or some extreme violence indications like biting, eye gouging, etc.

I've been a CCW carrier for nearly ten years now. That's how I do know what the laws are. And you are wrong. A CCW holder has the right to use deadly force if he or she believe that they (or others around them) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Zimmerman clearly had that belief as he suffered two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a back injury. Yes, I would consider that serious bodily harm as the law outlines. It's why the police didn't arrest him. He wasn't arrested until later after the MSM lied about the story and the public started to scream.

It has to be a reasonable belief, not just dismay because you suddenly find yourself getting your ass kicked.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".

Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.

On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.

Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?

In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.

Pure bull shit based on ignorance and sheer stupidity......this happened in Florida and no such law requiring retreat exists in Florida....the law on self-defense in Florida has been posted you should read it before running off at the mouth.

In some states it is required to retreat if it is possible to do so....that is not the law in Florida....but Z did not use the stand your ground law....his lawyers defended him based on 'simple defense'. Since he was unable to retreat from the beating being inflicted on him by a young Negroid thug who got his just reward.

As has been pointed out many,many times it is not illegal to follow someone and in fact Z was doing a public service by trying to follow the Negroid Thug ....as in he was a suspect in a area on a dark and rainy night that had been plagued by home invasions and burglaries by young blacks.

When someone is pinned to the ground and being beaten that obviously places the person being beaten in a reasonable fear of his life.

Again this case was a racial hoax perpetrated by the media, the state of Florida and the Federal Government....in a effort to promote the fallacious political doctrine of black victimhood.

To his great discredit obama injected himself into the case and thus further divided the blacks and whites. As has been shown many times Obama did nothing to help with racial harmony in fact he created more racial problems than any President in our history.



George Zimmerman's Defense Team Didn't Use "Stand Your Ground", But It Impacted The Trial Anyway

The prosecutors did not attempt to try this case based upon the principles of self-defense law in order to convict George Zimmerman of violating that law. In their 40-witness prosecution case, they made no attempt to address whether Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life or not. Instead, the prosecution of George Zimmerman by the state was primarily one of character assassination and innuendo, and built upon assertions and vitriol. They asserted that frustrated curse words delivered in a flat monotone and following someone in public -- neither of which is remotely illegal -- were evidence of a crime. They never argued the facts or the law, as they knew the facts and the law supported Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

Zimmerman's Justified Lethal Force, and Self-Defense Law

https://uglyamerica.wordpress.com/2...rman-knew-the-reason-we-should-all-thank-him/

 

[MacTheKnife]

All those on here using their imagination to conjure up a false narrative of this case should have watched the actual trial...you know where all the evidence is presented.

One does need to go beyond the trial alone because the prosecutor was unmotivated.
He was harming his political career by prosecuting the son of a powerful judge, so was deliberately throwing the case.

I have always wondered about that, why they didn't go for manslaughter, which they could prove, instead of murder.

Any Negrod no matter how ignorant as well as any white liberal no matter how stupid can conjecture about Z being over-charged.

The fact remains however ...Zimmerman did nothing illegal whatsoever in this case. Anyone who believes he did is either ignorant of the facts of the case and the evidence or is so biased they simply reject the truth.


Racial Hoaxes Have A Damaging Effect On America


George Zimmerman, civil-rights hero? - WND

 

[MacTheKnife]

Dedicated to all the Negroes on here who like to watch fights. hehheh

Tyson Fury stops Deontay Wilder in seventh round of WBC heavyweight title rematch - CNN

 

[2aguy]

George Zimmerman, the onetime neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, is suing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming both 2020 Democratic presidential candidates defamed him in an attempt to "garner votes in the black community."

The lawsuit filed in Polk County, Fla., Tuesday argues Warren and Buttigieg’s two separate tweets on Feb. 5, which would have been Martin’s 25th birthday, used the killing “as a pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.”

Buttigieg tweeted to his 1.6 million followers. The message garnered 42,000 likes, 13,300 replies and 6,600 retweets in just three days, the lawsuit states.

“My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free,” Warren tweeted to her 3.6 million followers on the same day, sharing four photos of Trayvon Martin as a small child, between the ages of 4 and 10. The message received 7,300 likes and 1,000 retweets in three days, in addition to national media coverage, the lawsuit states.

George Zimmerman sues Warren, Buttigieg for $265M, accuses them of attempting to garner black votes by defaming him

Any chance at him winning? Who knows. I'm sure he has a lawyer that made this decision, so I'm guessing he can.

There was nothing racial about the shooting of Martin. Zimmerman, a minority himself, lived in a very diverse gated housing complex. If I remember correctly, he attended his school prom with a black girlfriend. But because he was a white-Hispanic and not black himself, the lying MSM tried to make it a racial incident.

Have the Democrats finally crossed the line with using blacks to promote their hate? We'll see. Should be a very interesting election with this in the works.

I am hoping however Nick Sampson's case goes to trial and he wins at least a partial victory for the way those left wing asshole slobs treated him.

Nick Sandmann is a child whose parents are expoiting their son to promote conservative causes. The boy has been on TV saying he wished he'd just walked away and that none of this had happened. And that was BEFORE instructed lawyers to launch dozens of lawsuits. I feel sorry for this kid.

And not one word on you side about the negligence of the school staff for not getting those boys safely outta there before any of this went down. Their chaperones gave permission to the kids for what happened. THOSE are the people the parents should be suing for not doing their jobs properly.

Sigh.

Ya, not the fault at all of the lying dirt bag that was harassing a bunch of children. No, lets blame someone else.

If only she was not wearing that short dress right. Clearly asking for it.

How did the "lying" dirtbag get close enough to harass the children? Their chaperones let it happened. When the kids came to them to ask permissions, they said "Go ahead". What if the natives really had been dangerous dirtbags, with weapons?

The role of the chaperone on a school trip is to keep anything bad from happening to the kids. These chaperones saw their charges end up in a racial confrontation which made the national news, which could easily have ended violently. They failed utterly in their jobs, and if was only by the grace of God that no one got hurt.

You fools think that anything that sticks it to minorities or liberals is just kick ass. Even if kids get hurt. Nicholas Sandmann has been telling people that he was hurt in all of this, and he wished it never happened. Listen to the boy. He's telling you he should have walked away.

Moron.....the racist with the drum approached him and the kid didn't know what to do, he was surprised and put in an awkward position...that is what he meant by he wished it hadn't happened, it had nothing to do with his chaperones.....he was hurt by the asshole with the drum and then the assholes in the press .......... they hurt him by calling him a racist and the assholes in hollywood who also called him a racist...in front of the whole country....you morons are the ones who hurt him, not his chaperones...you asshats called him a racist in front of the world....knowing nothing about the situation, knowing nothing about this young man.......you smeared him, his reputation, his parents and his school....you are the morons who hurt this kid and I am glad at least some of you morons have to pay him for the smears you told about him......

 

[2aguy]

Anyhow..... when I speak of stupidity I am referring mostly to white folks who do have intelligence but for whatever reason cannot think properly and also we have a huge problem with dishonesty....also usually white liberals.....especially the ones in the media.

I think you are conflating intelligence with logic. Many liberals are educated and do have high IQs, but that doesn't mean they have a lick of logic. Lack of logic is what makes one say stupid sounding things.

For instance, the Democrat party morphed into the anti-white party. Their entire goal is to make whites a minority in our country ASAP. Yet, white people still support them. What would make a person support a party trying to dilute their power? Lack of logic.

They claim the way to lower gun crimes in this country is to make it virtually impossible for law abiding citizens to buy or own guns. Can anybody explain the logic behind that?

If you want to change your gender, simply wear the opposite gender clothing and makeup, and you magically changed your gender. Is there any logic to that thinking?

To stop mass shootings, simply limit the size of magazines in guns. Again, zero logic.

So it's not that they''re stupid (although some really are) it's the void of logic in their thinking that makes you wonder about them.

It's not that the democrat party is anti-white....they are simply the party of racism. All of the racists flock to the democrat party because it is the party of big government....if you want to enact racist policies, you need the party that wants big government.......control of the government allows you to enact your racism on the races you don't like. This is the history of the democrat party....skin color is the primary concern of the party, always has been, always will be. The Republican party is the party of trying to limit government....especially the conservative branch of the party......limiting government is not the way to enact a racist agenda.....and the Republican party does not care about skin color....they have been and for the most part still are the party of freedom and tolerance......

 

[2aguy]

Anyhow..... when I speak of stupidity I am referring mostly to white folks who do have intelligence but for whatever reason cannot think properly and also we have a huge problem with dishonesty....also usually white liberals.....especially the ones in the media.

I think you are conflating intelligence with logic. Many liberals are educated and do have high IQs, but that doesn't mean they have a lick of logic. Lack of logic is what makes one say stupid sounding things.

For instance, the Democrat party morphed into the anti-white party. Their entire goal is to make whites a minority in our country ASAP. Yet, white people still support them. What would make a person support a party trying to dilute their power? Lack of logic.

They claim the way to lower gun crimes in this country is to make it virtually impossible for law abiding citizens to buy or own guns. Can anybody explain the logic behind that?

If you want to change your gender, simply wear the opposite gender clothing and makeup, and you magically changed your gender. Is there any logic to that thinking?

To stop mass shootings, simply limit the size of magazines in guns. Again, zero logic.

So it's not that they''re stupid (although some really are) it's the void of logic in their thinking that makes you wonder about them.

What they lack.....besides logic? Wisdom.

Wisdom - Wikipedia

Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight.[1] Wisdom is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence and non-attachment,[2] and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.[3][4]