George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[2aguy]

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.

I think you should inform an officer you are carrying a gun, simply because you don't want to accidentally increase the tension in an already potentially dangerous encounter....simply because the officer has no idea who you are, whether you are a criminal or a normal person....and suddenly seeing a gun can ramp up an interaction very quickly...

As to training...I agree that anyone who owns or carries a gun should get as much quality training as they can afford in time and money......the problem....left wing, anti-gun extremists...who will use any training requirement as a way to keep regular citizens from being able to afford to own a gun, through increasing the requirements in the terms of time and money to the point that only the rich and powerful will have that time and money....or connections....to be able to own and carry a gun...they already do this in New York...where normal people are essentially banned from owning a gun through their permit process....they also do this in Europe...where they use training requirements to keep the vast majority of citizens from being able to own the limited selection of hunting shotguns....

So as much as I like people to have training......the left wing asshats will use it like a Poll Tax and Literacy test for owning a gun. The democrat party used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep Black Americans from voting, and they will use the equivalent to Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep all Americans from owning and carrying guns.

 

[2aguy]

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.

just a ticket or something.


And you know it isn't about being reasonable or gun safety. Being reasonable would be exactly as you say...forget to tell an officer and they give you the equivalent of a jay walking ticket......reasonable would be putting a prison sentences on using a magazine for a crime, rape, robbery or murder....not for owning own legally without using it in a crime...

You know the whole point is to punish law abiding gun owners with fines, fees and red tape...to try to make owning a gun such a hassle that no one who doesn't really need one will own one......and putttin normal gun owners in legal peril....so that those legal guns that are currently out of the reach of gun grabbers...since normal people don't commit crimes with them......will become accessible through excessive red tape and laws....one misstep and the normal gun owner will become a convicted felon for nothing more than owning the gun or magazine without jumping through all the hoops...exactly what they plan....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sorry....Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong.....martin was the aggresor who initiated physical violence against Zimmerman so Zimmerman Following him has nothing to do with what happened during the attack.

In fact, martin was clear, had lost Zimmerman in the condo complex.....

This is all on martin, and I get tired of hearing Zimmerman blamed for trying to do a good thing...he called 911, he tried to keep an eye on martin for the police and was heading back to his car when martin attacked him..........

There was no imminent threat of grevious bodily harm....there was an actual attack that crossed a line that put martin in the role of violent aggressor........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

just a ticket or something.


And you know it isn't about being reasonable or gun safety. Being reasonable would be exactly as you say...forget to tell an officer and they give you the equivalent of a jay walking ticket......reasonable would be putting a prison sentences on using a magazine for a crime, rape, robbery or murder....not for owning own legally without using it in a crime...

You know the whole point is to punish law abiding gun owners with fines, fees and red tape...to try to make owning a gun such a hassle that no one who doesn't really need one will own one......and putttin normal gun owners in legal peril....so that those legal guns that are currently out of the reach of gun grabbers...since normal people don't commit crimes with them......will become accessible through excessive red tape and laws....one misstep and the normal gun owner will become a convicted felon for nothing more than owning the gun or magazine without jumping through all the hoops...exactly what they plan....

I think this goes back to when CCW's were first introduced in this state. The police collectively strongly opposed the bill. It was worse after it passed. The politicians were placating to the police and their unions. As time went on, more and more police see the results of armed citizens, and many have jumped the net to the other side approving of it.

My former co-worker was a retired Cleveland cop. He is still against CCW's. He's an old timer. But younger and middle-aged cops seem to vastly support the law now.

So it's just a matter of not pissing the police off by removing the duty to immediately inform the officer you are armed. Again, I'm all for keeping it, but I don't want to see anybody lose their license or getting arrested if they accidentally forget to alert the officer they have a loaded firearm on person or in the vehicle. After all, we're all human and make mistakes.

This is what it used to be like with our police:

 

[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.

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......

I disagree with your statement that the Democrats are not the anti-white party.

If you look at voter results, what you will see is that every minority group supports (and some strongly support) the Democrat party. The Jewish strongly support the Democrats. The Asians support the Democrats. The Hispanics support the Democrats. People from the middle-east support the Democrats. The blacks? Forget about it.

By eliminating whites, that gives Democrats something they've wanted for generations, and that is a single-party government. We whites are in their way of accomplishing that. So the solution to their problem is to get rid of us.

* They closed down the government to stop the Trump wall.
* They morphed from sanctuary cities to sanctuary states.
* Some have made it illegal for their police officers to contact or cooperate with ICE.
* Representatives have even gone as far as warning businesses about ICE raids.
* They stopped Kate's Law in it's tracks.
* Liberal states are issuing illegals drivers licenses.
* Many liberal states with a large population of illegals instituted motor voter.
* They want illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

It's very clear they want as many non-white people in this country as they can get their hands on.

 

[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......

I disagree with your statement that the Democrats are not the anti-white party.

If you look at voter results, what you will see is that every minority group supports (and some strongly support) the Democrat party. The Jewish strongly support the Democrats. The Asians support the Democrats. The Hispanics support the Democrats. People from the middle-east support the Democrats. The blacks? Forget about it.

By eliminating whites, that gives Democrats something they've wanted for generations, and that is a single-party government. We whites are in their way of accomplishing that. So the solution to their problem is to get rid of us.

* They closed down the government to stop the Trump wall.
* They morphed from sanctuary cities to sanctuary states.
* Some have made it illegal for their police officers to contact or cooperate with ICE.
* Representatives have even gone as far as warning businesses about ICE raids.
* They stopped Kate's Law in it's tracks.
* Liberal states are issuing illegals drivers licenses.
* Many liberal states with a large population of illegals instituted motor voter.
* They want illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

It's very clear they want as many non-white people in this country as they can get their hands on.

Except the entire party leadership is white.....except for obama.....he is a racist, for sure......friendly to louis farakhan, jeremiah wright and the black panthers........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Somebody kicking your ass is a felony; it's an attack. Of course it's legal to use deadly force in such a situation. Read the law.

 

[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.

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......

I disagree with your statement that the Democrats are not the anti-white party.

If you look at voter results, what you will see is that every minority group supports (and some strongly support) the Democrat party. The Jewish strongly support the Democrats. The Asians support the Democrats. The Hispanics support the Democrats. People from the middle-east support the Democrats. The blacks? Forget about it.

By eliminating whites, that gives Democrats something they've wanted for generations, and that is a single-party government. We whites are in their way of accomplishing that. So the solution to their problem is to get rid of us.

* They closed down the government to stop the Trump wall.
* They morphed from sanctuary cities to sanctuary states.
* Some have made it illegal for their police officers to contact or cooperate with ICE.
* Representatives have even gone as far as warning businesses about ICE raids.
* They stopped Kate's Law in it's tracks.
* Liberal states are issuing illegals drivers licenses.
* Many liberal states with a large population of illegals instituted motor voter.
* They want illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

It's very clear they want as many non-white people in this country as they can get their hands on.

Except the entire party leadership is white.....except for obama.....he is a racist, for sure......friendly to louis farakhan, jeremiah wright and the black panthers........

Yes they are white, but as we know, a Democrat politician would sell their soul to the devil for power. They don't care if they're taking out their own. It's irrelevant to them. Once the Democrat party takes over the country, Socialism will soon follow, and Communism right behind it. Then they will have total control over the people, and the great experiment will be over.

 

[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......

I disagree with your statement that the Democrats are not the anti-white party.

If you look at voter results, what you will see is that every minority group supports (and some strongly support) the Democrat party. The Jewish strongly support the Democrats. The Asians support the Democrats. The Hispanics support the Democrats. People from the middle-east support the Democrats. The blacks? Forget about it.

By eliminating whites, that gives Democrats something they've wanted for generations, and that is a single-party government. We whites are in their way of accomplishing that. So the solution to their problem is to get rid of us.

* They closed down the government to stop the Trump wall.
* They morphed from sanctuary cities to sanctuary states.
* Some have made it illegal for their police officers to contact or cooperate with ICE.
* Representatives have even gone as far as warning businesses about ICE raids.
* They stopped Kate's Law in it's tracks.
* Liberal states are issuing illegals drivers licenses.
* Many liberal states with a large population of illegals instituted motor voter.
* They want illegals to be able to vote in local elections.

It's very clear they want as many non-white people in this country as they can get their hands on.

Except the entire party leadership is white.....except for obama.....he is a racist, for sure......friendly to louis farakhan, jeremiah wright and the black panthers........

Yes they are white, but as we know, a Democrat politician would sell their soul to the devil for power. They don't care if they're taking out their own. It's irrelevant to them. Once the Democrat party takes over the country, Socialism will soon follow, and Communism right behind it. Then they will have total control over the people, and the great experiment will be over.

but the killing will just be beginning....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Same outcome. In the state of Florida, the jury reserves the right to vote guilty on a lesser charge, even if that lesser charge was not presented. If they believed a defendant was not guilty of first degree murder, they can find him not guilty on that charge, but guilty of third degree murder. They didn't exercise that right in this case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

 

[2aguy]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......

Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Because the prosecution was political.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

just a ticket or something.


And you know it isn't about being reasonable or gun safety. Being reasonable would be exactly as you say...forget to tell an officer and they give you the equivalent of a jay walking ticket......reasonable would be putting a prison sentences on using a magazine for a crime, rape, robbery or murder....not for owning own legally without using it in a crime...

You know the whole point is to punish law abiding gun owners with fines, fees and red tape...to try to make owning a gun such a hassle that no one who doesn't really need one will own one......and putttin normal gun owners in legal peril....so that those legal guns that are currently out of the reach of gun grabbers...since normal people don't commit crimes with them......will become accessible through excessive red tape and laws....one misstep and the normal gun owner will become a convicted felon for nothing more than owning the gun or magazine without jumping through all the hoops...exactly what they plan....

I think this goes back to when CCW's were first introduced in this state. The police collectively strongly opposed the bill. It was worse after it passed. The politicians were placating to the police and their unions. As time went on, more and more police see the results of armed citizens, and many have jumped the net to the other side approving of it.

My former co-worker was a retired Cleveland cop. He is still against CCW's. He's an old timer. But younger and middle-aged cops seem to vastly support the law now.

So it's just a matter of not pissing the police off by removing the duty to immediately inform the officer you are armed. Again, I'm all for keeping it, but I don't want to see anybody lose their license or getting arrested if they accidentally forget to alert the officer they have a loaded firearm on person or in the vehicle. After all, we're all human and make mistakes.

This is what it used to be like with our police:

These videos piss me off.

Cops like this should be fired.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......

Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....

So it's like with wealthy males and their cocks?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

just a ticket or something.


And you know it isn't about being reasonable or gun safety. Being reasonable would be exactly as you say...forget to tell an officer and they give you the equivalent of a jay walking ticket......reasonable would be putting a prison sentences on using a magazine for a crime, rape, robbery or murder....not for owning own legally without using it in a crime...

You know the whole point is to punish law abiding gun owners with fines, fees and red tape...to try to make owning a gun such a hassle that no one who doesn't really need one will own one......and putttin normal gun owners in legal peril....so that those legal guns that are currently out of the reach of gun grabbers...since normal people don't commit crimes with them......will become accessible through excessive red tape and laws....one misstep and the normal gun owner will become a convicted felon for nothing more than owning the gun or magazine without jumping through all the hoops...exactly what they plan....

I think this goes back to when CCW's were first introduced in this state. The police collectively strongly opposed the bill. It was worse after it passed. The politicians were placating to the police and their unions. As time went on, more and more police see the results of armed citizens, and many have jumped the net to the other side approving of it.

My former co-worker was a retired Cleveland cop. He is still against CCW's. He's an old timer. But younger and middle-aged cops seem to vastly support the law now.

So it's just a matter of not pissing the police off by removing the duty to immediately inform the officer you are armed. Again, I'm all for keeping it, but I don't want to see anybody lose their license or getting arrested if they accidentally forget to alert the officer they have a loaded firearm on person or in the vehicle. After all, we're all human and make mistakes.

This is what it used to be like with our police:

These videos piss me off.

Cops like this should be fired.

At the time, it went viral. He did get disciplined, but I forgot exactly how. When it became so popular in my area, the heat was on the Mayor. Canton is about 40 miles south of Cleveland.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......

Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....

They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

If our "legal" system can turn a blind eye to our aristocracy being involved in the patronage of Epstein's and Maxwell's (who is still footloose and fancy free) child sex trafficking operation for decades and the reality that we have not had a constitutional war since WWII, I'm sure things can be massaged "legally" dependent upon who is involved and how they can be painted.

To your point on "if you believe", same for, "but I was scared so I get to murder". Mindreading required by all. Bullshit. If you think you're unprotectable in America you're signaling you're a white guy and your privilege is showing.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......

Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....

They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.

Yes, America has always been a very violent nation and it's people are a violent people. Look at our wars, we cannot help ourselves. Our military is in 70% of the nations on the planet supporting 73% of the world's dictatorships. Please name another advanced post-industrial nation with our level of violence in society.

You can still make it about race though can't you.

 

[2aguy]

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.

In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?

So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.

So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.

No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.

Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......

Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....

They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.

Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......

It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.