Dog Brothers Public Forum

DBMA Martial Arts Forum => Martial Arts Topics => Topic started by: Crafty Dog on May 11, 2003, 07:41:54 AM

Title: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty Dog on May 11, 2003, 07:41:54 AM
Found at:
http://martialarts.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.it
tendojo.org%2Farticles%2Fgeneral-4.htm

Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist
by Peter Hobart, Esq.

Introduction

Anthony Ervin was a career criminal. He was arrested eight times on assorted robbery, weapons, and assault charges between 1987 and 1996. On October 8, 1996, he acosted Courtney Beswick, a blind man who must have seemed like an easy target. After Ervin's demands for money were repeatedly refused, he attacked Beswick. Beswick, a long time practitioner of martial arts, threw his assailant over his shoulder, onto the pavement. The fall broke Ervin's neck, and he subsequently died.

Having survived this terrifying ordeal, Beswick still faced the possibility of criminal and civil charges. In this case, however, the police and estate of the deceased decided not to file charges against Beswick, since he clearly acted in self-defense.

But this outcome is hardly the rule in the United States. In fact, a recent law review article indicates that a disturbing trend toward targeting martial arts practitioners is emerging in the field of tort law.

With this in mind, it seems that the modern martial artist must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the applicable law if he ever hopes, or fears, that his training may be called upon outside the d?j?.

In an effort to provide some practical answers, this article will address the national majority position, and any substantial minority positions regarding criminal and civil liability with respect to the use of force in defense of self, defense of others, and defense of property. Pennsylvania law, where relevant, will also be examined. The majority position reflects
the practice of most states, and is increasingly consistent with the Model Penal Code (MPC). Pennsylvania law regarding these issues is largely based on the MPC.

The author regrets the ubiquity of the terms "reasonable" and "generally" in this article - that these terms are essential merely reflects the complexity, and often the vagueness, of the law.

Case law varies widely among jurisdictions, and is constantly modifying and reinterpreting the rules of law. In an effort to provide some concrete conclusions, a lsit of relatively unqualified guidelines is provided at the end.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Self-defense, non-lethal force:

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him.
Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is 'reasonable belief', 'unlawful', 'about to' and 'necessary and proportionate'.

In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant's state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might
introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.

The reasonableness of the defendant's actions is judged by an objective rather that a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do
justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant's position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant's (and the assailant's) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.  There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an 'assailant', such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force.  It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known
to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the
use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.

'About to' refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I'll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.

The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope
of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally
consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a
provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying 'I am about to shoot you' might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant's weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a
screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker's special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. 'Retreat to the wall' is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one's own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996
the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one 's self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression 'suddenly escalates' the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Third parties:

The right to defense of others turns largely on the reasonableness of the belief that the victim deserved assistance. A minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer be a member of the victim's family, or the victim's superior or employee. Similarly, a minority of jurisdictions require that
the rescuer's belief be correct, reasoning that the rescuer 'merely steps into the victim's shoes', while the majority requires only that it be reasonable. Pennsylvania law imposes no such restrictions. It does, however, require the additional showing that the rescuer believed that his
intervention was necessary, and that the rescuer retreats if the victim would be required to do so.

If in the course of intentionally defending himself or another, a defendant recklessly or negligently injures or kills a third person, self-defense will not bar liability, but it will reduce the gravity of the charge from an intentional crime to a reckless or negligent crime.

Defense of Property:

In Pennsylvania, and a majority of jurisdictions, a victim has the right to use non-deadly force in defense of his dwelling when, and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry or attack upon his dwelling. Deadly force
is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a
felony therein. The rationale for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of inhabitants to be secure in their homes, rather than the right to defend property, as can be demonstrated by the law regarding defense of uninhabited property.

Non-deadly force may be used merely to defend one's property from imminent, unlawful interference. Force may not be used if some other, reasonable means would have the same effect.. The only exception to the immediacy requirement is that force may be used to regain wrongfully taken property after the taking (i.e. no longer a prevention of immediate interference) if the victim uses such force in 'immediate pursuit'. The legal rationale for this exception is, of course, that the interference continues as long as the
aggressor retains control of the property.

Deadly force may never be used in defense of uninhabited property. The popular misconception with respect to this law emanates from confusion over situations where the right to defend property and the right to defend persons therein overlap. Pennsylvania allows the use of reasonable, non-lethal force in the protection of property and notes that such a defense of property will not be regarded as 'provoking' an attack on the defender's person. Pennsylvania allows the use of force necessary to eject a trespasser, short of inflicting serious bodily injury. If the defendant reasonably believes that the trespasser intended to commit a felony, then
serious bodily injury is justified. When two people claim ownership over a piece of personal property, Pennsylvania law provides that force may not be used to prevent one from taking it.

Use of force to prevent crime:

A citizen has a privilege to use non-deadly force which reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony, riot or other serious breach of the peace, and some states (such as California) have extended this privilege to the prevention of any crime. Deadly force may be used only to prevent the
commission of a dangerous felony, involving a risk of human life. A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime. A private citizen may also use deadly force to effect
an arrest, provided the alleged criminal is actually guilty. Here, a reasonable belief is not enough.

Pennsylvania phrases this provision differently. A private citizen is justified in using the same amount of force as if he were directed to prevent the crime by a peace officer, except that lethal force may not be used unless the defendant reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another. At the direction of a peace officer, a private citizen need not retreat from making a lawful arrest, and may use any force he believes necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.

CIVIL LIABILITY

In a civil case, it is the victim (or his estate) bringing the action. While there are many similarities to a criminal charge, it is important to understand that the civil plaintiff must only prove his case 'by a preponderance of the evidence'. This is a much lighter burden than the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The principal tort actions which a victim who defends himself might face, include battery, assault and
wrongful death.

Battery and assault:

In virtually every jurisdiction (including Pennsylvania), to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the aggressor made harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person, that the aggressor intended to bring about such contact, and that the aggressor's actions in fact caused
the contact. While harmful contact is easily determined from the specifics of the situation, offensive contact is judged by the objective, 'reasonable person standard'. As a prominent Philadelphia law professor explains, "tapping a person on the shoulder is not reasonably 'offensive' whereas, tapping someone 'considerably lower' would be." 'Plaintiff's person' means in general anything connected to the plaintiff's body. This would include a hat, a cup in plaintiff's hand, and on a recent bar exam, even the car in which the plaintiff was sitting! Thus, snatching a book from a person might well constitute a battery.

The causation requirement can also be deceptive. Not only would a thrown projectile which strikes the plaintiff constitute a battery, but ducking to avoid such a projectile, and hitting one's head would also be actionable. Moreover, no actual damage need occur to bring an action for battery. The
offensiveness of a non-harmful contact will support an award of nominal damages.

Assault, briefly, is the creation of a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, in the victim. Simple fear is not enough. The aggressor must have a present apparent ability to bring about such contact. In other words, the victim must actually expect to be struck or touched. Conversely, the fact that the victim was not in the least bit afraid does not bar
recovery. Thus, a professional boxer may successfully sue a weakling for assault, even though there was no actual danger of being hurt.

Words are generally not enough to support an action for assault, but words coupled with some act may be. For example, shaking one's fist and threatening with words might well constitute assault. Similarly, a conditional threat such as 'your money or your life' is also sufficient to support a charge of assault. Like battery, no actual damage need result.

Wrongful death and survivor acts:

Although traditionally any tort action abated at the death of the victim or the perpetrator, most states have now enacted 'survival acts' for wrongful death (it is from this old common law rule that the concept of escaping liability by killing, rather than injuring a victim, derived). Now the estate of the deceased may bring an action against the killer for all
damages which occurred between the commission of the tort, and death (e.g. pain and suffering).

Further, every state has now enacted a statute providing for a civil remedy for wrongful death. Here, the a designated representative sues for the pecuniary injury to the next of kin (lost wages, lost companionship). While the wrongful death action is quite complicated, the critical aspect for present purposes is that the same defenses against the plaintiff apply as if the victim himself were suing.

Self-defense in tort law:

While the principles of self-defense at tort law are similar to those at criminal law, the mode of analysis, and areas of emphasis differ. In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the
potential injury. Since only reasonable ground are required, a genuine mistake with respect to the attack will still support the right to self-defense. Once the attack or tort has ended, so does the right to self-defense. Retaliation is never permitted.

As at criminal law, there is generally no duty to retreat, and deadly force may be used to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Even in the minority jurisdictions which require retreat (like Pennsylvania), there is an exception to the requirement if the victim is in his home. Although the attacker has no right to self defense, if the attack is non-deadly, and the victim responds with deadly force, the aggressor may defend himself with deadly force.

Third parties:

Under tort principles, a victim who accidentally injures a third-party in the course of defending himself is also protected from suit by that third party. A majority of jurisdictions also allow the defense of victims only if the victims themselves have a right to self-defense. Thus, if the rescuer makes a mistake regarding the victim's right to self-defense, he too will be liable. However, there is a strong modern trend toward protecting rescuers from suit if their wrongful assistance of a victim is based on a reasonable mistake (Pennsylvania tort law allows for a reasonable mistake). The rescuer may use as much force as the victim could have used in self-defense.

Defense of property:

In the defense of property, a request to desist prior to the use of force is required, unless it would be futile or dangerous. There is almost never a right to self defense when the 'intruder' in fact has a right to be on the property. Thus, it is unwise to attack a supposed intruder without
ascertaining his identity first! A significant exception occurs when the 'intruder' contributes to the ambiguity regarding his identity or purpose.

As at criminal law, there is a right to use force in the recovery of stolen property, as long as the victim is in 'hot pursuit' of the taker. Also as under the criminal standard, deadly force may never be used simply to defend property. Finally, the right to trespass for necessity supersedes the right to self-defense. Thus, a home-owner is not privileged to use force to turn away those who need refuge from an emergency.

Prevention of crime:

Since the right to use force is limited to the prevention of the commission of a tort in civil actions, one who subdues an attacker and then continues to use force to hold him until the police arrive, must be aware that he has moved over from a tort privilege, to the privilege of arrest under criminal law.

Martial arts teachers' liability:

Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent. There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents. First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct. Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held
responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.

Second, an instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with 'an extremely dangerous instrumentality'. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases. However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous
instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...." The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is
clear.

Finally, an instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction. Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community. Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and
supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.

CONCLUSION

The law, and the facts underlying a cause of action are rarely clear-cut. Statutes and case law vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lawyers are skilled at recasting the facts in their client's best interest.  Juries are given broad discretion with respect to determining guilt or innocence, and may feel the need to compensate an injured party regardless of fault.
And even if a defendant successfully raises one of the defenses discussed above, litigation is costly both in terms of time and money.

It would be foolish to try to rely on a general understanding of the legal principles at work in these situations, in order to engage in behavior which falls just within the realm of legality. Rather, the wise martial artist will attempt to avoid any hint of liability or criminal conduct. The following general principles may be of value in this endeavor.

. Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.

. If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.

. Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require 'taking the first hit', but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).

. Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.

. Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.

. Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.

. When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.

. Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky.

. As an instructor, you are both morally and legally responsible for the actions of your students, both inside and out of the dojo.

As an instructor, you should know the law at least to the extent of whether your state is in the majority or the minority with respect to the issues raised above. If you do not have a lawyer or law student in your dojo, any law school library will have a copy of: Your State Statutes Annotated (i.e., Texas Statutes Annotated). Simply look in the index under the headings listed in this paper for the applicable law.

DISCLAIMER: This analysis is not intended as a comprehensive statement of the law, or a legal opinion. It represents a general overview of the law, accurate to the best of my knowledge, at the time of publication. It is not
intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon as a defense to any criminal or civil charges or complaints.

Peter Hobart is a prosecuting attorney. Currently a member of the Itten D?j?, Mr. Hobart has trained for many years and is a licensed instructor of Santo Niten Ichi Ry? kenjutsu and kempo, and holds black-belt rank in aikijutsu. He can be reached via e-mail addressed to "kishido@ccis.com."
Title: Self-Defense Law
Post by: argyll on May 12, 2003, 09:56:49 AM
Great analysis of the use of force issues, I am not as convinced by the author's take on potential dojo liability, I'd like to see a citation to some case law for the proposition that knowlege can constitute an "extremely dangerous instrumentality," or that a student is a teacher's agent.

Best regards,

Argyll
Title: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Anonymous on May 13, 2003, 11:25:41 AM
Woof Argyll et al:

  A precise observation on your part.  I agree.

  The author describes himself as a "prosecuting attorney".  I'm not sure what that is, but if it is just a slick way of describing himself as a plaintiff attorney, it may explain the shadings of some of his points.  

  I'm over 20 years out of the practice of law and lack the time or financial incentive to do the research necessary to have the right to quibble too much with this piece, but do note that I share your concern on this point and others as well.

Still, I think the piece a useful overview for laymen to get their thinking in gear.

Crafty
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2008, 10:49:13 AM
TTT
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2008, 10:52:30 AM
Bringing this over from http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1552.0
===================================================


I have never Hear of Ayoob, but I will ask one simple question: is he a lawyer?

If the answer to the question is "no," then what are you doing listening to him for legal advice?
Would you go to a commercial real estate developer if you needed open-heart surgery? If he is a lawyer, then my next question is: "in what jurisdictions is he licensed to practice?" Unless the answer to that question is "all 50 states and the District of Columbia and territory of Puerto Rico (which would be a REALLY neat trick)," I would confine his area of expertise to where he is licensed and where he has practiced law. Emphasis on PRACTICED law.

The law is not something you can pigeonhole, especially for something as complex as "self defense." Add a weapon to the mix and you are really moving on thin ice.

You want legal advice on self defense in your jurisdiction? Go talk to a licensed attorney who deals with criminal law in your jurisdiction. Pay for a consultation (although many criminal defense attorneys give free consults). It will be an hour well spent.

______________________________________________________________

@ Tom guthrie - I was once put in a situation when I was younger with a couple friends of mine and my Girlfriend who at the time was going to have my son. So it was about 4 of us and we were attacked by a whole heaping alot of guys. The situation took a turn and my friend did what he had to do and added a weapon into the situation. And "We" were arrested for this attack.

I watched how the Police, Dets. And the DA were putting holes though the situation. They told us we could have ran, this and that. And my favorite we could have used reason...

I remember saying to the DA...You wanted me to try and talk to 15 drunk guys who were beating our ass?

To make a long story short. After they looked at the tape of the chaos. They said that we had gaps were we could have run and we did not take that chance to do so...I don't know to this day where these chances to run were.

But I am 2 other friends were let free and my friend who pretty much saved our lives in self defense got locked up for 5 years. All for bringing a weapon into the Mix.

I have a good friend who is a Police officer and one who is a Lawyer who I spoke with years later down the road about this and both told me. " It really all depends on the "City, State and DA" And if someone attacked you "Was your life on the line" And the one I really loved. Was just because you thought your life was on the line. Does not mean it really was and they people who are going to be in control of your freedom may not think the situation warranted using a weapon.

Christopher, who is my friend who is a Lawyer in LA also began to tell me that in cases that involve a weapon it comes down to how you used the weapon and what was the weapon...I was like "WTF” If you stab, If you slash, Did you hit them in the head, Did you runaway screaming for your life and were blocked in. Did you look for help? All these factors can decide freedom and losing your freedom.

Case that popped up in California in my neck of the woods. fight breaks out at a party. Guy A starts throwing fist with guy B..Guy A knocks down guy B and starts kicking him. Guy B gets up and grabs a bottle and Hits A with it

Guy B had to do time...Later I found out though some channels that there was no reason for Guy B to use a weapon. I asked "Wasn’t this guy getting his ass beat? I thought he was on the ground getting kicked?"

The response I got was. Guy A was not attacking him in a life threaten manner.

The law is tricky I guess. It all depends and I always suggest people find out what the law is in their neck of the woods or the woods you patrol...What you deem as Self Defense might not be what the DA deems as self-defense.

I did however find out a little more on Ayoob he was a police officer in Concord, New Hampshire...I don't think Ayoob is a professional when it comes to States laws 2,000 miles away or maybe even ones next door.


@ Marc - You were a lawyer, Correct? Do you have any imput on the situation?

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2008, 11:01:14 AM
Max:

I think if you look a bit further you will find that a lot of people regard Ayoob as a subject matter expert.  His book "In gravest extreme" (or something close to that) is considered must reading by many.

As for my legal qualifications, I think what you write will lead to you the sound conclusion that my background (one year of International Law in Washington DC some 25 years ago) is of minimal validity here.  :-)  Apart from my interest in the subject at hand, and a good education helping me to understand what I read, I have no particular qualifications whatsoever. :lol:

The Adventure continues,
CD

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Maxx on March 02, 2008, 06:31:36 PM
@ Marc
   I am sure that Mister Ayoob is good at what he does but we all know that nobody in the legal world can give you a forsure amount of information when it comes to what Self Defence , A Fight and Combat is esp. when you have to take into account of everyones look into what went down and how it went down.

Am I wrong for looking at it that way and finding out for sure people local laws?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: boomvark on March 02, 2008, 08:32:14 PM
Crafty, thank you for posting that article!  It bears repeated readings.

Regarding some of the understandable concerns and valid points that Maxx has addressed to me:

First off, I made the mistake of invoking a name that (clearly) not everyone is familiar with.  My bag.

Quote
I have never Hear of Ayoob, but I will ask one simple question: is he a lawyer?

No, he isn't, and doesn't claim to be, and I don't regard him as such.  His courtroom role is as an expert witness for the defense in police and civilian shooting cases.  He's been doing that since well before there was any such thing as the Internet; he does his homework meticulously, and has a good track record.  I do not, however, take all of his (or anyone's) opinions as gospel.

Your next question is valid too, despite seeming to make some fairly negative assumptions about my judgement:

Quote
If the answer to the question is "no," then what are you doing listening to him for legal advice?

I'm not.  He doesn't give legal advice, unless you're using that term a whole lot more broadly than I would.  In essence his approach is more like "Look, this is how the courtroom action played out in such-and-such a case I was involved with in jurisdiction X, and here are the participants' stated reasons why.  This is how a similar case might turn out in jurisdiction Y, and here's why I say that.  However, neither I nor anyone else can predict with even reasonable certainty how a similar case would play out in your jurisdiction.  Furthermore, I am not a lawyer.  For your own sake, find the best one you can and take it up with him."

That seems like a fairly responsible approach, to me.

Quote
Would you go to a commercial real estate developer if you needed open-heart surgery?

Of course not.  On the other hand, if I needed open heart surgery and an RN or PA whom I respected expressed an informed opinion on the available surgeons, I'd at least take his assessment into account.  That's a more applicable analogy.

Quote
If he is a lawyer, then my next question is: "in what jurisdictions is he licensed to practice?" Unless the answer to that question is "all 50 states and the District of Columbia and territory of Puerto Rico (which would be a REALLY neat trick)," I would confine his area of expertise to where he is licensed and where he has practiced law. Emphasis on PRACTICED law.

You forgot Guam.  :-)

Seriously, if you're trying to emphasize here that the laws vary, sometimes catastrophically, from one jurisdiction to another, and that what applies in Florida or New Hampshire probably won't apply in Massachusetts or California, I'd think that would be obvious.

Quote
The law is not something you can pigeonhole, especially for something as complex as "self defense." Add a weapon to the mix and you are really moving on thin ice.

True.

Quote
You want legal advice on self defense in your jurisdiction? Go talk to a licensed attorney who deals with criminal law in your jurisdiction. Pay for a consultation (although many criminal defense attorneys give free consults). It will be an hour well spent.

Of course.  Ironically, I've seen Ayoob say very similar things repeatedly.  More particularly, he strongly recommends consulting an attorney with a (good) proven record in self-defense cases within your jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Maxx on March 02, 2008, 09:18:49 PM
@ boomvark - Sorry if it sounded like I was negative assumptions about your judgement. I did not mean to come off as a @$$hole, If it seems that way I Apologize.



Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: boomvark on March 02, 2008, 10:15:36 PM
@ boomvark - Sorry if it sounded like I was negative assumptions about your judgement. I did not mean to come off as a @$$hole, If it seems that way I Apologize.

Hey man, no harm, no foul.

You've had some pretty painful experience that relates directly to the topic, and I'll bet you've run into a lot of people on the web who don't put much thought--if any--into the legalities of self defense.  Admittedly I left myself open to a certain amount of misinterpretation.  I really don't think our views on the matter are all that far apart.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: grimel on March 03, 2008, 04:11:17 PM
@ Marc
   I am sure that Mister Ayoob is good at what he does but we all know that nobody in the legal world can give you a forsure amount of information when it comes to what Self Defence , A Fight and Combat is esp. when you have to take into account of everyones look into what went down and how it went down.

Am I wrong for looking at it that way and finding out for sure people local laws?

Mas Ayoob is a certified court expert in use of force.  He runs LFI (Lethal Force Institute - a shooting school) which most lawyers agree gives more information and facts with regard to the use of lethal force than any law school class.

If you haven't read "In the Gravest Extreme" you should.

What he actually recommends is asking who the police union uses and contact him before you need him, then keep his card with you.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: michael on March 04, 2008, 07:23:43 AM


Mas Ayoob is a certified court expert in use of force.  He runs LFI (Lethal Force Institute - a shooting school) which most lawyers agree gives more information and facts with regard to the use of lethal force than any law school class.

If you haven't read "In the Gravest Extreme" you should.

What he actually recommends is asking who the police union uses and contact him before you need him, then keep his card with you.
[/quote]

I agree with Grimel. While Mas tends to do things to promote himself and sometimes alters his views on certain firearms or ammunition to suit the whims of the manufacturer he is promoting, his knowledge of self-defense law is greater than most lawyers. He has testified as an expert witness in many high profile murder trials, both for and against police officer, and citizens as well. He has a wealth of knowledge, and his book "In the Gravest Extreme", while dated, offers information that all citizens should have regarding self-defense. When it first came out, there were many who said that it was a textbook on how to get away with murder. I don't see it that way, but the material in it can certainly save you a lot of grief if you ever kill someone in self-defense. The book covers generalities and is not state or city specific, but is an overall broad-brush of self-defense law and how it applies.

The bottom line on self-defense is that it is highly variable on what you can and cannot do, based upon where you live. Whereas in TN or TX you might be given a medal and steak dinner, in California or NY you well could end up in prison. Know your state and local laws regarding self-defense, and spend some time talking to a highly regarded criminal defense attorney in your area that has tried many capital cases.
Title: Supreme Court decision
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2008, 01:06:24 PM
Not directly on point, but very interesting none the less.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: ballbuster on April 23, 2008, 02:59:20 PM
hey. Something no one mentioned yet is the Castle doctrine and how it figures into the mix. I know that California doesent have one, but my home state of Kentucky does.
makes for some interesting reading:    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/055.pdf
Under this statute if any person::
"is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force."

Im not a legal scholar but my interpretation on that is that is if someone attacks you, you may use whatever force neccesary to protect yourself if YOU think that your attacker is tring to seriously hurt you
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 26, 2008, 11:30:33 AM
Hey Ballbuster, you're pretty much right on from my experience in Delaware, NY and PA.  However, you have to be real careful about the "amount" of force you use.  I can only claim some expertise in DE but I think it might help.  Delaware has NO self defense law.  the vast majority of the populace would have no idea what the use of force model looks like for this state.  Having worked in the Prison system and with Probation I have had the ability to see it from the side of knowing what my opponent has a history of. But I also know that some of the things I had done to defend myself could easily have gotten me thrown in jail right with the guys I watched over.

The whole point of me rambling is that you can NEVER go above and beyond what you reasonably think the person can or will do to you.  In other words, if someone comes into your house at 2 AM and goes through your crap, and you had the ability to get yourself and family out without conflict but you shoot the guy instead.  You just got hit with manslaughter.  If they pull a gun or knife and threaten you or your family, have at it.  But property does not equal life in most states.  Get out and run.  Very few states will allow you to "stand up for yourself" anymore.  If you can get away, do it.  It sucks to hear but unfortunatley that is the direction this country is going.  Street confrontations as well.   
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2008, 04:10:20 PM
How does it feel to live like that?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: ballbuster on April 27, 2008, 12:12:04 PM
how does it feel to live like that? if we arent allowed by law to defend ourselves we are forced to live in cowardice. Regardless of the fact that we have the knowledge and ability we cant defend ourselves and stay free men. So can you really even say that we are living at all? if you ask me living in fear isnt living at all and that is what the government is making us do. It really makes me feel like all this training and preparing that we are doing is all for naught.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 27, 2008, 01:32:46 PM
Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this.  I am hoping more people will chime in on this conversation.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Howling Dog on April 27, 2008, 03:05:27 PM
Woof, Fortunatly in Ohio, you can still shoot someone who breaks into your home......as long as they are all the way inside.
The running joke is.....If you shoot somone climbing in your window and they fall back outside....drag them inside before the law arrives. :lol:

Myself, I have a 90lb pittbull that has the run of the house, and I keep some nasty toys close to the bed.
I sleep pretty well. :lol:
                                                             TG
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 27, 2008, 03:41:50 PM
Mas Ayoob did a lot to improve the legal aspects of firearms training for both civilians and law enforcement. He moved the dialog away from "Shoot the bad guy, then put a steak knife in his hand" to a realistic understanding of the legal/ethical/moral dynamic of deadly force for many gun owners in this country. He is a prolific writer and nationally recognized police trainer. His books are a must read for those interested in self defense.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 08:49:33 AM
I can't say that it's the best feeling in the world to know that my state won't back me up if I'm in a confrontation on my own turf but I can see the reasoning.  Unfortunately, there had to be a line drawn for those shoot first and ask questions later personalities out there.  More and more you are starting to see burglars, robbers and generally assailing jerk weeds shot in the back because when someone stands up to them they run but the adrenaline gets the better of the defender.  The fact that everyone sues everyone these days, not withstanding, you can't shoot if there is no threat.  I personnally hate firearms and refuse to have one in my home.  That is not to say that I don't have bladed or impact weapons in the house.  But a firearm, especially a pistol is too much power in a small package and I don't want my children near one.  Firearms are instant courage.  Many, many a person becomes Dirty Harry because they CAN.

Is someone's life the same value as your TV??  That's a big jump and some states are putting the hammer down on what is essentially a kind of vigilanteism.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 08:59:48 AM
I have to qualify something.  I wrote that last reply at work and sent it quickly.  I will not have a PISTOL in my home.  If I was ever to have any inkling of the need for a firearm in my home I would buy the biggest, nastiest shotgun the law will allow.  That way I have it there but I don't have to worry about one of my children or their friends trying to throw it in a backbacka nd take it to school.  Firearms have value but pistols are WAAAY to easy to conceal.  I stiil don't like any firearms, but to exclude them all is impractical.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
Medicmatt:

"you can NEVER go above and beyond what you reasonably think the person can or will do to you.  In other words, if someone comes into your house at 2 AM and goes through your crap, and you had the ability to get yourself and family out without conflict but you shoot the guy instead.  You just got hit with manslaughter.  , , ,I can't say that it's the best feeling in the world to know that my state won't back me up if I'm in a confrontation on my own turf but I can see the reasoning.  Unfortunately, there had to be a line drawn for those shoot first and ask questions later personalities out there.  More and more you are starting to see burglars, robbers and generally assailing jerk weeds shot in the back because when someone stands up to them they run but the adrenaline gets the better of the defender.  The fact that everyone sues everyone these days, not withstanding, you can't shoot if there is no threat."

Wow, , , I am in the middle of a busy day, but for the moment I note that our perspectives differ considerably.  May I ask, what experiences, what data, what legal research have you done that has led you to these opinions?


TAC,
CD

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 11:47:20 AM
If my conversation gives you insight into a different way of thinking then I guess it's worth the breaking in of your day.  I'm at work right now, waiting for the next response.  Anyway.

My personal opinions have been cultivated by approximately 8 years of law enforcement until I got sick of it.  I worked in a max security prison for 4 years followed by another 4 years of Probation and Parole.  These years also put me in court on average about 2-3 times a week.  One of the things I noticed in all that is that people are people.  From what you would consider the lowest scumbag on earth to the saintly neighbor who you swear doesn't walk but floats.  They are all the same.  You can find good and bad.  I've met some of the nicest people in the world in prison and some of the worst in a Four Seasons.

In no way am I saying that you should not be able to defend yourself.  But without knowing what the whole story is, should you be able to severely injure or even kill a person who is possibly only after your property.  Especially if there is never a direct threat to you or your family.   The problem starts when a person forgets that it's a living thing in front of them and has no idea that that thing in there hand does a lot more than "put a hole in a target". 

I have the unfortunate joy of putting these people back together again as a Paramedic.  Speaking of which.  Time for another call.  I'll be back.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 12:55:04 PM
Sorry bout that.  As I was saying, more and more often the people who are "defending themselves" are now doing so with excessive force.  As a Paramedic I have been to many a scene where the person was shot in the back or worse it was someone completely unrelated that was hit by a stray bullet because someone opened fire.  The same goes for unarmed confrontations.  "Defending yourself" does not mean stomping the person in to the dirt or breaking something when putting them down hard and walking away or holding for PD would work.

I hate to use this wording because it sounds insulting when that is not what I'm trying to be.  But, the toughguy mentality of a large portion of the populace is getting ridiculous.  That was one of the reasons that I left law enforcement.  Too many toughguys with that "kill 'em all, let god sort it out" mentality.  Yes, you can and should be able to protect yourself and your own.  Yes, the government should back you when it was a "Him or you" situation.  But, NO, you do not have the right to kill or cause grevious harm to someone just because they imposed on you or your stuff.  There is a line.  There must be.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Howling Dog on April 28, 2008, 01:48:40 PM
MedicMatt, Not sure I can agree with you, but I understand what your saying.......maybe paraphrased ..."put them down nicley"
Or with minimal harm to "bad guy"
My idea or thought would be one of personal responsibility. That goes to both good guy and bad guy.....but mostley my thought is towards the bad guy on this.
I work hard for my stuff and to provide for my family, I obey the laws and try to be a productive citizen.
Bad guy breaks into my house try to help himself to my stuff....obviously thats just wrong and he has to be resopnisble for his actions.
If I do nothing and let him take my stuff (just because its "stuff") and get away.....whats to keep him from doing the same to others or worse yet come back and further terrorize my house hold.

Its just my opinon, but if somone violates the law like, burglary and they get messed up for it.......thats their fault.....in other words they have to take responsiblity for their own actions. They never should have crept thru the window, in the first place.

As my kids were growing up, I always told them....."If you don't want to get burned, don't stick your face in the fire"
Key point here is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY........too many people these days DO NOT take this.
                                                                          TG
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 02:10:53 PM
I completely agree with the idea of personal responsibility.  Its hard to put in writing how much splitting hairs I am doing because I could probably disagree with myself on half the examples that could be brought up.  My only issue is that force, especially lethal force is a notion that many people have absolutley no idea what it really means until it's too late.  I will alway be on the side of the person who protects their own but I can't help to see the trend of people using this same logic for material possions. 

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2008, 06:05:28 PM
Umm, didn't you also have those material possessions in the home?  That people should allow themselves to be run out of their homes in the middle of the night?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 28, 2008, 08:32:44 PM
Sure, but the question I'm trying to put forward is when does the value of those objects become higher than the life and limb of the other person.  Like I said, if there is a threat to you or your family do what you have to do.  But when the threat is only loss or damage of property?  Is there really a monitary value worth life?  I understand this concept sounds weird but is it really any different than giving your wallet to a mugger?  You can fight and win,lose, die or kill.  Is it worth the $50 and some credit cards that you could shut off anyway?  Nobody wants to walk away but if the threat is eliminated by low or no force, I believe that is what you should do.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2008, 09:49:11 PM
Unless I am missing something, you went a good bit further than not shooting someone over property.

"In other words, if someone comes into your house at 2 AM and goes through your crap, and you had the ability to get yourself and family out without conflict but you shoot the guy instead.  You just got hit with manslaughter."

1) How does one determine an intruder's intent at 0200?
2) If you are wrong that the intruder's intent is simply limited to property, your family pays the price.   How on earth would you know?  What's the standard?  Probable cause?  Reasonable doubt?  Strict Liability , , , his?   :evil: Or is it "One story, end of story"?
3) What do you teach your children if you drag them out of bed at 0200 to flee your home?  What does it tell your wife about you?
4) Concerning "manslaughter", wouldn't that depend on the laws of the jurisdication in question?  In what state(s) were you an LEO?

Concerning property, do we not have the right to defend our property-- ESPECIALLY in our homes?  And if our defense of the property is attacked, do we not have the right to defend ourselves?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: peregrine on April 28, 2008, 10:46:56 PM
It's all about articulation.
I am not good at articulating my thoughts into words or written, so even more so my attorney will provide my statement.

As far as my understanding of it goes...several facets must be in place for a clean case of self defense(yes people have got away with less)
1.fear of one's life or others
2.escalation of force was reasonable
3.no escape possible(this differs with jurisdiction and castle law...)
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 29, 2008, 05:50:51 AM
For not being articulate you put things VERY well peregrine.  If I may I would like to answer the previous questions with your response. 

1.  You can't, just the same as you don't know how many, what age, what mental status or level of armament.  Get out and call PD.  If you or family are threatened at that point, fight.

2.  If you safely avoid the confrontation it won't matter.  If you can't safely avoid it then you are back at fighting anyway.

3.  I'm teaching my kids that property that can be bought again is not worth my or ANYONE's life.  Since I don't know all the answers to #1 and 2 then I will withdraw and deal with it.  If I am challenged then I will fight.  My wife is fine with it thanks.

4.  I can only answer for Delaware which is the state of my legal experience.  As LEO and Criminal Justice education in college.

As for the last part, I think that this is where the conversation came from.  Defense of property and the lack of Self Defense/Castle Law support in the tiny state of DE.

I think my point that might have gotten lost is that I have no issue with defense when challenged if you can ARTICULATE (thanks peregrine) the level of threat.  I just don't think the level of threat is the same for property as it is for the person. 

I have an example that might go to court very soon.  This is a man defending his home but taking that extra step.

Two males forcibly enter a home through the front door.  One male resident is home.  Male resident grabs his gun and runs down stairs.  Resident is challenged coming down the stairs.  Resident shoots one intruder and tries for other.  All this is fine.  The problem begins with the second intruder crapping himself and running away.  At this point in time the threat is gone and everything is over.  The resident proceeds to shoot the intruder in the back as he tried to jump over the hedges in the front yard.  This case when from perfectly fine to manslaughter.  The issue is that the threat was gone. 
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: peregrine on April 29, 2008, 09:21:48 AM
I would like to bring up a very critical point on why i believe in the 2nd A.
The police are not responsible for individuals safety.
This may sound simple on the surface, but there are so many people who believe and have the thought if something bad happens 'the police will come'
Well they likely will, but they may not.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 29, 2008, 11:44:23 AM
Unfortunately very true.  The police are charged with the protection of the state and it's inhabitants.  But at the same time, lovely government brains that have never been physically in trouble ever, decided that police cannot respond hot (full lights and sirens) unless a person's life or limb is in imminent threat.  As a Paramedic I go to everything hot because it is always life threatening until proven otherwise.  The police are not allowed to anymore.  Thanks Delaware.

The police will always come if you call 911.  How long it takes is the question.  In some places you are actually better calling 911, screaming, then hanging up.  That way they send more than one unit.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2008, 03:41:32 PM
Woof Medic:

Please forgive my relentlessness on this point, but

"The resident proceeds to shoot the intruder in the back as he tried to jump over the hedges in the front yard.  This case when (sic) from perfectly fine to manslaughter."

is quite different from saying that you and your family must run from your home or it will be manslaughter.  Not only is this is outside of the home, but as you correctly note  "The issue is that the threat was gone." 

Yes?

CD
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 29, 2008, 06:44:52 PM
Correct.  When the man found the people in his home and they challenged him, that is the threat.  Now if he had come downstairs and the people were not immediately there between him and an exit, or had run away when they heard him, there would be no threat.  The general presence of a person does not automatically create a threat.  (If that were the case then every unsavory person on a subway should be game for a beating just because they are standing close to you).  He could even shout warning to see if they would fight or flee.  (I believe this is what he did).  Not my first choice but still OK.  The problem is that the man went out of his way after the threat was gone to still do harm.  That I believe is the problem.  The presence of a person is not a direct threat that warrants force.  ( I don't want to stick with just lethal force).  If there is a safe exit, I believe that should be the first choice over violence.

I ask this question.  Would it matter if the people were in his home at the time and he shot them in the back?  Or even just kicked the hell out of them from behind?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2008, 08:00:38 PM
"The general presence of a person does not automatically create a threat."

Now we are getting closer to the essence here.  I submit that someone in my home at 0200 without permission really starts looking like a threat as a general rule--perhaps not an absolute rule-- but a general rule.  If someone has been woken from his sleep, especially if his family is there,  I'm thinking even a no-castle doctrine state is going to tend to be hestitant to go after him. 

A related point: I am aware of states with a duty to retreat until the back is to the wall, but I am not aware of states that require people to flee from their homes in the middle of the night.  I certainly could be wrong about this though; do you have any citations to this effect from your state of Delaware from your days as a LEO?

Turning now to your separate point about shooting in the back:  I submit that though certainly this is one factor amongst the totality of circumstances, that properly presented it is not dispositive.  It could simply have been a moment wherein the BG flinched away. 

I remember a training exercise at one of the Warrior Talk Symposiums in Memphis TE that I participated in as one of the instructors there.   Working from memory, with a simunition gun in holster and suitable safety gear, we told each participant that he was entering his home (actually the gun range) at night.  Upon entering, each participant saw a trainer with a simunition gun in his hand going through the items on a shelf.  The gun was pointed at the ground.  What we were studying is what people would do.  If I remember correctly EVERY person people engaged in conversation with the BG.   When everyone was done, Southnark (a very highly regarded police trainer and undercover LEO) called everyone in.  The simunition guns were all put away.  Then SN stood there as the BG with his index finger pointing at the ground representing his gun and had various people come up one at a time and point their index finger at him.  "Say Bang! if I do something threatening."  he said.  Again and again he "shot" them a split second before or at the same time as each person "shot" him.

The point is this-- the nature of the reactionary gap gives a lot of weight to he who acts first.  So if you come upon someone in your house at 0200, probably you are in the dark and it will be very hard to tell whether he is armed or not-- and if you ask him, you will be running one heck of a risk because he can whirl and shoot at you before you can drop him with certainty.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 29, 2008, 08:43:26 PM
Medicmatt,

You were a cop in Delaware for 4 years? Exactly what "trigger-happy" shooting did you see firsthand? I work in a different part of the US as a cop, and i'm not aware of the wild west atmosphere in Delaware.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on April 30, 2008, 06:08:18 AM
GM.  Real quick.  I was not a "cop".  Worked for Department of Correction and then with Probation and Parole.  Totalling over 8 years.   I am a Paramedic now with about 3 years in.  Delaware, specifically Wilmington has been on the rise with gun violence in the past few years.  No, we're no Detroit or NYC but its bad enough.  I would't use the term trigger happy because most people in these situations don't think, they just react. 

This brings me to what Crafty Dog was saying.  You are absolutely right about the reaction being slower than action and having done gun fighting drills myself with P+P I have seen this.  However, with your drill of finding the person in your home, back to you, with the gun down.  Why wouldn't you just back out and find a better vantage point for flight or combat?  If you have to move in for protection of family then you're stuck anyway.

Also, fleeing from your home is not such a bad idea when every variable, except possibly knowledge of the layout of the home, are working against you.  I know it sounds crazy, but a skillful retreat especially when others like children are involved is still a better option a lot of the time. 
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Jonobos on April 30, 2008, 12:17:47 PM
Quote
I would like to bring up a very critical point on why i believe in the 2nd A.
The police are not responsible for individuals safety.
This may sound simple on the surface, but there are so many people who believe and have the thought if something bad happens 'the police will come'
Well they likely will, but they may not.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I have to say that I agree. I refuse to leave the safety of the ones I love in the hands of someone else. Especially when that someone else might be miles away. By the time the police arrive I could be dead. My family could be dead. I believe Crafty says it best "Protect yourself at all times" and "Only you are responsible for your safety." Maybe thats not exactly it, but I think he says something to that affect at the beginning of every gathering. There are not enough police to protect everyone, and would we really want that many anyway? I wouldn't.

Quote
Also, fleeing from your home is not such a bad idea when every variable, except possibly knowledge of the layout of the home, are working against you.  I know it sounds crazy, but a skillful retreat especially when others like children are involved is still a better option a lot of the time.

I really don't see how its possible to wake up the 3 other people I live with and sneak out of the house without ending up in a confrontation with the intruder. There are three floors and we are on different levels. Chances are good that one of us will run smack into the intruder before the others even realize he is there. I could flee, try and call for help, and leave the others on their own. That doesn't sit well. What about the months of the year that the temperatures are below freezing outside? Is it really a good idea to go charging out the front door in my boxers? Just some food for thought. Not all of us live in sunny California where you can hang out in shorts outside all year  :-P

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 02, 2008, 04:29:29 AM
While I await Medicmatt's response to Jonobos post and its quite pertinent points, as I am on my way out the door for the day I toss in this little piece.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/.../student_death

By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press WriterThu May 1, 11:50 PM ET

A college student apparently called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, failed to call back and never sent police to investigate, authorities said Thursday.
Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said it was too early to know whether a better response could have prevented the April 2 slaying of Wisconsin-Madison student Brittany Zimmermann or helped police capture her killer.
Authorities refused to release the content of the phone call, but Wray said it should have been enough for the Dane County 911 Center to take it seriously.
"It would be accurate to state that there is evidence contained in the call, which should have resulted in a Madison police officer being dispatched," Wray said at a news conference. "The 911 center did not call back to the telephone number, Madison police were not notified and no officer was sent."
Zimmermann, 21, was found slain in her apartment in an apparently random crime. Police believe someone broke into her apartment before killing her. They have not identified a suspect but have ruled out her fiance, who found her body in the apartment they shared.
Dane County Public Safety Communications Director Joseph Norwick said the dispatcher who received the call from Zimmermann's cell phone inquired several times to determine whether an emergency existed. The dispatcher hung up after receiving no answer and then answered another 911 call that was waiting, he said.
The dispatcher failed to call the number back as required under the department's policy, Norwick said.
Norwick said he was investigating the incident and reviewing whether policies should be changed and employees should be disciplined. But he also said, "I don't think there's anything to apologize for at this time."
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 02, 2008, 04:32:16 AM
And while we await MM's specific citation of DE law, here is this on Texas law:

'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting


Web Posted: 04/29/2008 11:14 PM CDT


Robert Crowe
Express-News
After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.
The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.
This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.
Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.
San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.
Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.
Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.
“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said.
For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home.
Many other states have adopted similar doctrines — sometimes called “Make My Day” laws — said Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University.
“The danger of empowering people to use deadly force is that they are not trained to recognize friend or foe in highly dangerous situations,” he said. “Oftentimes, a stranger in a house turns out to be a drunken neighbor or a relative.”
In San Antonio last year, a Northwest Side homeowner fatally shot an intoxicated college student who wandered into his home — in the same neighborhood where the student’s sister lived.
Raymond Lemes found 19-year-old Tracy Glass inside his house about 2:45 a.m. one Saturday last August. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest.
Lemes wasn’t charged in the case.
Texas’ castle doctrine garnered national attention last year when a 61-year-old Pasadena man shot and killed two men who had broken into a neighbor’s home. The incident was recorded in a 911 phone call that the shooter, Joe Horn, made to police.
Horn was inside his house when he reported seeing two men break into a neighbor’s home. According to a recording of the emergency call, Horn told the dispatcher he intended to go outside and kill the men. The dispatcher told him that it wasn’t worth it to kill someone over property.
Still, Horn went outside and fatally shot the men, Pasadena police said. He told police they lunged at him on his property. Harris County prosecutors are scheduled to present the case to a grand jury next month.

Staff Writer Michelle Mondo contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on May 02, 2008, 01:58:01 PM
I must admit, I stand corrected.  I was incorrect in my information.  Having spoken to an attorney of the Prosecutor's Office of my state.  I was directed to word of law for Delaware.  The information put forward in my prior training and experience it seems was something of a myth.  Self defense does in fact exist in Delaware as does the Delaware version of the "Castle Law".  Here is the code.  My only guess is that in the courts of this lovely state Self Defense as an affirmative defense to violence is frowned upon and therefore if you do not do your homework, which I did not, you will not get the true extent of your rights.

I decided that since the post was going pretty far and getting iinteresting, I needed to make sure of the validity of my side.  I was incorrect and apologize for being so.  It is interesting to note that everything that I had been taught and was trying to put forward seems to be mixed in to the law but I think reading the code in its entirety explains things quite well.
MM

§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.

(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.

(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or

(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:

a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and

b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and

c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 464; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 203, § 5; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 465. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) The defendant would have been justified under § 464 of this title in using such force to protect the defendant against the injury the defendant believes to be threatened to the person whom the defendant seeks to protect; and

(2) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The defendant believes that intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.

(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.

(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.

(d) Neither the defendant nor the person whom the defendant seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in their own. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 465; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 466. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.

(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

(b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:

(1) Such a request would be useless; or

(2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or

(3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.

(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

(d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 466; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 62 Del. Laws, c. 266, §§ 1, 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2008, 01:45:19 PM
Woof MedicMatt:

My apologies for the delay in my reply.  Thank you for your commitment to search for Truth and to share the results with us here.

In related vein, I found this on the GetofftheX forum:

TAC
CD
========================

Find out if your states have an office of legislative research.

Its a great tool to use.

This is a good summary of the state of laws in Connecticut on this subject.

2007-R-0052

CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE
January 17, 2007

By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney

You asked about the “castle doctrine,” how it acquired its name, how many states have adopted bills on it, and any information about its effect in states that have adopted it.

SUMMARY

Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”

In recent years, a number of states have adopted or considered bills referred to as “castle doctrine” bills. These bills expand the circumstances where a person can use self-defense without retreating and contain other provisions, such as immunity for someone who legally uses force in self-defense. A Washington Post article states that the Florida bill was given the name the “castle doctrine” by Florida lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, a former National Rifle Association president (“Florida Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense,” Washington Post, April 26, 2005). These bills have also been called “stand your ground” bills.

We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. A number of other states considered bills on this topic. In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a “castle doctrine” bill but the governor vetoed it.

These “castle doctrine” bills contain a number of different provisions and the states vary in which provisions they adopted. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions.

We could not find any studies on the impact of these laws. A June 11, 2006 Orlando Sentinel article stated that it was too early to see the impact of Florida's new law, which took effect October 1, 2005, and there were no statewide statistics on the number of self-defense claims before or after that date. The newspaper found 13 people who used self-defense in central Florida over five months (resulting in six deaths and four people wounded). In the investigation of the 13 people who used self-defense, three were charged with a crime, five cleared, and the others were still under review. The newspaper stated that police and prosecutors handled investigations of these cases in a range of ways. A copy of this article is attached (“Cases Involving the New Deadly Force Law are Handled in a Broad Range of Ways,” Orlando Sentinel, June 11, 2006).

The sections below describe provisions in the “castle doctrine” bills and Connecticut's laws on self-defense.

“CASTLE DOCTRINE” BILLS

We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions. In general, the bills contained at least one of the following provisions.

1. They remove the duty to retreat from an aggressor using force or deadly force under certain circumstances. The states vary in how broadly this applies. For example, Alaska expands the types of premises where a person does not have a duty to retreat when using force in defense of self to include any place the person resides, a place where he is a guest, and his workplace. The Alaska law also applies to protecting a child or member of the person's household, regardless of location.

2. Kansas removes the duty to retreat from its use of force statutes and adds a general statement that a person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force.

3. Some states add a legal presumption about when a person is justified in using force against intruders. For example, Florida added a presumption that a person using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to himself or another if (a) the person against whom he used force was illegally and forcefully entering a dwelling or occupied vehicle, was in the process of doing so, or removed or was attempting to remove a person against his will and (b) the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. These presumptions, which vary by state, have exceptions and do not apply under specified circumstances, such as when (a) the person force is used against had a right to be in the dwelling or was a lawful resident, (b) the person using force was engaged in illegal activity, or (c) the person force is used against is a law enforcement officer performing his duties who identified himself or the person using force knew or should have known the person was an officer.

4. Some states, such as Florida, include a presumption that a person who illegally or forcefully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with intent to commit an illegal act involving force or violence.

5. Many of the bills provide immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who legally uses force or deadly force. This can apply to arrest, detention in custody, charging, and prosecuting. Some also specify that law enforcement is authorized to use standard procedures to investigate but cannot arrest the person unless there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.

6. Many also provide immunity from civil actions for a person who is justified in using force or deadly physical force. They require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees, costs, compensation for lost income, and expenses if the court finds that the person acted lawfully and is immune from prosecution.

CONNECTICUT LAW

Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person, his home or office, or his property; to make an arrest or prevent an escape; or to perform certain duties (for example, a corrections officer may use force to maintain order and discipline, a teacher to protect a minor, and a parent to discipline a child). A person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not (CGS § 53a-23).

Self defense or justification is a defense in any prosecution (CGS § 53a-16). The person claiming justification has the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence to assert self-defense. When raised as a defense at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt (CGS § 53a-12).

Physical Force in Defense of Person

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:

1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;

2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

Physical Force in Defense of Premises

A person who possesses or controls property or has a license or privilege to be in or on it is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it. The owner can use deadly physical force only (1) to defend a person as described above, (2) when he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the trespasser from attempting to commit arson or any violent crime, or (3) to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder) (CGS § 53a-20).

Physical Force in Defense of Property

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.

When defending property, deadly force may be used only when it is necessary to defend a person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or infliction or imminent infliction of great bodily harm as described above (CGS § 53a-21).

Supreme Court Decision on Self Defense

In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant's belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n. 13).

, , , ,

(separate post)

, , , ,

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/download/memosb0011.pdf

This can, and should be, amended next session with the corrections TFA Executive Director, John Harris, outlines above.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on May 14, 2008, 02:33:29 PM
Sorry,  Been really busy.  Lots of wrecks recently.

Timing seems to be of import right now as it seems that the State of Delaware is trying to squash a new bill that would contain a "castle law".  I'm trying to get more specifics, but I don't think I'm supposed to know what I already know about it.  It's amazing what a lawyer talks about over lunch.  It seems the State gov't is looking with the same reluctance that I would.  A litttle worried about some "Dirty Harry" type incidents.  Problem is, if they read their own laws, its already too late.  Nothing about changing the laws on the books just trying to stop "castle law".  Maybe its just for the appearance.  I dunno.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2008, 05:45:50 PM
Uhhh, , , , if it is a bill, its not a secret  :lol:  As a matter of fact you would be doing your civic duty to help your fellow citizens keep track of the poli-ticks '(many bloodsuckers)  :evil:
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: medicmatt on May 15, 2008, 05:57:59 AM
I think that was the issue of why I'm not supposed to know.  It's either not fully written or its pork that they are trying to fill in something else with.  Either way it sucks.  I don't think it will go anywhere anyway.  The law is pretty specific as it is. I'm just thinking they don't want the title "castle law" on the books.  Then people might find it.

Got a quote for you about lawyers.  Yes this is a sore spot for me.  Enough time in court, and I was on the good side.

"How's a lawyer like a slinky??"
"They're both really not good for anything but their fun to watch as you push them down the stairs."

Well I liked it.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
Guy asks his wife for some anal sex.  She turns him down. 

"Why not?"

"You wouldn't want to have a lawyer, would you?"

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: foxmarten on May 17, 2008, 02:20:53 PM
This link to the Loyola Law Review gives a nice 23 page overview of California's law and case law on "justifiable murder", including the presumption of reasonable fear if defending one's residence from intruders...

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:EYsXDKE2pkYJ:llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/9selfdefense.pdf+california+self-defense+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

California Penal Code section 197 states, “Homicide is . . .
justifiable when committed by any person . . . [who is] resisting any
attempt to murder any person . . . .” This definition does not fully
reflect the complexities involved in deciding when self-defense is a
legally permissible justification for murder in California.
Self-defense consists of two elements: (1) an “honest” belief in
the need to defend; and (2) a “reasonable” belief in the need to
defend. The defendant must subjectively or actually believe in the
need to defend against imminent harm. In addition, the defendant’s
belief must be objectively reasonable. If a defendant had an honest but unreasonable belief in the need
to defend against imminent harm, the result is imperfect self-defense.
In cases of imperfect self-defense, a defendant can be convicted of
manslaughter, but not murder. Thus, a defendant will only be
completely exonerated if there is both a subjective and objective
belief in the need to defend. Recent developments in the law of self-defense focus on several
areas...

CAL Penal Code197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. 198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone. 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2008, 03:54:38 PM
Thank you Foxmarten!
Title: Common Law Principles
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2008, 11:45:58 AM
Pasting Scott's post from the Kerambit thread here:
==========

Some reading:

Self-defense

Common law principles

 Deadly force used in self-defense is justified at common law when:  The defendant is a non-aggressor and the defendant reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to repel an imminent, unlawful, and deadly attack by the other person.  This set of elements also fit the structure of a justification defense, namely: (1) Proportionality – the force used is proportional and reasonable in relation to the harm threatened.  (2) Necessity – the force used is necessary to protect the interest at stake.  Deadly force generally means either force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.  In order to justify the use of self-defense on the basis of deadly force, you must be trying to repel deadly force in response.  You can use deadly force to defend against potential crimes other than murder.

 At common law, if you act in justifiable self-defense, you’re not guilty of any crime.  Even if you prove all the elements of the crime of murder, if you have a justification, then you’re not guilty.  Even if you have the intent to kill that usually constitutes malice, you may not be guilty of the offense.

 The “aggressor” issue

 You can’t use deadly force in self-defense if you’re the aggressor at the time of the conflict.  In order to find the aggressor, we are looking for an “affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce” a potentially fatal fight.  Self-defense cannot be claimed by someone who deliberately puts himself in danger.

 “Reasonable belief” at common law

 Say a defendant shoots someone believing they have a real gun when the gun is actually fake.  Under the reasonable belief requirement, even though the person couldn’t or wouldn’t have killed the defendant, the defendant still is acquitted even though what he did was objectively wrong.  However, if, on the other hand, the gun was obviously a toy then the defendant loses the self-defense claim because the belief about the threat wasn’t objectively reasonable.

 People v. Goetz – The reasonable person standard for self-defense as justification is an objective standard.  Goetz felt that the prosecution gave an objective standard whereas the standard should have been subjective based on the statute.  The intermediate appellate court argued that the emphasis in the phrase “he reasonably believes” is on “he”.  That becomes a subjective standard because we’re not interested in what a reasonable person would do, but rather whether the defendant thought he was doing a reasonable thing.

 The thing is that the defendant will obviously think that what he’s doing is reasonable.  But the defendant may be an unreasonable person.

 The Court of Appeals of New York rules that the statute was meant to create an objective standard.  But how objective did the legislature intend it to be?  Who is that reasonable person?

 
How can it be justifiable to kill an objectively innocent person?  We might excuse someone for it, but maybe it wouldn’t be justified.  The common law says, on the other hand, that such an act would not be justified, but rather excused.  Dressler argues that this could create a situation where two people could justifiably kill each other.

State v. Wanrow – The jury may “stand in the shoes” of the defendant in assessing whether his or her conduct was justified.  The basic issue in this case is bringing gender into the discussion of the reasonable person.  What does this case stand for?  Does this mean that a woman who uses self-defense must be judged by the standard of a reasonable woman, or must she be judged by the objective standard of a reasonable person?  The ruling says that the defendant’s actions must be judged subjectively, not objectively.  After this case, case law has clarified this result to mean that they use a “reasonable woman” standard.  The Model Penal Code chooses “designedly ambiguous” language to describe the standard of behavior: “a reasonable person in the actor’s situation”.

State v. Norman – If North Carolina applies the common law, why isn’t Norman entitled to a self-defense claim?  It rests on the meaning of the word “imminent”.  At common law, this term means “just about right now”.  We’re talking seconds, not minutes or hours or days or weeks.  Since that’s not what we have in Norman, the Supreme Court of North Carolina represents the traditional view.  Under the ruling of this case and in most common law jurisdictions, Norman would not even be entitled to an instruction on the justification of self-defense.

 Does syndrome evidence arguably turn a justification defense into an excuse?

 “Self-protection” and the Model Penal Code

 § 3.04(2)(b)(i) deals with one limitation on the use of deadly force: the defendant mustn’t provoke the use of force with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury.  The Model Penal Code says that § 3.04(2)(b)(ii) says that you can’t use self-defense if you can retreat, except if you’re in your own home or you’re a public officer.  The Model Penal Code, as well as common law, treats human life very, very highly.  The sanctity of human life is valued so highly that the law doesn’t even want “bad guys” killed unless it’s absolutely necessary.  Thus, it’s very difficult under the Model Penal Code and at common law to win on a self-defense claim.

 The Model Penal Code doesn’t focus on the amount of time before the actor will be killed, rather, it focuses on the actor to figure out if it is necessary now to use deadly force against the victim.

 § 3.04.  This statute uses the word “immediately necessary” rather than “imminent”.  The provision is general.  The deadly force provision is § 3.04(2)(b).  Even if you meet § 3.04(1), there are additional conditions in order for a valid justification to be constructed.

 If an actor’s belief is sincere but reckless or negligent, the actor isn’t justified as far as reckless or negligent offenses.  If the defendant was negligent in believing that a toy gun was actually real, then under the Model Penal Code the defendant wouldn’t be guilty of murder.  The defendant would be guilty of negligent homicide if the defendant was negligent, and the defendant would be guilty of manslaughter if the defendant was reckless.

 What the Model Penal Code does that is dramatically different from common law is that it doesn’t like the “all-or-nothing” proposition.  In the three situations above, the defendant is not guilty in the first case, not guilty in the second case, but fully guilty in the third case.  On the other hand, the Model Penal Code allows conviction for a lesser crime in the third case.

 Necessity

 
Three elements are required in order to show necessity: (1) The act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil.  (2) There must have been no adequate alternative.  (3) The harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided.

 Nelson v. State – There’s a balancing test here between the harm actually caused and the harm averted by the act.  That’s the very definition of necessity.

 The drafters of the Model Penal Code § 3.02 thought the necessity defense was essential because we want to encourage sort of “efficient breach” of the law.  If obeying the law involves greater harm to society than breaking the law, we want people to break it.  This is kind of a belt to keep the legislature’s pants from falling down in exceptional situations.  If the legislature would have said “Yes, break the law in this case”, then we want to let the offender off the hook.  It would be irrational to want people to obey the law if we believed that the legislature in a certain situation would say “do break the law” because that would result in a better outcome for society than obeying the law.

 Although necessity (or the “choice of evils” justification defense) is typically thought of as a utilitarian justification because of its balancing aspect, it can also be viewed in non-utilitarian terms by comparing the moral value of one choice of action against another.

 A defendant must actually believe that his conduct is necessary to avert a greater evil (and not an equal or lesser evil).  The necessity defense doesn’t help you if you recklessly or negligently created the necessity.

 The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens – This is the single most important case in Anglo-American jurisprudence to deal with the following question: is it ever justifiable to kill an innocent person in order to save a greater number of innocent persons?  The court suggests that sometimes the law has to set up standards that we can’t really live up to.  Can we punish someone when we all would have done the same thing?

 If you’re a retributivist, then it is never right to kill an innocent person in order to save a greater number of innocent lives.  If you’re a Kantian, you believe that you must never use a person as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself.  That’s what Dudley and Stephens did with Parker: they used him as a means to an end, violating what Kant would say is a categorical imperative.

 Excuse

 Excuse focuses on the actor, not the act.  Excuse concedes that the act was bad, but there was something about the actor such that we’re willing to let them go without punishment.  When we use an excuse defense, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant.

 Bentham says that an excuse is a defense when their conduct was nondeterrable.  The only use for punishment, in a utilitarian view, is deterrence.  Therefore, if there is no value to punishment and only a net social cost, we shouldn’t punish.

 However, say there are some people who are genuinely undeterrable.  There may still be some utilitarian value in punishing an undeterrable person due to specific deterrence or incapacitation.  What about the general deterrence value in punishing an undeterrable person?  If we excuse an undeterrable person, someone else might get the wrong message.  Someone else might believe that they can convince a jury that they are undeterrable.  Generally speaking, they may be less likely to obey the law because they will perceive it as full of holes.

 Retributivists say that we have excuses because we don’t want to blame those who were not responsible for their actions.  To blame someone who is not responsible for his actions is a falsehood.  It is a matter of justice to excuse certain people even though they have caused some social harm.

 Excuse law is now explained almost exclusively by some sort of retributive theory rather than utilitarian theory.  Even the utilitarian argument has a retributivist aspect to it.

 Our theories of excuse are: (1) Utilitarian theories, (2) causation, (3) character, and (4) choice (personhood).

 Duress

 Duress is an excuse and not a justification.  Most jurisdictions treat it in this way.  At common law, duress is no excuse for murder.  In the Model Penal Code, however, there is no murder exception.

 United States v. Contento-Pachon – There are three elements of the duress defense, according to the court: (1) immediacy of the threat, (2) well-grounded fear of the threat, and (3) lack of escapability from the threat.

 Another way of describing duress as an excuse is that a person will be acquitted of any crime other than murder if: (1) the coercer issues an unlawful threat to imminently kill or grievously injure the defendant or another person, and (2) the defendant was not at fault in exposing himself to the threat.

 The court also says that a necessity defense suggests that there was no social harm on balance.   On the other hand, the court says that duress suggests there was no culpability.  The court therefore implies that necessity is a justification rather than an excuse.

 The Model Penal Code definition of duress is revolutionary compared to the common law.  It’s different from the common law definition in many different ways.  There is a limit to duress under Model Penal Code § 3.02: the threat listed is “unlawful force”.  Only humans can do unlawful things.  The Model Penal Code is like the common law in the fact that it limits the defense of duress to human threats.  However, under the category of necessity, the Model Penal Code would allow either natural or human threats.  The Model Penal Code is well aware of this.  It says that even if § 3.02 applies, § 2.09 may still apply if you’re dealing with a human threat.

 What’s different about the Model Penal Code provision on duress than the common law?  In the Model Penal Code, there need not be an imminent threat.  Also, under the Model Penal Code, a “kill or be killed” threat could work as an excuse: there is no murder exclusion.  Finally, it is a “person of reasonable firmness” standard.  It’s an objective rather than a subjective standard.

 People v. Anderson – At common law, duress was not a defense to murder.  Some intentional killings, if they are the result of provocation, reduce murder to manslaughter.  But this isn’t a heat of passion case.  Adequate provocation makes someone angry which makes them intentionally kill.  It’s a lot harder to control yourself when you’re very angry.  When we’ve very angry, our self-control is undermined.  But we don’t think one’s self-control is fully undermined by anger.  When you’re angry, you could do a lot of things other than kill.  You could vent your anger in some other way.

 Why couldn’t you have fear in place of anger in “heat of passion”?  Fear is an emotion that is like anger in that it makes self-control more difficult.  We may be able to empathize more with fear than with anger.

 Anderson’s point is that if you give a defense for killings caused by adequate provocation leading to anger leading to the intent to kill, then it follows that you should give a similar defense with fear in the place of anger.  Dressler seems to argue for just such a partial defense.

 The Model Penal Code would actually agree with Anderson, although they wouldn’t use duress to get there and they wouldn’t use the “heat of passion” excuse.  You would go straight to manslaughter based on the fact that the homicide was committed under “extreme emotional distress”.  The Model Penal Code necessity defense allows the intentional killing of an innocent person to save a greater number of lives.  In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, you could have a complete defense.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2008, 04:40:01 PM
Man with gun is shot and killed instead
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_9453065?source=rss

A man who pointed a gun at his intended victim was shot by the victim instead, police said.
Rosalio DeLa Rosa, 22, and 17-year-old accomplice where in a market near Parthenia Street and Woodley Avenue on Sunday at around 12:55 a.m. when they became involved in a dispute with Anthony DeLa Cruz, police said.

During the argument, DeLa Rosa claimed his gang affiliation and asked DeLa Cruz "where you from?" DeLa Cruz denied any gang ties and left the market in his vehicle. DeLa Rosa and the juvenile followed DeLa Cruz in their vehicle, brandishing a gun at DeLa Cruz several times before using their vehicle to stop DeLa Cruz' vehicle.

As DeLa Rosa got out of his vehicle he pointed a gun at DeLa Cruz. DeLa Cruz, in fear for his life, fired his own gun at DeLa Rosa, striking him once and causing him and the gun to fall to the ground. The juvenile then picked up the gun and fired the weapon at DeLa Cruz, but it misfired. DeLa Cruz fired at the minor, striking him once in the torso.

DeLa Cruz fled the location and flagged down police. He was arrested.

DeLa Rosa and the minor were both taken to a local hospital where DeLa Rosa was pronounced dead. The minor was treated for his injury, booked for murder and is being held without bail. DeLa Cruz was booked on a manslaughter charge and is being held on $100,000 bail.

Anyone with information about this crime is asked to call Van Nuys Homicide Detectives M. Martinez or L. Lowande at (818) 374-0040. On off
Title: Self-Defense Law in the UK
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2008, 04:49:02 PM
The mind boggles at the situation in the UK:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

 :cry: :cry: :x
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2008, 05:05:23 PM
Well, pigs fly!!!  :lol:

'Have-a-go heroes' get legal right to defend themselves

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent and Chris Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent

Last updated: 6:54 AM BST 16/07/2008

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.

However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.

The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their own homes in the wake of a number of high profile cases.

In 2000, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter for shooting an intruder in his home.

Earlier this year, Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.

The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided Mr Singh should not be charged.

Until now people have had to prove in court that they acted in self defence but the changes mean police and the Crown Prosecution Service will decide on cases before this stage.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves "instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate.

He added the changes in law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim.

Mr Straw – and other Labour ministers – have previously repeatedly blocked attempts by opposition MPs to give greater protection to householders.

In 2004 Tony Blair promised to review the existing legislation after he admitted there was "genuine public concern” about the issue.

But his pledge was dropped weeks later after the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke concluded that the current law was "sound”.

Two Private Member’s Bills on the issue were tabled by the Tories around the time of the 2005 general election, but both were sunk by the Government.

In 2004, a Tory Bill designed to give the public the right to forcibly tackle burglars was also rejected.

The new self defence law, which came into force yesterday, is contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and was announced by Mr Straw last September.

He is understood to have decided new laws were necessary after he was involved in four "have-a go’’ incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home.

Opposition leaders said it offered nothing new and was merely the latest policy designed to appeal to core Tory voters.

In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection.

Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said: "This is a typical Labour con – it will give no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars because it’s nothing more than a re-statement of the existing case law.”

Mr Straw said: "The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side.

"The Government strongly supports the right of law abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.

"Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it – in other words, making a reality of justice.

"These changes in the law will make clear – victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal."

It came as it emerged that homeowners could have to wait up to three days after reporting a crime to see a police officer, according to a leaked draft of the Policing Green Paper.

It sets out new national standards for local policing for all 43 forces cross England and Wales.

Callers to the police will be given set times within which officers will attend an incident.

The paper says that this will be "within three hours it if requires policing intervention or three days if there is less immediate need for a police presence."

However, the Home Office would not comment on the plans.

Have Your Say: Should have-a-go heroes get protection?
Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...hemselves.html
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Scotty Dog on July 17, 2008, 03:20:42 AM
I'm glad to see greater clarification of the UK law, but I'm fed up seeing Tony Martins name being used as a figure head of the right to Self Defence in the UK.

The man shot 2 teenagers in the back as they were running away, with an illegally held shotgun, has been diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder & is an advocate of the BNP (British National Party, a racially motivated political party). He stirs up the kind of reactionist tabloid mentality that makes it difficult to argue intelligently for greater rights  :-(
Title: Hawaii Knife Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2008, 10:10:02 PM
Knife carry law summary

Date updated: Aug 27, 2005 @ 1:28 pm

§134-51 Deadly weapons; prohibitions; penalty.

(a) Any person, not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon the person's self or within any vehicle used or occupied by the person or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be immediately arrested without warrant by any sheriff, police officer, or other officer or person. Any weapon, above enumerated, upon conviction of the one carrying or possessing it under this section, shall be summarily destroyed by the chief of police or sheriff.

§134-52 Switchblade knives; prohibitions; penalty.

(a) Whoever knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports in the State any switchblade knife, being any knife having a blade which opens automatically
(1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or
(2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever knowingly possesses or intentionally uses or threatens to use a switchblade knife while engaged in the commission of a crime shall be guilty of a class C felony.

[§134-53] Butterfly knives; prohibitions; penalty.

(a) Whoever knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports in the State any butterfly knife, being a knife having a blade encased in a split handle that manually unfolds with hand or wrist action with the assistance of inertia, gravity or both, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Admin note
There is no mention of Blade Length in Hawaii Law. More Information can be at http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law.htm

This is from http://www.knife-expert.com

Hawaii Case Law:
- "'Other deadly or dangerous weapon' is limited to
instruments whose sole design and purpose is to inflict
bodily injury or death... A 'diver's knife' is neither a
'dangerous weapon' nor a 'dagger'. 'Deadly and dangerous
weapon' is one designed primarily as a weapon or diverted
from normal use and prepared for combat... Cane,
butterfly, and kitchen knives are not deadly or dangerous
weapons... Sheathed sword cane and wooden knuckles with
shark's teeth were 'deadly or dangerous weapons..."
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 02, 2008, 05:33:07 PM
Note that this is two years old:
==========================


15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: August 7, 2006

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of
self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that
might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

The New York Times

Jason Rosenbloom was shot twice during a dispute over how many garbage bags
Mr. Rosenbloom had put out. The shooter was not arrested.

Multimedia

Graphic: Looser Restrictions on Lethal Force
Related
2006 Florida Statutes: Title XLVI, Chapter 776: Justifiable Use of Force
(leg.state.fl.us)

Pasco Sheriff's Department
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old
client. She was not charged.

Supporters call them "stand your ground" laws. Opponents call them "shoot
first" laws.

Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Fla., who killed
her 72-year-old client with his own gun rather than flee was not charged
last month. Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Fla., did not arrest a man
who shot a neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out
garbage, though the authorities say they are still reviewing the evidence.

The first of the new laws took effect in Florida in October, and cases under
it are now reaching prosecutors and juries there. The other laws, mostly in
Southern and Midwestern states, were enacted this year, according to the
National Rifle Association, which has enthusiastically promoted them.

Florida does not keep comprehensive records on the impact of its new law,
but prosecutors and defense lawyers there agree that fewer people who claim
self-defense are being charged or convicted.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the
right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no
longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person
they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends
this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person
attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person,
in the law's words, "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his
or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force." The law
also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by
the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a
professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to
retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but
in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant's
safety.

"In effect," Professor Sebok said, "the law allows citizens to kill other
citizens in defense of property."

This month, a jury in West Palm Beach, Fla., will hear the retrial of a
murder case that illustrates the dividing line between the old law and the
new one. In November 2004, before the new law was enacted, a cabdriver in
West Palm Beach killed a drunken passenger in an altercation after dropping
him off.

The first jury deadlocked 9-to-3 in favor of convicting the driver, Robert
Lee Smiley Jr., said Henry Munnilal, the jury foreman.

"Mr. Smiley had a lot of chances to retreat and to avoid an escalation,"
said Mr. Munnilal, a 62-year-old accountant. "He could have just gotten in
his cab and left. The thing could have been avoided, and a man's life would
have been saved."

Mr. Smiley tried to invoke the new law, which does away with the duty to
retreat and would almost certainly have meant his acquittal, but an appeals
court refused to apply it retroactively. He has appealed that issue to the
Florida Supreme Court.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law
had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens.

"If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are
being attacked, the law is on their side," Mr. LaPierre said. "Good people
make good decisions. That's why they're good people. If you're going to
empower someone, empower the crime victim."

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states
in 2007.

Sarah Brady, chairwoman of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said
her group would fight those efforts. "In a way," Ms. Brady said of the new
laws, "it's a license to kill."

Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and
pernicious at worst. "They're basically giving citizens more rights to use
deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review," said Paul
A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.

But some legal experts doubt the laws will make a practical difference. "It's
inconceivable to me that one in a hundred Floridians could tell you how the
law has changed," said Gary Kleck, who teaches criminology at Florida State
University.

Even before the new laws, Professor Kleck added, claims of self-defense were
often accepted. "In the South," he said, "they more or less give the benefit
of the doubt to the alleged victim's account."

(Page 2 of 2)



The case involving the Port Richey prostitute, Jacqueline Galas, turned on
the new law, said Michael Halkitis, division director of the state attorney's
office in nearby New Port Richey. Ms. Galas, 23, said that a longtime
client, Frank Labiento, 72, threatened to kill her and then kill himself
last month. A suicide note he had left and other evidence supported her
contention.

Skip to next paragraph

Thomas Cordy/The Palm Beach Post
Robert Smiley, a cabdriver, killed a passenger in an altercation. He was
tried but the jury deadlocked.

Multimedia

Graphic: Looser Restrictions on Lethal Force
Related
2006 Florida Statutes: Title XLVI, Chapter 776: Justifiable Use of Force
(leg.state.fl.us)
The law came into play when Ms. Galas grabbed Mr. Labiento's gun and chose
not to flee but to kill him. "Before that law," Mr. Halkitis said, "before
you could use deadly force, you had to retreat. Under the new law, you don't
have to do that."

The decision not to charge Ms. Galas was straightforward, Mr. Halkitis said.
"It would have been a more difficult situation with the old law," he said,
"much more difficult."

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed
Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr.
Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004.

Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached
its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once
outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at
his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out
of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger's feet and then into his
body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead man's uncle, said he was baffled by the killing.
"He had a radio," Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. "He could have gotten
in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee."

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded
that no knife was found. "However," Ms. Haughwout said, "there is evidence
to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning
shots, and that he did have something in his hand."

In April, a Florida appeals court indicated that the new law, had it applied
to Mr. Smiley's case, would have affected its outcome.

"Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to 'retreat to
the wall' before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly
force," Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said,
abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his
case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. "Had it been a year and a
half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder," Mr. Rosenbloom
said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he
knocked on Mr. Allen's door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer,
had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to
task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow
only six.

"I was no threat," Mr. Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."

The men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the
door," Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to
put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my
stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached
for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his
foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr.
Rosenbloom denied.

"I have a right," Mr. Allen said, "to keep my house safe."
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2008, 05:47:24 PM
A rare piece of good news for our British friends:

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdis...2-7199e598314b

You have the right to
shoot dead a burglar
Wed, 16 Jul 2008
HOME OWNERS and others acting in self-defence were yesterday given the legal right for the first time to fight back against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.
They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that “heat of the moment” misjudgments could land them in court.
Under the new laws, police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on their situation “as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it might be seen as unreasonable.
For example, home owners would be able to stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or to tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrived. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.
However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.
The law change follows a public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their homes after a number of high-profile cases.
In 2000, Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter after shooting an intruder in his home.
Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge this year after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) eventually decided that Mr Singh should not be charged.
Until now people had to prove in court that they acted in self-defence but the changes mean police and the CPS will make a ruling before that stage.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defended themselves “instinctively”; if they feared for their own safety or that of others and the level of force used was not excessive or disproportionate.
He said the changes in the law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim.
Mr Straw — and other Labour ministers — had repeatedly blocked attempts by opposition MPs to give greater protection to householders.
In 2004 Tony Blair promised to review legislation after admitting there was “genuine public concern” about the issue.
But his pledge was dropped weeks later after Charles Clarke, the then home secretary, concluded that the existing law was “sound”.
Two private member’s Bills on the issue were tabled by the Tories around the time of the 2005 general election, but both were sunk by the Government.
In 2004, a Tory Bill designed to give the public the right to tackle burglars forcibly was also rejected.
The new self-defence law, which came into force yesterday, is contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and was announced by Mr Straw last September.
He is understood to have decided that changes were necessary after he was involved in four “havea go’’ incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home. Opposition leaders said that the changes offered nothing new and were merely the latest policy designed to appeal to core Tory voters.
In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection.
Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: “This is a typical Labour con — it will give no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars because it’s nothing more than a re-statement of the existing case law.”
Mr Straw said: “The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side.
“The Government strongly supports the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force.
“This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim. Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us.
“Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it — in other words, making a reality of justice.
“These changes in the law will make clear — victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system.
“We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal.”
The announcement came as it emerged in a leaked draft of the Policing Green Paper that home owners may have to wait up to three days after reporting a crime before they see a police officer.
The Home Office would not comment on the plans.
Title: UK Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2008, 11:03:41 PM
Brit Gardener Ordered To Remove Barbed Wire to Protect Thieves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gardener ordered to take down barbed wire to protect thieves

A gardener who fenced off his allotment patch with a single strand of barbed wire to protect it from thieves has been ordered to take it down in case intruders hurt themselves.

Last Updated: 2:53PM BST 09 Oct 2008

Bill Malcolm, 61, was told to "remove it on health and safety grounds" by the local council, which owns the allotments.

He erected the deterrent after thieves struck three times in four months, stealing more than £300 worth of spades, forks, hoes and wrecking his potato patch in the process.

But officials instructed Mr Malcolm to remove the waist-high wire from his plot at Round Hill Allotments in Marlbrook, Worcs.

He said: "It's an absolutely ridiculous situation, all I wanted was to protect my property but the wire had to go in case a thief scratched himself.

"The council said they were unhappy about the precautions I had made but my response was to tell them that only someone climbing over on to my allotment could possibly hurt themselves.

"They shouldn't be trespassing in the first place but the council apologised and said they didn't want to be sued by a wounded thief.

"I told them to let the thief sue me so at least that way I would know who was breaking into my allotment but everything I said fell on deaf ears.

"It seems as though they are so wrapped up in red tape, they are unable to help me.

"The barbed wire was a single strand and ringing my property only. It was just three foot high and wasn't as though I'd dug a moat filled with piranha and erected six foot iron railings."

A spokesman for Bromsgrove District Council responded: "With regard to the barbed wire, when this is identified on site, we are obliged to request its removal or remove it on health and safety grounds to the general public, as this is a liability issue. This is a requirement enforced by our health and safety department."

She advised allotment tenants with security concerns to contact the local police.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...t-thieves.html

=============
Judge orders court to apologise to gardener prosecuted for having a scythe

By LUKE SALKELD
Last updated at 6:18 PM on 09th October 2008

As a professional gardener, they are the essential tools of Peter Drew's trade.

But in the eyes of the police, the scythe, axes and knives found inside the back of his van were something far more sinister.

And despite Mr Drew's desperate attempts to explain that he needed them for horticultural reasons, he was arrested - and charged with carrying an offensive weapon.

Mr Drew, 49, then endured eight months of court appearances and the threat of a trial hanging over his head.

But last week the judge threw the case out of court moments before a trial was due to begin and demanded a public apology to Mr Drew from the prosecution.

He blasted the Crown Prosecution Service for wasting jurors' time and for putting Mr Drew through the 'trauma' of a doomed prosecution.

After Mr Drew produced references from customers - including several solicitors - Judge Paul Darlow ordered prosecution barrister, Philip Lee, to issue a public apology to Mr Drew at Truro Crown Court in Cornwall and asked the CPS to do the same.

Speaking at the hearing, Judge Darlow said: 'I want to find out why we've got to the start of the trial and the CPS are suddenly saying 'Oops'.

'I don't think the CPS can escape criticism or blame if they leave it to the last minute to make up their minds.

'We despair of trying to run these courts in any sort of efficient way.

'Try telling this to jurors who come from their jobs and their homes, quite apart from any trial and trauma that Mr Drew has been through, by knowing that in October he would be in front of a jury.'

The judge went on: 'I think some sort of public apology to Mr Drew from the court would not go amiss.'

Phillip Lee, prosecuting, responded: 'On behalf of the CPS I apologise that it has taken this long.

'Some decisions are very obvious and some less so. I wouldn't say this was an obvious decision.'

After the brief hearing Mr Drew, of Heamoor near Penzance, Cornwall, described his ordeal as a 'nightmare'.

He said: 'The whole thing knocked me for six - I've lived in Heamoor all my life and when the case was reported in the papers, people were asking me what it was all about and I didn't want to say anything because the case was still going on.

'I'm disgusted, really. Now I just want to clear my name so everyone knows I haven't been carrying knives illegally.'

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said Peter Drew was found with a bread knife and a machete behind the sun visor of his van.

Officers also discovered two axes in driver's door pocket and a scythe in the passenger footwell.

He said: 'Officers searched Mr Drew's van and found various bladed items, including an axe and a bread knife.

'The items were in the side pockets, the footwell and behind the sun visor.

'An officer might assume a professional gardener would keep his tools in a bag in the back of the van.

'He explained that the knives were for business purposes but the officers felt this was for the courts to decide.

'Mr Drew was summonsed to magistrates court and offered no plea and the matter was referred to crown court.

'He produced evidence that the knives were used for pruning and the CPS accepted his explanation before proceedings began.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-scythe.html#
Title: More citizens enforcing the law themselves
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2008, 08:37:51 AM
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/standing-their-ground/

Standing their ground: More citizens enforcing the law themselves
By Marc Perrusquia (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Monday, December 1, 2008

The gun's muzzle pushed hard into the back of his neck.  Desperate, Mitch Morelli's mind raced.  My wife. My son. My family. 
Still, the voice grew louder.

"Give me all your money!''

The stocky teenager pressed the pistol in harder, taking Morelli's wallet.

 "I'm killing you right now! You shouldn't have looked at me, man! Go ahead. Say goodbye. Say goodbye. I'm blowing you away right here.''

But when the teen suddenly fled, Morelli's fear morphed to rage. Pursuing his attacker and dodging bullets in a high-speed car chase -- the action caught on a 911 tape -- Morelli was able to jot down a tag number that helped police track down the assailant.

"It was straight out of Clint Eastwood-type stuff,'' Morelli said later. "But I knew if I did nothing, nothing would happen.''

It turned out to be quite a coup for public safety: The youth, police allege, had terrorized city schools in a series of handgun incidents and had robbed another family in a home invasion.  At the same time, Morelli's actions pose troubling questions about just how far citizens should go in protecting themselves from crime.

Like Bernard Goetz, the "Subway Vigilante'' who shot four would-be robbers on a New York City train in 1984, a new generation of citizens who are retaliating against thugs and attackers are finding acceptance, even celebrity, among a public frustrated with crime. 
Just this fall, a Tipton County homeowner made news when he exchanged gunfire on the street with fleeing burglars. A Rosemark man gained wide attention, too when he held two intruders at gunpoint.

"I've always felt if you're in fear of your life you can use your gun,'' said Steve Rutter, who pulled a 9mm handgun on intruders who'd tried to drive off with his 16-foot flatbed trailer. Rutter's action led police to bust up a large theft ring.

Yet along with the glow of these crime victims' stories comes a share of tragedy. Memphian Jacob Evans shot and killed an assailant who, after robbing him once, had returned to rob again. It was even worse for grocery manager John Russell, who was fatally shot when he tried to defend his store against a pair of robbers.

Critics fear some citizens have become too bold amid law changes that have greatly broadened the right of self-defense. Nationally, a spate of "Stand Your Ground'' laws, including one passed in Tennessee last year, are eliminating old standards requiring that a crime victim retreat first before using deadly force.

Longstanding Tennessee laws already had armed citizens with great power to defend themselves, including the right to make a citizen arrest or to pursue a criminal as Morelli did, said Shelby County Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen. Tom Henderson.

Danger, including potential injury and death, as well as the potential for criminal and civil litigation when a citizen steps over the line, should deter most people from engaging in gun battles or chasing down a suspect, he said.

"It's certainly not anything we want to see catch on,'' Henderson said.

Mitch Morelli had completed his morning rounds selling construction equipment at home-building sites April 9 when he pulled his Toyota pickup into a shaded spot near Audubon Park's golf clubhouse.

He was most of the way through a three-piece box of Jack Pirtle's chicken when a small silver car pulled into the spot immediately to his left.

Of all the abuse he suffered during the five- to 10-minute robbery -- the gun held to his neck, the barrel alternately in his face, the death threats -- Morelli said he was set off by a threat against his young son. Morelli had pleaded with the robber, telling him he had a toddler at home. Morelli recalled a cold response: The teen vowed to come to Morelli's house and shoot his son, too.

"That's when the fear turned to rage,'' he said.

Morelli didn't have a gun -- but he did have his wits.

As the teen and a female accomplice drove off, Morelli gave chase.

And so it happened that Mitchell Lee Morelli, a 46-year-old equipment salesman, became a symbol of a frustrated public fed up with crime. Morelli chased the teen for miles through East Memphis and into Orange Mound.

Like a scene out of a Hollywood thriller, tires screeched and bullets flew -- the drama caught on a 911 tape.

"He just shot at me!'' Morelli tells a police supervisor on the tape of the 911 call he made from his cell phone during the chase.

"Sir,'' the police supervisor responds, "if you catch up with him and he shoots you, we can't be responsible.''

Police tried everything -- reasoning, orders, threats -- to get Morelli to stop.

Yet Morelli was determined to get close enough to jot down the fleeing car's tag number.

"I'm going to go down swinging,'' he said later, describing his mindset that day last spring. "I wanted to have the last say so.''

Technically, police can't complain about Morelli's actions: Running the tag he supplied, they arrested Marquetta Hawk, 22, charged as an accessory after the fact, and gang member Devyn Knowles, now 20, who is charged with aggravated robbery and assault and is being held in the Shelby County Jail on a $200,000 bond.

Prosecutor Henderson said Morelli likely was within his rights to pursue his robbers. For starters, an old Tennessee law gives citizens power to make citizen arrests. "You're entitled to arrest that person if you can catch up with him,'' Henderson said.

But some feel some citizens are going too far.

"The real question is do we respect the criminal justice system or do we go back to a vigilante, every-man-for- himself situation?'' asked Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Helmke is critical of the proliferation of "Stand Your Ground'' laws that typically eliminate requirements that crime victims retreat before using deadly force to protect a car, home or business.

According to the National Rifle Association, 22 states have Stand Your Ground laws, including Tennessee, where last year lawmakers extended the use of deadly force to citizens who are attacked in their cars.

Critics assail the laws, pointing to reckless shootings such as one in Florida in 2006 in which a man who shot a neighbor during an argument over garbage avoided prosecution by asserting Stand Your Ground protections.

"All you have to do is tell the cop, 'I felt threatened,' and they can't even bring a charge against you,'' Helmke said.

In Tennessee, a citizen can't use deadly force simply to protect property but only when "you are in reasonable fear of your life,'' Henderson said.

And while citizen pursuit of a suspect may be legal, Memphis Police Director Larry Godwin said it's a dicey and inadvisable venture.

Morelli couldn't say what would have happened had he had a gun that day, yet he dismissed criticism of his action.

"They don't know what the taste of metal in your mouth is,'' he said.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 05, 2008, 10:15:42 AM
I strongly support self-defense laws and this article does not.  I post it because it reports on an important subject.
========
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws

Friday, December 05, 2008
By SHELIA BYRD, Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. —
A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.

Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.

Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.

In 2006, Mississippi adopted its version of the so-called castle doctrine, which lifts requirements that individuals first try to flee before using deadly force to counter a threat in their homes, vehicles or, in Mississippi's case, at work.

Gun rights advocates who have helped pass the law in 23 states since 2003 say it removes an unfair legal penalty for people exercising a constitutional right in a life-or-death emergency, though some police and prosecutors are skeptical of self-defense claims under the law.
An Associated Press review found a growing number of cases but no clear trend yet in how the law is applied or how cases will be resolved in court.
All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

"It's very difficult to prove a negative," said Steven Jansen, president of the NDAA. "It might be a little too early to get the overall effect through the court process because we're just seeing the cases enter the court and finding out how the judges are going to rule."

Sarbrinder Pannu, the first clerk, alleged that James Hawthorne grabbed beer from a cooler and left without paying for it. Police Lt. Jeffery Scott said Pannu followed Hawthorne outside the store and shot him twice.
Surinder Singh, president of the Jackson Indian Storeowners Association and a spokesman for Pannu, said Mississippi's law gives you the right to protect your property.

"For them, it's a case of beer. For us, it's our property," Singh said. "That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer."

Police and prosecutors disagreed and charged Pannu with murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. Pannu has not entered a plea and has declined to be interviewed.

About a week after Hawthorne was killed, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store chased and fatally shot a clown mask-wearing robber outside the store after he stole cash from the register. The clerk wasn't charged.

Police didn't release the clerk's name because he wasn't charged. As with Hawthorne's shooting, the case will be presented to a grand jury, though police said the second clerk was justified because he felt a clear and present danger.

"The first thing about it is that you want to fairly apply the law," said Scott, who helped investigate both shootings and pointed out that the second robber was armed. "The problem is that there's an exception to every rule."

Castle doctrine laws drew national attention when Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, shot and killed two men in November 2007 after he saw them crawling out of the windows of a neighbor's house, carrying bags of the neighbor's possessions. Horn claimed the shooting was justified by Texas' law, and a grand jury declined to indict him.

Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and a Lexington, Ky., man who shot through his house's front door, killing a man who had been beating on it. No charges were filed in either case.

A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner's jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May.

Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.
The law's rapid rollout across nearly half the nation is largely the result of lobbying by the NRA. Most of the state laws, including Mississippi's, are patterned after Florida's.

Michael Edmondson, who works in the state attorney's office in Palm Beach County, said castle-doctrine claims have increased since the law took effect three years ago.

"You would rarely see a case prior to the change of the statute here in Florida," Edmondson said. "I can recollect a half dozen cases in the last year or so. Some successful. Some not."

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, dismissed concerns about the law being misused or misinterpreted, saying all cases are reviewed by law enforcement authorities.

The laws have become popular in a country that's grown increasingly anxious, said Mat Heck, prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County in Ohio, where a castle doctrine law went into effect in September.
"There really is a change in perception of public safety after 9/11," Heck said. "Citizens are just anxious. They fear attacks, not only from the terrorists abroad, but from residents here in our own country."
A lack of confidence in the justice system and the perception that defendants' rights overshadow victims' are other reasons cited in the NDAA report.

Heck said his state's law pertains to a person's home and car, and is only applied when someone has unlawfully entered.
"We tried to make it somewhat restrictive so it wasn't like the old wild, wild West," Heck said.

Pannu is free on $50,000 bond and has returned to work at the store, where jugs of candy clutter the cashier's counter and pictures of Pannu standing with $1,000 winners of scratch-off games are posted on the bulletproof barrier that separated him from Hawthorne on Aug. 17.
"The real debate is 'Can you kill a man for shoplifting?'" said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne's family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.

"The guy was in his truck leaving," Sweet said. "He posed no danger."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: battlemaster1 on December 07, 2008, 01:54:20 AM
Good article,

      I have had many people ask, me the question,  PK why don't you open a dojo or when I offer to train some of our less gifted officers they seem to hold on to the belief that one needs a belt to be a warrior. As a Detention Deputy or Correction's  Officer you get into more Use Of force with your hands then any other type of Job. SO there's always that one thug wanna be who after you use your skills and defeat his attempts at controll, will call his lawyer take you to court. Not fun.  So keep your knife Sharp and your powder dry.    " Project weakness when you are strong"
Title: If each of us carried a gun, we could help combat terrorism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 07, 2008, 07:04:28 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

From The Sunday Times

December 7, 2008


Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

. . . we could help to combat terrorism

Richard Munday


div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.
For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.
The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.
The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.
In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.



Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.
In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.
Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.
That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.
In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.
There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.
In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”
Richard Munday is the co-author and editor of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen
Title: Pre-emption in NY law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 11, 2009, 05:59:14 AM


"Initial aggressor” means the person who first attacks or threatens to attack; that is, the first person who uses or threatens the imminent use of offensive physical force. The actual striking of the first blow or inflicting of the first wound, however, does not necessarily determine who was the initial aggressor.

A person who reasonably believes that another is about to use physical force upon him/her need not wait until he/she is struck or wounded. He/she may, in such circumstances, be the first to use physical force, so long as he/she reasonably believed it was about to be used against him/her or someone else.



(Quote from:
http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/1-...n.Physical_Force.pdf
JUSTIFICATION: USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON
PENAL LAW 35.15 (Effective Sept. 1, 1980) )
Title: Arizona case on self-defense law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2009, 06:20:11 AM
Rather long, but a good read.  This case presents many issues in self-defense.

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR060675OP.pdf
Title: Interesting legal article
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2009, 01:21:00 PM
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: DougMacG on August 06, 2009, 09:25:35 AM
Excellent article!  I remember my uncle as District Attorney had to prosecute a homeowner who shot and killed an intruder in his home in a heavily publicized local case.  The facts just did not match the requirements of self defense.  The homeowner had previously flaunted the fact that he would shoot any intruder, he made no claim of thinking he saw a weapon much less aimed at him or other life threatening danger, so the result was that the otherwise law abiding citizen defending his home was convicted of murder.

Advice to anyone ever found in that situation: call 911, hand the police your weapon and surrender yourself in silence.  Say absolutely nothing to anyone for a very, very long time until you have the very best legal defense fully set on a very comprehensive legal strategy.  As the article says, self defense is an all or none defense that involves admitting an intentional act and eliminates all other excuses and defenses.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on August 08, 2009, 11:01:55 AM
I have to assume this has been posted here before, but I didn't find it with a quick search. It speaks to the points Doug and others have made:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related[/youtube]

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on August 08, 2009, 11:46:40 AM
The above is bad advice, unless you have committed a crime. If you lawfully used force to defend youself/another, a brief statement needs to be given.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on August 08, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=864.100
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: DougMacG on August 08, 2009, 05:44:35 PM
"The above is bad advice, unless you have committed a crime. If you lawfully used force to defend yourself/another, a brief statement needs to be given."

Fair enough.  I back off my over-generalized, amateur advice.  In my example the fellow was guilty (of shooting the intruder without all the elements of self defense) and his statement made the case against him.

Thinking of a different legal situation, some years ago I owned an apartment building that was firebombed by teenage gangmembers.  The Mpls arson chief investigator asked me to meet him at the bldg and we set up an appointment.  As I was leaving my office someone else told me to keep in mind that I am a suspect.  I laughed thinking that was ridiculous. I was in Montana skiing and not even reachable when it happened. I have receipts to prove it. Then I freaked, realizing that was exactly what a guilty party would arrange.  On the way over, my mind raced to recall everything I knew about everyone in the building.  Instead of my usual smug and flippant self, I was extremely helpful and forthcoming on everything he asked.  He told me he wasn't able to get into the burned unit and I told him I would get him in.  I used landlord persuasion to get them to the door and introduced him to the tenants after we were in.   When I saw the smoke detector disabled I laid into them about how that could have killed people in the other units and besides I had just warned them about doing that some specific time previous.  (Like OJ Simpson, my best bet seemed to be for them to find the real perps and the real motive very quickly.) Everything worked out fine for me but I no longer carry insurance on any of my properties.  I would rather fix the property out of pocket than fight insurance companies and carry a motive.

What I take from the defense video is that their advice (don't talk to police) applies best in the situation where they are about to arrest you anyway.  You will have opportunity to respond to the charges.

Back to Crafty's piece, the people here seem acutely aware of the requirements of self defense.  I think that is far less true for the general public.
Title: Spork gets six year old in trouble.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2009, 07:14:35 AM
NYT
NEWARK, Del. — Finding character witnesses when you are 6 years old is not easy. But there was Zachary Christie last week at a school disciplinary committee hearing with his karate instructor and his mother’s fiancé by his side to vouch for him.


Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a knife, fork and spoon to school. He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use it at lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school.

“It just seems unfair,” Zachary said, pausing as he practiced writing lower-case letters with his mother, who is home-schooling him while the family tries to overturn his punishment.

Spurred in part by the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings, many school districts around the country adopted zero-tolerance policies on the possession of weapons on school grounds. More recently, there has been growing debate over whether the policies have gone too far.

But, based on the code of conduct for the Christina School District, where Zachary is a first grader, school officials had no choice. They had to suspend him because, “regardless of possessor’s intent,” knives are banned.

But the question on the minds of residents here is: Why do school officials not have more discretion in such cases?

“Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously,” said Debbie Christie, Zachary’s mother, who started a Web site, helpzachary.com, in hopes of recruiting supporters to pressure the local school board at its next open meeting on Tuesday. “He is not some sort of threat to his classmates.”

Still, some school administrators argue that it is difficult to distinguish innocent pranks and mistakes from more serious threats, and that the policies must be strict to protect students.

“There is no parent who wants to get a phone call where they hear that their child no longer has two good seeing eyes because there was a scuffle and someone pulled out a knife,” said George Evans, the president of the Christina district’s school board. He defended the decision, but added that the board might adjust the rules when it comes to younger children like Zachary.

Critics contend that zero-tolerance policies like those in the Christina district have led to sharp increases in suspensions and expulsions, often putting children on the streets or in other places where their behavior only worsens, and that the policies undermine the ability of school officials to use common sense in handling minor infractions.

For Delaware, Zachary’s case is especially frustrating because last year state lawmakers tried to make disciplinary rules more flexible by giving local boards authority to, “on a case-by-case basis, modify the terms of the expulsion.”

The law was introduced after a third-grade girl was expelled for a year because her grandmother had sent a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it. The teacher called the principal — but not before using the knife to cut and serve the cake.

In Zachary’s case, the state’s new law did not help because it mentions only expulsion and does not explicitly address suspensions. A revised law is being drafted to include suspensions.

“We didn’t want our son becoming the poster child for this,” Ms. Christie said, “but this is out of control.”

In a letter to the district’s disciplinary committee, State Representative Teresa L. Schooley, Democrat of Newark, wrote, “I am asking each of you to consider the situation, get all the facts, find out about Zach and his family and then act with common sense for the well-being of this child.”

Education experts say that zero-tolerance policies initially allowed authorities more leeway in punishing students, but were applied in a discriminatory fashion. Many studies indicate that African-Americans were several times more likely to be suspended or expelled than other students for the same offenses.

“The result of those studies is that more school districts have removed discretion in applying the disciplinary policies to avoid criticism of being biased,” said Ronnie Casella, an associate professor of education at Central Connecticut State University who has written about school violence. He added that there is no evidence that zero-tolerance policies make schools safer.

Other school districts are also trying to address problems they say have stemmed in part from overly strict zero-tolerance policies.

In Baltimore, around 10,000 students, about 12 percent of the city’s enrollment, were suspended during the 2006-7 school year, mostly for disruption and insubordination, according to a report by the Open Society Institute-Baltimore. School officials there are rewriting the disciplinary code, to route students to counseling rather than suspension.

In Milwaukee, where school officials reported that 40 percent of ninth graders had been suspended at least once in the 2006-7 school year, the superintendent has encouraged teachers not to overreact to student misconduct.

“Something has to change,” said Dodi Herbert, whose 13-year old son, Kyle, was suspended in May and ordered to attend the Christina district’s reform school for 45 days after another student dropped a pocket knife in his lap. School officials declined to comment on the case for reasons of privacy.

Ms. Herbert, who said her son was a straight-A student, has since been home-schooling him instead of sending him to the reform school.

The Christina school district attracted similar controversy in 2007 when it expelled a seventh-grade girl who had used a utility knife to cut windows out of a paper house for a class project.

Charles P. Ewing, a professor of law and psychology at the University at Buffalo Law School who has written about school safety issues, said he favored a strict zero-tolerance approach.

“There are still serious threats every day in schools,” Dr. Ewing said, adding that giving school officials discretion holds the potential for discrimination and requires the kind of threat assessments that only law enforcement is equipped to make.

In the 2005-6 school year, 86 percent of public schools reported at least one violent crime, theft or other crime, according to the most recent federal survey.

And yet, federal studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and another by the Department of Justice show that the rate of school-related homicides and nonfatal violence has fallen over most of the past decade.

Educational experts say the decline is less a result of zero-tolerance policies than of other programs like peer mediation, student support groups and adult mentorships, as well as an overall decrease in all forms of crime.

For Zachary, it is not school violence that has left him reluctant to return to classes.

“I just think the other kids may tease me for being in trouble,” he said, pausing before adding, “but I think the rules are what is wrong, not me.”
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on November 10, 2009, 08:49:12 PM
http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html

Forcible and atrocious crimes



If you argue that you acted in self-defense because you believed you were about to be killed, maimed, raped, robbed, or the victim of another California violent crime, the judge will instruct the jury that they may presume you had a reasonable belief that you were about to suffer imminent harm.16

If you acted in response to one of these "forcible and atrocious crimes", the jury will only need to consider whether you responded reasonably.

**It appears so. I am not an expert in California law. Please consult with an attorney/qualified expert just to be sure.**
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: David III on November 16, 2009, 09:14:05 AM
It has always seemed strange to me that it seems to come down to where you happen to be standing as to what actions you can (legally) do to defend yourself. If I'm in Pennsylvania, by the time I worked out whether or not I was actually being threatened and to what degree, I'd be dead - at least I think I would, since I'm not an attorney and can't really interpret the law well enough where I would be sure that my opinion would hold up in court.

Home in Missouri, though, I have the state's castle doctrine and -- I believe much more important, I know most of the people at the Sheriff's department -- so when a couple patrol cars show up, they're going to have at least a preliminary idea that me, the old guy with the gun, is probably the good guy.

Another question in an earlier post, what's a threat? Somebody in my home is a threat and I'm not talking to them. My home, so I'm just attacking whatever my German Shepherd is biting. But, and this did happen, some clown showed up late one night and tried to kick in the front door. Threat? Not at all. I got a shotgun and the big dog and my wife called 911. Fifteen minutes later, two cars showed up from one direction and then another car from the other way (our neighbor, also a deputy, decided to get up and see what was going on). The guy who had attempted to break the door down didn't realize the door is steel with reinforced everything and I guess he broke his knee or something, the deputies found him outside in the yard. Oops. No threat. Had he made it through the door, which I thought was extremely unlikely, I'd have taken some action, but again, didn't think that was possible unless he had some kind of breaching tools.

I think that had I shot through the door, that would have been excessive and unwarranted. Perhaps that isn't the way to look at the situation, but as long as I consider myself "safe," then I don't see any reason to attack. I'm sure various laws will castigate me both ways..........
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on November 16, 2009, 09:27:56 AM
It has always seemed strange to me that it seems to come down to where you happen to be standing as to what actions you can (legally) do to defend yourself. If I'm in Pennsylvania, by the time I worked out whether or not I was actually being threatened and to what degree, I'd be dead - at least I think I would, since I'm not an attorney and can't really interpret the law well enough where I would be sure that my opinion would hold up in court.

Home in Missouri, though, I have the state's castle doctrine and -- I believe much more important, I know most of the people at the Sheriff's department -- so when a couple patrol cars show up, they're going to have at least a preliminary idea that me, the old guy with the gun, is probably the good guy.

Another question in an earlier post, what's a threat? Somebody in my home is a threat and I'm not talking to them. My home, so I'm just attacking whatever my German Shepherd is biting. But, and this did happen, some clown showed up late one night and tried to kick in the front door. Threat? Not at all. I got a shotgun and the big dog and my wife called 911. Fifteen minutes later, two cars showed up from one direction and then another car from the other way (our neighbor, also a deputy, decided to get up and see what was going on). The guy who had attempted to break the door down didn't realize the door is steel with reinforced everything and I guess he broke his knee or something, the deputies found him outside in the yard. Oops. No threat. Had he made it through the door, which I thought was extremely unlikely, I'd have taken some action, but again, didn't think that was possible unless he had some kind of breaching tools.

I think that had I shot through the door, that would have been excessive and unwarranted. Perhaps that isn't the way to look at the situation, but as long as I consider myself "safe," then I don't see any reason to attack. I'm sure various laws will castigate me both ways..........

It's all about ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and JEOPARDY.

Did the bad guy act in a manner where a reasonable person would fear for their life?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: David III on November 16, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
GM, that's the cleanest I have ever seen it explained.

thank you!

David --
Title: Armed American Report Issue 173
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2009, 06:35:07 AM
It Doesn't Have to Make Sense: It's Just the Law - Statements
"...Written statement: a VERY BAD idea! ...."
by K.L. Jamison
In 1996, an unhappy consumer attacked the City Marshal of Lancaster, Missouri with a hammer.(1) The Marshal defended himself and later vented his adrenaline to the responding Sheriff stating, "I hope the son-of-a-bitch is dead." This led to the Marshal's conviction for involuntary manslaughter and a sentence of seven years in prison.(2) The story had a happy ending, but a story four years and tens of thousands of dollars in the making, and not a story the Marshal enjoyed very much. The Marshal might have avoided the worst part of the story had he not confused his right to remain silent with the right of free speech.

In the movie, Under Pressure, a woman tried to explain the stalking and implied threats of a neighbor. After a disorganized and unconvincing recitation of ambiguous events she lamely concludes, "I'm not a very good story teller." Most people tell stories badly. In the aftermath of self-defense there can be a giddy stream of consciousness statement which has more to do with the effects of adrenaline than reality. The basic legal advice is "DON'T."

The first question is, "What is a statement?" In a nation which counts exotic dancing as freedom of speech, a statement is also broadly construed. In 1996, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a suspect's refusal to uncross his legs during questioning could be taken as a statement when later charged with murder.(3) In a separate death penalty case, the court found that the defendant had purchased a used car which sported the bumper sticker, "I'm the person your mother warned you about." At trial the prosecution argued that the fact he did not remove this bumper sticker revealed something about his character. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the state to kill this man, in part, because of his failure to remove the bumpersticker.(4) One can imagine the effect of bumper stickers bought in jest such as, "Keep Honking, I'm Reloading." If this case does not also inspire a re-evaluation of one's T-shirt collection, nothing will.

There is also the problem of nicknames. As of this writing, a rapper who rejoices in the stage name "C-Murder" is on trial for murder. If I were asked to defend a man named "Murder" or any variation thereof, I would charge more. Massad Ayoob testified in favor of a police officer who had killed a felon nicknamed "Snake." Captain Ayoob slipped the nickname into his testimony which seems to have had an effect on the jury.



Written statement, a VERY BAD idea!


There is a cynical defense attorney saying: "Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you." In the movie, My Cousin Vinnie, two, unfortunate Yankees are suspected of murder and during questioning are accused of shooting a clerk. One incredulously asked, "I shot the clerk?" This is taken down and read in court as a confession. Theater audiences laughed, defense attorneys smiled and nodded. There have even been cases where comments by other persons have been attributed to the defendant, and used against him; complete silence is the only bulwark against these mistakes.

The first statement is the 911 call. These calls are recorded and if the call sounds bad for the defendant, it will be played over and over again at trial. In one case, a man cocked his double-action revolver and went after a person who was shooting out windows. When he caught up with the threat he extended his revolver and in the process tripped the light single action trigger pull; arguably an accidental discharge. His 911 call records him saying that he thought he had just shot someone. The 911 operator, trained to keep him on the line and keep him talking, asked why he thought he had shot someone. The man replied, "Lady, I think I'm a pretty good shot." This callous-sounding statement took accident off the table and the man had to live or die with a self-defense case. This all important introduction to law enforcement must be planned in advance.

The first words out of the caller's mouth should be the location of the incident. If the battery then dies, or the minutes run out, or some other technological catastrophe occurs the authorities will know that something of interest is at that location, and the caller's cell phone records can prove that he or she made the call. The next statement is the caller's name. The core of the 911 call consists of three sentences:

"He tried to kill me."
"I was never so scared in my life."
"Send an ambulance."(5)

The first sentence serves to introduce the roles of the parties, the caller is the victim, the other person the attacker. Being in reasonable fear of life or limb is a prerequisite to acting in self-defense. The phrase "I was never so scared..." is to preclude the prosecutor from claiming that the citizen never said he was scared "until he talked to a lawyer."(6) The phrase "Send an ambulance" says that the caller does not want anyone to die.

When the police arrive, they will want a more elaborate statement; this should consist only of:

1. He attacked me.
2. I will sign a complaint.
3. There is the evidence.
4. I WANT A LAWYER.


Good Advice.


This restates part of the 911 call and points out critical evidence. One cannot expect the "CSI" team to be called out to pick up every fiber and hair. If a real forensic team routinely conducted the investigations shown on television, its budget would last about a week.

The demand for a lawyer is both the best thing one can do, and a damaging statement. Anyone who is questioned by police has the right to a lawyer; this includes victims. The problem is that the police, and potential jurors, take a demand for a lawyer as evidence of something to hide. To compound the problem, the victim's decision to remain silent and demand for a lawyer can be used again him or her in court. In the criminal system, one does not have rights, until arrested; it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law. It is a left-handed fortune that people who act in self-defense are routinely arrested. It may be called something else such as "detained" or given the "Alice in Wonderland" explanation "You're being handcuffed for your own protection." Whenever a person is not allowed to leave, he is placed under arrest regardless of descriptive terms. If one is arrested, generations of TV shows advise us to remain silent.


Western Missouri Shooters Alliance President Sheila Stokes-Begley employs a cell phone and CZ75 compact.


If the circumstances are ambivalent, simply state a fear of being sued, and demand a lawyer to protect against frivolous litigation. Bernard Goetz was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting of four thugs on the subway, but was sued for $43 million and lost. Police are frequently sued by criminals and the explanation is likely to ring a bell.

Self-defense cases bring out the curious, the media in the forefront. Comments to friends will be confused and used against you, comments to family will be mistaken and used against you. Both family and friends can be subpoenaed and forced to testify against you. Comments to the media will be sensationalized and this is never good. The New York City prosecutor's office had determined not to charge Bernard Goetz, until he made unwise remarks to the news media. At some point a statement must be made. The impression is that the earlier a statement is made, the more reliable it is. In reality, the earlier a statement is made, the less reliable it is. The effects of stress will confuse the statement and even cause temporary amnesia. Inaccuracies in the initial statement will convince authorities that the survivor is both a liar and a murderer. A lawyer must be immediately engaged to organize the statement.

A lawyer is a professional storyteller. He will not tell the client how to lie, he will tell him how to tell the truth, a more complicated process than most imagine. The statement must contain facts which track the elements of self-defense. In the case of defense of home or defense of other persons, there may be other elements as well. Knowledge of the assailant's reputation for violence would certainly be relevant. The most important element to include is fear. A police statement is no place for macho posturing. One cannot use violence against another person unless in fear of life or limb. The survivor must go over every detail of why he or she was terrified, weak-kneed, pants-pissing afraid. If one does foul one's pants, a not uncommon event, make sure that goes into the statement. No matter how ineffective a storyteller the survivor might be, the jury is sure to believe that.

(1)1 A City Marshal is a law enforcement officer position used in Third and Fourth Class towns in Missouri.
(2) State v Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. 2000) at 296.
(3) State v Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo en banc 1996) at 325.
(4) State v Six, 805 S.W.2d 159 (Mo. Ban. 1991) at 167.
(5) Taken from the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance "Stay Out of Jail" card, see www.WMSA.net.
(6) A claim I have heard, even when false.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

This information is for legal information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions you should consult a qualified attorney.
Title: CA Justifiable homicide
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2009, 11:22:19 AM
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/197.html
California Penal Code Section 197
Legal Research Home > California Lawyer > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 197

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
   1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
   2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
   3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
   4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
Title: Vermont
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
http://69.39.146.6/Upload%20Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/criminaljuryinstructions/1generalinstructions/ms07-111.htm

CR07-111                   07/09/07

 

SELF-DEFENSE (USE OF DEADLY FORCE)

            Evidence has been introduced bearing on the issue of self-defense, as justification for the killing of (victim)_______________.  The State bears the burden of proving that the killing was unlawful.  A killing committed in lawful self-defense is lawful, and not a crime.  Here the State must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (Def)_______________ did not act in self-defense.  [He] [She] has no burden of proof on this issue.

            A person has the right to defend [himself] [herself] when [he] [she] is attacked, or when [he] [she] reasonably believes [he] [she] is in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm.  A person in that situation has the right to use only such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack or the perceived imminent danger.

            A killing is justified by self-defense if:

(1)        (Def)_______________ reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of being killed or of suffering great bodily harm, and

(2)        (Def)_______________’s use of deadly force was reasonably necessary to repel the perceived threat.

            The right of self-defense does not require that a person actually be assaulted, but (Def)_______________ must have believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of great bodily harm, and [his] [her] belief must have been reasonable under the circumstances.  [His] [Her] expectation of harm must have been based upon fact, and not on some imaginary fear.  Furthermore, if [he] [she] honestly and reasonably believed it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, the law does not require [him] [her] to retreat.

            Self-defense requires that (Def)_______________ must have had a reasonable fear of imminent harm.  In deciding this issue, you may consider what [he] [she] knew about (victim)_______________ at the time.  You may consider any previous interactions, including any aggressive or hostile conduct by (victim)_______________, and any other evidence you consider relevant, including who started the confrontation.

            When assessing the reasonableness of (Def)_______________’s fear, you may consider the individual characteristics of (Def)_______________ and (victim)_______________, such as their respective size, gender, age, physical condition, strength, stamina, courage, and assertiveness.

            Self-defense permits only the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to repel the perceived harm.  A person may use the amount of force that reasonably appears to be necessary under all of the circumstances known to [him] [her] at the time.  In this case you must decide whether (Def)_______________ reasonably believed it was necessary to use the amount of force that [he] [she] did use.  When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that an assault is imminent, [he] [she] need not wait until it actually occurs before [he] [she] may resort to self-defense.

            Once the issue of self-defense appears in the case, the burden is on the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (Def)_______________ did not act in self-defense, or that the force used by (Def)_______________ was excessive under the circumstances.  (Def)_______________ is not required to prove that [he] [she] acted in self-defense.
Title: To speak or not to speak
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2010, 06:53:28 PM
An interesting thought piece from Gabe Suarez (a former LEO btw):

One of the things that is incessantly being discussed in the CCW/LEO community is the after-event-discourse. In other words, what do you say...or not, after you have whacked an attacker. As expected, the variety of advice is as different as people's choices in guns and ammo. A prevailing attitude is to simply shut up and say nothing under any circumstances. I disagree and here is why -

I have been in more than a few of these and also investigated quite a few of these. I noted some trends and tried to use those trends to my benefits when it was my turn at the plate.

First is the fact that the bad guys will not be "keeping quiet". They will be telling the cops you pulled your gun on them, perhaps create some appearance of racism if they can exploit it, and generally make it look like you are the over-reacting, racist, bad guy. What happened may not be obvious to the cops who come out to investigate...specially if the majority of witnesses are against you.

So picture this scene. Two guys have been, as we used to say, "eye f*cking you", and followed you for some time, maybe yelling threatening stuff at you. While you did your best to avoid the issue, you were unsuccessful in getting away and they pressed the confrontation, attacking you with sufficient force to justify a gun solution.

You shoot one of them, maybe wounding him - maybe killing him, and the other one runs off into the night. You saw the first man drop his pistol in a clump of ivy and the other man throw his knife on a rooftop as he ran away.

You immediately call 911 and give a very cryptic account of what happened..."there has been a shooting...I'm the victim...send help".

 In the meantime, one of the assailants...the one who got away, is also calling. His story is a little different. According to him you called them "Dirty Ghetto Norwegians", and pulled your gun on them, shooting his buddy. As far as the police know...they got two calls. One a cryptic call, from someone who seemed to be concealing something, and another reporting what amounts to a racial hate crime by a right wing Nazi.

They arrive on scene and after controlling the event, ask you what happened. What you do now will have a bearing on the rest of your life.

The guys who advocate saying nothing will not be able to point to the two weapons which were discarded...and which will disappear as soon as the scene is cleared. The police may not even look for them since no one told them they were in existence. No one will tell them you are a good guy who was a victim of an attempted robbery, as the ONLY info paints you as some KKK wannabe.

Sure...you'll have a lawyer...but all of the evidence the police may have collected will no longer be available, and the investigation will not have been an even and equal one, but rather one where you alone are the suspect.

See the point?? I know a man who did just that...kept his mouth shut because of what a shooting instructor advised him to do and he spent several weeks in jail, had two criminal trials, and is now facing a civil suit from one of his attackers.

Is it hard to control your mouth? Yes it is. But no harder than to control your trigger finger, your desire to drink to excess, or to control the vertical displacement of your zipper. On self control, it is a learned thing and must be practiced daily.  Maybe self control is too hard for the modern, self-indulgent, metro-sexual male, but as the Nike commercial said....Just Do It.

It, like many other things, can be trained and developed. If you ignore it, it will never be developed.

Think in these terms...you train gun handling and shooting skills to make them reflexive in the most stressful event someone is ever likely to face....and we tend to do fine. The guys who never train...thinking they will "rise to the occasion" invariably fail. To say, "I will simply say nothing", is in that same line of thinking is it not?

What I have done, with success, is this. I give a very limited statement, focusing on the actions of the bad guys, and them excuse myself from any further questions until my mouthpiece...I mean, attorney, arrives.
Anything I say focuses on what the bad guy(s) have done and not on what I may have done. Something like this -

"Officer. I am glad you are here. Thank God."

"I am a good guy. I was minding my own business on my way home when those two guys attacked me."

"The one in the blue shirt had a knife. He threw it up there on the roof as he ran away. There should be some blood on it from my arm when I blocked his attempt to stab me."

"The guy on the gurney was armed with a pistol. He dropped it right there in that pile of ivy when he fell."

"I was terrified. I am still terrified.  Boy am I glad you guys are here. "

"Listen...I am still a little shaken up. I want to cooperate with you guys. This has never happened to me (or this hasn't happened in a while). I have heard stories of good guys getting sued later for saying too much. My attorney is on his way and as soon as he arrives I will be happy to give a full statement with him there. Until then, I think I need to sit down and calm my blood pressure."

At that point things are no longer in your control but you have set the investigation on the proper course, and the truth will be determined instead of being overlooked.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on July 28, 2010, 08:48:02 PM
Sounds like good advice to me....
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: prentice crawford on August 01, 2010, 03:07:49 AM
Woof,
 It is if you have the presence of mind to limit yourself to just those few details and not dropping your guard and saying something that will negate your legal standing of self defense and trust me some cops are very good at getting people to drop their guard, which is a good thing if they are talking to a killer but if they are talking to you after nearly being killed and facing the reality that you just took a human life, well they might get the wrong idea. After all there is a dead body. If you get chatty and say something like, "I didn't mean to kill him.", that could be turned into an admission to involuntary manslaughter. The cop might say, "So it was an accident?" If you say, "No." Then he might say, "So you meant to kill him?". "Which, is it guy you're giving me two different stories here."
 Things can get turned around mighty quick so don't get chatty. I'm not A lawyer and this is not legal advice, just an opinion. Only you are responsible for you.
                                   P.C.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on August 01, 2010, 01:33:37 PM
One never uses force to "kill". You use force to stop an unlawful attack on yourself or a 3rd party, which may result in serious bodily injury or death to the attacker/s, but never with the intent to do anything else but stop the unlawful assault, using the appropriate force given the totality of the circumstances. Any verbal interactions with law enforcement should stress the threats you perceived and the information that allows them to understand the totality of those circumstances.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: maija on August 02, 2010, 04:42:12 PM
Just saw this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda regarding Miranda rights.
Anyone know anything more about it?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on August 02, 2010, 05:08:27 PM
Meh. Minor tweaks. Nothing of importance.
Title: Teeth in OR
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2011, 09:45:04 PM


http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/03/oregon_court_rules_teeth_not_c.html
Title: Analyze this
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2011, 09:38:35 PM
Crime victim uses submission hold, alleged burglar dies from injuries
By Steve Cofield
Martial arts choke holds are no joke. We've talked about that repeatedly after watching television and radio hosts asking MMA fighters to slap on the holds for a photo opportunity. The rear-naked or guillotine choke is a potentially lethal move if not treated with care. Just ask Alex Montalvo, who's in the center of a firestorm in New Jersey.

Back in July of 2010, Montalvo fought off a burglar, slapped on a submission hold and left Douglas Uhler unconscious on the street. Uhler never fully recovered and died yesterday at 19 years old.

On July 31 at 3:39 a.m. in Bridgewater, N.J., Montalvo and his wife heard their car alarm go off. The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block.

With one punch, he knocked out Brian Johnston, 18. That's when Uhler emerged:

Uhler ran out from nearby bushes and shouted: "You want a piece of me, (expletive)?!"

Uhler jumped on Montalvo, who put him in a submission hold, Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano said. The move blocked the teen's oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said.

Uhler was taken to Somerset Medical Center and later treated at Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center. He never fully recovered from the injuries:

A once-strapping high school football player, Uhler spent his days in bed or in a wheelchair. He had to be fed through a tube, according to court records. He was non-vocal and unable to walk, sit or roll. He also had poor head control. Uhler had been in and out of several hospitals, including the Children's Specialized Hospital and the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation.

Back in December, a grand jury indicted Uhler and Johnston on third-degree burglary charges. Johnson pleaded guilty and is awaiting charges. The Uhler family wants Montalvo in a courtroom next, claiming he used excessive force to subdue their son.

"New Jersey law allows you to defend your physical self as well as your property," said Jenny Carroll, an associate professor at Seton Hall Law School. "You're allowed to kill people under certain circumstances, particularly self-defense. If I jump on you, you're allowed to do what is required to make me stop hurting you. But if I pause, you can't just start kicking me in the head."

Carroll said there are no clear-cut answers.

"Here's the trick in this case — did the homeowner exceed the need to protect his property?" she said. "If the kids are still in the process of taking the homeowner's property, then he has a right to defend his property and to use force. The prosecutor must decide whether the homeowner used justifiable force, and whether it was reasonable.

"Even in the heat of passion, if you're trying to subdue someone, it isn't reasonable to kill them," Carroll said.

The response to the story on NJ.com has been heated.

PrivateCitizen:

Self Defense means you are in imminent danger. This man chased these teens down. They were running FROM him. This man needs to go to prison. He is not the hero vigilante some people here think he is!

The attempted theft did not directly lead to the confrontation, his chasing them down did. Any 12 men or women will know that difference.

drock:

So is it wrong to defend one's property? What if this kid got passed out in the sleeper hold and then later recovered and didn't die? The act of putting one in a sleeper hold that you find robbing your car in the middle of the night doesn't exactly seem punishable to me.......you can't punish based on result or consequence but should punish based on action. In my opinion he didnt' do anything wrong and most people would chase down any if they caught them red handed too.

Some commenters even pointed to the rise of MMA as a reason for this tragedy.

mgm8822:

With the new popularity of MMA, every punk who has taken a martial arts class and learned how to throw a punch or put someone in a choke hold thinks they have the right to kick anyone's ass for any reason. We have a lot of unstable people walking around nowadays who are trained in the use of lethal force.

The Uhler family said their son had plans of attending William Patterson University, where he was looking to study sports medicine.

MMA skills used to fight crime took center stage in the last few months when UFC champion Jon Jones and his trainers subdued a burglar in Paterson, N.J. in late March. In mid-February, MMA fan Joe Lozito helped police catch an alleged serial stabber on a New York City Subway.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 22, 2011, 09:56:12 PM
Lawful self defense.

With one punch, he knocked out Brian Johnston, 18. That's when Uhler emerged:

Uhler ran out from nearby bushes and shouted: "You want a piece of me, (expletive)?!"

Uhler jumped on Montalvo, who put him in a submission hold,
Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano said. The move blocked the teen's oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 23, 2011, 08:23:21 AM
Or is it "excessive force"?

The move blocked the teen's oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said.

Further, as pointed out, Montalvo was not in eminent danger (or any danger for that matter) when he initially saw Uhler. 
"The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block."

Then applied a choke hold causing permanent brain injury.

Doesn't sound cut and dried to me.

I don't know the answer; it will be interesting to see what happens.  But I think one of the lessons here is that you
could be criminally prosecuted and I am willing to wager, there will be a civil suit which may cost the Montalvo a lot
more than his car.

Think twice before you become involved.  And if you do, be willing to pay the penalties.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 23, 2011, 09:07:45 AM
Being a criminal is, and should be dangerous.

If Uhler had been doing something lawful, instead of commiting felony crimes, then attacking a victim of his felonious conduct, then he'd probably be alive and happy right now.

Good riddance.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: jcordova on April 23, 2011, 09:16:05 AM
So true GM I'm with you on that. 
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 23, 2011, 10:04:01 AM
Being a criminal is, and should be dangerous.

If Uhler had been doing something lawful, instead of commiting felony crimes, then attacking a victim of his felonious conduct, then he'd probably be alive and happy right now.

Good riddance.


In theory perhaps I agree although in my opinion the danger should be commensurate with the situation and the crime.

So maybe if I hear someone breaking into my car, but running away, I should simply shoot them on the street?
Good riddance I say....

Being practical for a moment, if you think about it, I think even you GM will agree that there may be criminal
charges brought against Montalvo and probably will be a serious civil suit brought against Montalvo by Uhler and his family.

A nightmare regardless of the outcome.

I still say think twice, and then one more time before becoming involved.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2011, 10:27:48 AM
"Uhler jumped on Montalvo, who put him in a submission hold, Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey Soriano said. The move blocked the teen's oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said."

A submission hold blocks blood flow and does not attack the windpipe.  Not clear here whether the reporter grasps this distinction.  (Tangent: When I first moved to LA (1982) there was a political fuss over the disproportionate number of black people suffering drastic consequences from police holds that attacked the windpipe.  IIRC police chief Gates said something to the effect that that was because black people didn't have the same responses as "normal people", but I digress , , ,)


"Further, as pointed out, Montalvo was not in eminent danger (or any danger for that matter) when he initially saw Uhler. 
"The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block.""

Are you saying that Montalvo has to be in "eminent danger", or imminent danger for that matter  :evil: :lol: to try to catch the bad guy?



Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 23, 2011, 10:58:33 AM

"Further, as pointed out, Montalvo was not in eminent danger (or any danger for that matter) when he initially saw Uhler. 
"The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block.""

Are you saying that Montalvo has to be in "eminent danger", or imminent danger for that matter  :evil: :lol: to try to catch the bad guy?


Ummm Uhler has since died from Montalvo's action.  Uhler was breaking into a car.  A piece of property.  And he was running away.
Without the property!   :-o

So I guess yeah, before killing someone I need to feel that I or a loved one are in imminent danger.

Obviously something went terribly wrong with the supposed "submission" hold.

Unless there is imminent danger, if you kill someone, if not criminal charges, at minimum expect to face a very serious civil lawsuit.
Heck, I bet even if the police had done the same, submitted/choked and killed a teenage car thief running away, a huge dollar settlement offer would be on the table.

And it looks worse if a private citizen does the same.

Uhler is dead and I bet Montalvo's nightmare is just beginning. 

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 23, 2011, 04:07:41 PM
Again, I will point out that Uhler left his hiding place in the bushes and attacked Montavalo, which resulted in his being restrained. Had Uhler remained in hiding, or had continued to flee (or not committed felony crimes) rather than attack his victim, he'd not have been restrained with the negative impact on his health.

I know of a case where a police officer inflicted serious, permanent injuries on a bad guy. The officer was cleared on dept/criminal side. In the civil side, he was found culpable, but the jury gave the plaintiff a whopping dollar in damages.   :-D

That was in NYC, not more rational places like Texas, where you are much more likely to have clear thinking prosecutors and jury pools.

Quick research shows that NJ has statutes that empower citizens to arrest. As far as litigation, it's expensive and unless Montavalo is seriously wealthy, no P.I. attorney would take the case on without serious money up front from Uhler's family. Litigation is godawful expensive, and with no deep pockets, no lawsuit is likely.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2011, 04:20:11 PM

In honor of my Jewish heritage, allow me to point out

http://dogbrothers.com/store/index.php?cPath=46

 :lol:
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 23, 2011, 04:32:30 PM
 :-D
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 24, 2011, 07:13:38 AM

I know of a case where a police officer inflicted serious, permanent injuries on a bad guy. The officer was cleared on dept/criminal side. In the civil side, he was found culpable, but the jury gave the plaintiff a whopping dollar in damages.   :-D

Quick research shows that NJ has statutes that empower citizens to arrest. As far as litigation, it's expensive and unless Montavalo is seriously wealthy, no P.I. attorney would take the case on without serious money up front from Uhler's family. Litigation is godawful expensive, and with no deep pockets, no lawsuit is likely.

Crafty mentioned LAPD's use of the chokehold back in the 80's and the repercussions thereof.  Plus I think a LAPD policeman has and should have a much greater leeway than a private citizen to use force.

Final Suit Over LAPD's Use of Chokehold Settled
September 29, 1993|JAMES RAINEY | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Ending a long string of lawsuits over the Los Angeles Police Department's use of the carotid chokehold, the City Council on Tuesday agreed to pay $450,000 to the father of a man who died 11 years ago in police custody.

James Mincey Jr.'s death was the 16th over seven years that was attributed to the chokehold, and it led to the Los Angeles Police Commission's virtual ban on the use of the tactic.
Tuesday's City Council vote settles the last in a series of cases against the city,...

The payment to James Mincey Sr. is in addition to $1.1 million paid to four other Mincey relatives.
__________

Notice the large amounts paid in the early 90's, twenty+ years ago.  Even then, each incident probably cost LA (my tax dollars) over one million dollars.   And there were 16 different incidents.  LAPD paid, and paid and paid.  Imagine in today's dollars, each settlement would be a lot larger. 

And maybe you are right; maybe Montavalo isn't seriously wealthy.  So after they take his middle class savings, they take his small house, his car  :-o and put him in bankruptcy,
only then will they leave him alone.  Plus through this whole ordeal he might lose his job (missing work too often), his family will suffer, etc.

For what, to chase a teenager attempting to steal his car, yet they had already run away?

Montavalo "won" the fight, but he LOST. 

The lesson here?  If your life is not in imminent danger, simply call the police.  Don't go chasing after someone for a piece of property.


Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2011, 01:26:10 PM
For the record, I am not clear that the article is accurate.  I could be wrong, but the way I remember it is that it was not carotid chokes that were the problem but windpipe attacks.

Question for all:

We all get the point stated by JDN here.  Question presented:  What of the feeling that something is not right with letting someone keep trying until they get it right?  What of the feeling that society is safer when there are those amongst us willing to step forward? (The Unorganized Militia)  Certainly doing nothing is a viable, respectable, and often correct option, but does that mean we should criticize those who have things go sideways (this is different that a study of what happened) when they do step forward?  Do we not praise those who step forward when things go well?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 24, 2011, 05:01:38 PM
Marc; I think your question truly is the issue.

For my two cents, I think if someone less stronger  than I, that's not saying a whole lot  :-) is in imminent danger, I will do whatever it takes to protect them
or at least save them from serious bodily harm regardless of the consequences.  It just seems like the right thing to do.

The recent incident at Dodger Stadium is a good example; of course it was deplorable, but I don't understand why someone didn't step up and say, "enough". 

For the record, my objection to the this particular NJ incident posted here and the repercussions thereof was because it was over theft of property; property that the perpetrator had wrongly attempted to steal, but he had already had left the scene and was running away down the street.  That is not worth a life.  I believe in an eye for an eye, but not a life for car.  And while this story
had a "happy" ending, it might be your life next time.  It's not worth it.  Call 911.

Further, I am not saying to not "step forward"; just think about your actions before you do.

But others might disagree; there is no right or wrong answer.  I too wanted to open debate on the question.
Title: Posse comitatus
Post by: G M on April 24, 2011, 05:21:06 PM


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Posse+comitatus

Latin, Power of the county.] Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.

The notion of a posse comitatus has its roots in ancient English Law, growing out of a citizen's traditional duty to raise a "hue and cry" whenever a serious crime occurred in a village, thus rousing the fellow villagers to assist the sheriff in pursuing the culprit. By the seventeenth century, trained militia bands were expected to perform the duty of assisting the sheriff in such tasks, but all males age fifteen and older still had the duty to serve on the posse comitatus.

In the United States, the posse comitatus was an important institution on the western frontier, where it became known as the posse. At various times vigilante committees, often acting without legal standing, organized posses to capture wrongdoers. Such posses sharply warned first-time cattle rustlers, for instance, and usually hanged or shot second-time offenders. In 1876 a four-hundred-man posse killed one member of the infamous Jesse James gang and captured two others.

In 1878 the use of a posse comitatus was limited by the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act, passed in response to the use of federal troops to enforce reconstruction policies in the southern states, prohibited the use of the U.S. Army to enforce laws unless the Constitution or an act of Congress explicitly authorized such use. This act was amended five times in the 1980s, largely to allow for the use of military resources to combat trafficking in illicit narcotics.

Though rarely used, the posse comitatus continues to be a modern legal institution. In June 1977, for example, the Aspen, Colorado, sheriff called out the posse comitatus—ordinary citizens with their own weapons—to hunt for escaped mass murderer Theodore ("Ted") Bundy. Many states have modern posse comitatus statutes; one typical example is the Kentucky statute enacted in 1962 that gives any sheriff the power to "command and take with him the power of the county or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office" (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 70.060 [Baldwin 1996]).
Title: Re: Posse comitatus
Post by: G M on April 24, 2011, 05:25:43 PM
So, as budgets crash, and there are less and less LEOs every day, what do we as a nation do? Also, keep in mind that the American system of legal protections has always been structured around the concept of police being reactive to crimes already committed.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2011, 06:42:37 AM
Woof All


At the moment there is a conversation going on at the Science, Culture, Humanities forum that may find of interest concerning the right to resist unlawful police entry.  Please see http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1133.250.  Begin with the entry by "bigdog":

Indiana court strips citizens of right to resist unlawful police entry
« Reply #275 on: May 16, 2011, 07:29:21 PM »

TAC!
CD
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law - Norway shooting
Post by: DougMacG on July 23, 2011, 06:04:56 AM
Still not clear where to discuss the human disaster in Norway.  The one common thread with these pretend tough guy cowards is that the like to shoot in places wherethe other people are likely to be unarmed.  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/norway-a-postscript.php
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law - Norway shooting
Post by: G M on July 23, 2011, 01:06:22 PM
Still not clear where to discuss the human disaster in Norway.  The one common thread with these pretend tough guy cowards is that the like to shoot in places wherethe other people are likely to be unarmed.  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/norway-a-postscript.php

You mean to tell me that people willing to commit mass murder aren't stopped by signs that say "no guns allowed"? Perhaps we just need signs that say "Murder prohibited in this area" to go with them.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 23, 2011, 09:33:20 PM
Doug:

Lets try the Citizens Act thread or the Security threads.  It certainly is a subject that merits our thoughtful attention.

Title: Effect of weapon selection on jury outcomes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2011, 06:37:48 AM


Effect of weapon selection on jury outcomes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: prentice crawford on December 02, 2011, 11:19:04 PM
Woof,
 This site offers valuable info on legal matters related to self defense. Good to keep as a reference.

    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

           P.C.
Title: Handgun Laws of all 50 States
Post by: prentice crawford on December 03, 2011, 02:56:52 AM
Woof,
 Here is another very useful site for gun laws of the 50 states and conceal carry reg's that may vary from state to state. Remember that you have to comply with the other state's laws even if they have a reciprocal agreement to honor you state's conceal carry permit. Some states allow you to enter a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol if you have a permit and others will charge you with a felony for doing that. So you can see why it's important to know the other states law before you hit the road. Not only that, you should print out those laws and take them with you on your trip. There are a lot of laws out there, and a lot of cops out there that don't know what their laws are on conceal weapons, and they change fairly often. Tennessee for example just changed their law in 2010 to you can't drink and carry but now you can enter a bar with your weapon. If a cop missed that little update it might help if you could hand him the statute, it could save you a trip to jail and working things out through a lawyer. :-P

  www.handgunlaw.us

                              P.C.
Title: Re: Handgun Laws of all 50 States
Post by: G M on December 03, 2011, 05:46:06 AM
"If a cop missed that little update it might help if you could hand him the statute, it could save you a trip to jail and working things out through a lawyer."

An important point.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on December 03, 2011, 07:35:42 AM
"If a cop missed that little update it might help if you could hand him the statute, it could save you a trip to jail and working things out through a lawyer."
An important point.

I'll second that. In a similar vein I nearly always carry a folding knife.  I was at the local community
college when a staff person reported me. I was "arrested" by the ignorant campus police.  However, I do carry a copy of the
law pointing out that folding knives in the folded position are legal on college campuses among other issues.  After
a brief discussion I was let go and my knife was returned to me.

Without having a copy since they didn't know the law I would have wasted time and money.
Title: FL smaller older man with ice pick kills big young bully
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2012, 04:00:02 PM
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945
Title: Trayvon Martin: Scant Evidence, Already a Verdict
Post by: G M on March 22, 2012, 04:57:47 PM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/treyvon-martin-scant-evidence-already-a-verdict/?singlepage=true



Trayvon Martin: Scant Evidence, Already a Verdict

Expect no clean resolution to the Trayvon Martin shooting.



by
Jack Dunphy

Bio




March 22, 2012 - 10:17 am


Little but the most rudimentary facts are known about the shooting: On the night of February 17, Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old boy, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man. (Some news accounts have described Zimmerman as Latino.) Prior to the shooting, Zimmerman, who was active in his gated community’s neighborhood watch, phoned the Sanford police department and reported a suspicious person whom he described as a male black wearing a dark “hoodie,” jeans or sweat pants, and white tennis shoes. Exactly why Zimmerman found Martin worthy of suspicion remains unclear, but he told the police dispatcher there had been some break-ins in the neighborhood, and that “this guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
 
Moments after the call to police ended, Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest, killing him. But why?
 
Zimmerman, who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon, told police he had fired in self-defense, but the details of his statement to investigators have not been made public. The dearth of details has not prevented an outcry calling for Zimmerman’s arrest for murder. So intense is the political pressure on prosecutors that Zimmerman will almost certainly be charged with a crime, but there is little chance he’ll be convicted of one, certainly not murder.

 
Advertisement
 


The death of Trayvon Martin is simply not one that will lend itself to a tidy resolution in the criminal justice system. This is not a case in which some homicidal predator killed someone in the course of a robbery. On the other hand, Zimmerman’s critics have painted him as an overzealous vigilante who stepped beyond the customary limits of the neighborhood watch member by pursuing a person who had done nothing more than behave suspiciously.
 
Indeed, Zimmerman seems an easy figure to caricature. At National Review Online, Robert VerBruggen calls him “a classic cop wannabe.” Zimmerman, VerBruggen writes, “lov[ed] the thought of himself as a police officer, and witnessing a spate of break-ins in his neighborhood, he decided to patrol the streets in his SUV — carrying a gun (as he was licensed to do) and calling the cops 46 times in the course of a year to report ‘suspicious’ activity.”
 
Most police officers will recognize the archetype that VerBruggen assumes Zimmerman to be: the guy who wants to be a cop but for some reason cannot, but who nonetheless acts as a sort of watchman for his neighborhood, calling the police for any perceived breach of good order. And calling the police 46 times in a single year would indeed seem excessive if not psychotic. But, as Andrew Cohen reports at the Atlantic, Zimmerman’s 46 calls to police came over the course of 11 years, not one, with the confusion owing to a typo on a report released by the Sanford police. And given the level of crime in the area, an average of four calls per year may not be an inordinate amount at all. (The website Crimemapping.com lists 282 crimes within a mile of the site of the shooting within the last six months, including three burglaries within the gated community itself.)
 
Much has been made of the claim the Zimmerman “pursued” Martin against the advice of the police dispatcher. On the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call, the dispatcher asks if Zimmerman is following the suspect. Zimmerman replies that he is. “We don’t need you to do that,” says the dispatcher.
 
Note that the dispatcher’s words were something less than imperative. But even if the dispatcher had expressly directed Zimmerman not to follow the suspect, would Zimmerman have been legally bound to follow such a direction? No, he would not.
 
And there is reason to question whether Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin. Prior to being cautioned about following the suspect, Zimmerman can be heard breathing heavily into the phone as though running. But after the dispatcher’s admonition, Zimmerman’s breathing returns to normal, and he calmly converses with the dispatcher about how the responding officers can contact him by phone and find him within the complex.
 
My own inference from listening to the 911 tapes is that Zimmerman stopped running after Martin during his call to police, but then followed Martin’s path in an attempt to see where Martin had gone. Note that at the beginning of the 911 call, Zimmerman is seated in his truck, apparently in the area of the complex’s clubhouse near the gated entrance. But the shooting occurred on a walkway running past the rear yards of the townhouses, an area where Zimmerman would not have been able to drive his truck. Why did Martin walk back there? Did he come upon Martin unexpectedly, and if so, which of them initiated the physical confrontation?
 
Zimmerman reportedly sustained a bloody nose and a gash to the back of his head, injuries that may bolster his claim of self-defense. But it may also have been the case that Martin, on being followed by a stranger whom he also regarded as suspicious, acted in self-defense when that stranger approached him with a gun. On one of the 911 calls to Sanford police, a voice can be heard screaming for help prior to the gunshot, but it has not been established if that voice is Zimmerman’s or Martin’s. A grand jury will attempt to resolve these questions next month, but even if it hands down an indictment on Zimmerman, I fail to see how prosecutors can win a conviction unless they can produce some damning evidence not yet revealed. Some have suggested Zimmerman used a racial slur during his call to police, indicating a possible racial animus that may have influenced his decision to shoot, though it’s far from clear what he actually said.
 
Trayvon Martin’s death was tragic, but it is a tragedy that will not find a neat resolution in the criminal courts. The only certainty is that the tragedy will be rendered into farce by the cast of characters who will use it to raise their own questionable profiles. And the first man up, as you might have expected, will be the most questionable of all: Al Sharpton descends on Sanford today.
 

“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
Title: GM here's some more data for you
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 22, 2012, 07:14:35 PM


http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...n_shooting.pdf

Letter from Sanford FL PD 3-19-2012

[Excerpts]

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman
provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by
physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from
making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when
any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she
is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and
in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

...

What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?

Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the Sanford
Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the evening to anyone other
than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we have seen are not consistent with the
evidence in this case.

[emphasis added]

The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident.
We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their
review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution.
Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me assure you we too
feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically affected our community. Therefore,
as we move forward and strive to answer the questions that are a point of controversy in the
community, we ask for your patience, understanding and assistance in getting the correct
information to the community.
Title: Rush to Judgment in the Martin-Zimmerman case?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012
Title: George Zimmerman: Wanted Dead or Alive
Post by: G M on March 24, 2012, 02:28:41 PM


George Zimmerman: Wanted Dead or Alive

Irresponsible celebrities and agitators create a dangerous environment.

by John Hayward

03/24/2012


Who’s up for a little street justice?  The New Black Panther Party, for starters.  They’re circulating a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” poster for George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who shot 17-year-old black youth Treyvon Martin last month.  Public outrage erupted after the police in Sanford, Florida declined to arrest Zimmerman, who claims he fired in self-defense.
 
President Obama inserted himself into the case on Friday, saying “every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state, and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened.”  Obama also remarked that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon,” which will not do much to calm passions surrounding the case, or make it any easier to put together an impartial jury for any trial that might occur.
 
The New Black Panthers aren’t waiting around for any boring old “investigations.”  They printed up a flyer declaring Trayvon Martin was “MURDERED in Cold BLOOD” and passed them out during a press conference held by Mikhail Muhummud, who described himself as “the southern regional director for the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense,” according to The Blaze.
 
On the subject of whether printing up this flyer might exacerbate a situation that has already seen death threats against Zimmerman, Muhummud declared, “God dammit, he should be fearful for his life.”
 
The New Black Panthers might have to get in line for their crack at Zimmerman, because another militant group, the New Black Liberation Militia, announced it would be sending members to Orlando next week to “attempt a citizen’s arrest” on Zimmerman.
 
They won’t have any trouble finding him, because movie director Spike Lee used his Twitter account to beam Zimmerman’s home address to his 244,858 followers.
 
Also on Twitter, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said of Treyvon Martin, “Let us see what kind of justice will come for his bereaved family and our bereaved community”… followed immediately by, “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace.  Soon and very soon, the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”  Farrakhan has just under 37,000 Twitter followers.
 
Sanford police chief Bill Lee and his family have also been targeted by a death threat, issued by one John Carnduff Stewart of Melbourne Beach, Florida.  Charges have been filed against Stewart, and he was placed on electronic monitoring.  Lee stepped down as chief of police on Thursday, while Stewart’s emailed death threat was sent on Friday.

**I'm sure Eric Holder will get right on this!
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Sheep Dog on March 24, 2012, 07:38:49 PM
My opinion.

Zimmerman is screwed, he will most likely face a manslaughter charge and will be found guilty, and based on the scant evidence will probably deserve the punishment. The crux of the matter is whether through his actions he escalated the situation to one where deadly force became needed. I think we need to remove the heated racial language and look at this objectively. You see someone in your neighborhood, you don't recognize him, you follow him, all the kid knows is he is being followed, this is a recipe for a confrontation. Through your actions you created the confrontation, the consequences of the actions end in deadly force. Ultimately you will be the one to blame, the kid had the right to be where he was, he was up to no unlawful activity, and ultimately he is still a kid, being followed by an adult.

But what if the kid accosts or challenges the person following him? If he did he is in his right, why wouldn't you want to know why you are being followed, the kid has his right to stand his ground. Even if the kid throws the first punch he is guilty of battery at worst. Ultimately the adult created this situation and will be held responsible.

Here is the Florida statute in question:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

As someone who has taught self defense, including deadly force for years, and as a cop I think the cops in Florida messed up, and the state Attorney General insight to reopen the case.

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on March 24, 2012, 08:18:29 PM
SD,

I think it's difficult to say if this was a legitimate shoot or not given the lack of solid information. I hope the PD did a good investigation.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2012, 09:53:31 PM
Given what seems to be known so far, that seems to me a good analysis.
Title: The Trayvon Affair
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
Beck offers to cover all sides here:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/trayvon-martin/
Title: Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then
Post by: G M on March 26, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-civil-rights-punch

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head


4:35 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel


With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law enforcement authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw that initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

This is what the newspaper has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared on the newspaper's website Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal affairs investigation into the source of the leak and if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggy irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of injustice.

Civil Rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panthers, have offered a $10,000 reward for his capture.

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

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

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

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid, but said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.
Title: Hmmmmmmmm
Post by: G M on March 26, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
SANFORD -- Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.

Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry, was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver, calling the information in the report an attempt to “demonize” the youth.

According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f---,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by Miami-Dade Schools Police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The suspension was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also acknowledged Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

The reports of the suspensions surfaced as a more complicated portrait of Trayvon began to emerge Monday. Trayvon was shot to death in Sanford on Feb. 26 during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman. He was suspended from school at the time.

Reacting to the new schools police report, Ben Crump, an attorney for the parents, said they “never heard anything like this about a bag of jewelry….And anyway, it’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26. They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him.”

Trayvon, who was 17 when he died, had never been arrested, he said.

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said her son never had any problems with gangs or the police. In fact, she said, when she transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home, the school wanted him to stay at Carol City because they liked him and he was a good student, she said.

“They killed my son and now they are trying to kill his reputation,” she said.

Another lawyer for the family said she didn’t put much credence in the report about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“This is someone in a school writing a report, rumor as far as I’m concerned,” said attorney Natalie Jackson.

At a press conference held Monday after a town forum in Eatonville, near Sanford, the parents, flanked by their attorneys along with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, addressed the report about the empty marijuana baggie.

“If he and his friends were experimenting with marijuana, that is still completely irrelevant,” Crump said. “It is one of the things the family has said: ‘What does that have to do with him killing my son?’

Sharpton said he warned the family from the start that anything negative about Trayvon would be dragged out in an effort to make him out to be a “junkie and a thief.” He knew that would happen, he said, because it’s occurred in every similar case he has ever been involved in.

“The only thing that’s relevant is what Zimmerman knew,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not play this double standard of trying to damage who is dead and sanitize who is the cause of the death.”

The teen’s family and their supporters spoke after the Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told authorities that Trayvon beat Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk.

Trayvon was killed while serving out the 10-day suspension for the marijuana baggie in Sanford, where his father’s girlfriend lives. Zimmerman, a community watch volunteer who thought Trayvon looked drugged and suspicious called police and later wound up in a fight with him. The two scuffled and Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him. He has not been charged.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/v-fullstory/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: Hmmmmmmmm
Post by: G M on March 26, 2012, 07:14:19 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

Oooof!

Media/leftist narrative falling apart.

(http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/pasc-tr1yv4n-r2tr1ct34n-2d3t2d-300x225.jpg)
Title: More narrative fail
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 10:07:39 AM
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/narrative-interrupted-george-zimmerman-a-registered-democrat/

Narrative Interrupted: George Zimmerman a Registered Democrat


Posted by Jammie on Mar 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm


(http://www.jammiewf.com/assets/zimmerman-150x150.jpg)


I knew there was something suspicious about this Zimmerman character. Heck, if I didn’t know any better I’d say he could pass for Obama’s brother. One thing’s for sure, this rarely-seen  photo just goes to show how old the usual photo we see of Zimmerman is.
 

The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.
 
George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.
 
It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.
 
Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin’s death.
 
“[Republican politicians] reinforce and validate old stereotypes that associate the poor and welfare as criminal behavior with African-Americans and people of color, calling us lazy, undeserving recipients of public assistance. In the case of Trayvon, those festering stereotypes had lethal consequences,” said MSNBC political analyst and Democratic fundraiser Karen Finney.
 
According to the document, Zimmerman’s race is officially listed as Hispanic. The son of a white father and Peruvian mother, he has been described as a “white Hispanic” in most media reports.
 
So we assume the media will from here on accurately call Zimmerman a Hispanic Democrat, right?
Title: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2012, 03:24:21 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

Zimmerman's account

This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Ads by GoogleIs He Cheating On You?1). Enter His Email Address 2). See Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now! Spokeo.com/Cheating-Spouse-SearchTrayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared online Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal-affairs investigation into the source of the leak and, if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggie irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son, and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of justice.

Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford on Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his "capture."

One-minute gap

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

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

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

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

Title: Right and Wrong Fotos and apologies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2012, 03:43:03 PM


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/media-matters-honcho-sorry-after-blasting-drudge-for-trayvon-photo/
Title: A New Black Panther Party leader arrested
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 04:25:42 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/new-black-panther-party-leader-arreste
d-for-possession-firearm-after-issuing/?intcmp=related



A New Black Panther Party leader who announced a $10,000 reward for the
capture of the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Florida teen
Trayvon Martin was arrested Monday outside Atlanta for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, DeKalb County Sheriff's office said.

Hashim Nzinga, 49, was in possession of an FN Herstal 5.7x28 handgun that he
allegedly sold to the Stone Mountain Pawn Shop on March 5 in DeKalb County,
Sgt. Adrion Bell, the public information officer, told FoxNews.com.

Last month, Nzinga was convicted for felony deposit account fraud in nearby
Gwinnett County, Bell said. It is illegal for a convicted felon to carry a
firearm in the state and police were alerted to Nzinga's alleged possession
after the store's transaction, Bell said.

He was arrested without incident at the probation office he was reporting
to, Bell said.

The FN Herstal 5.7x28 is considered a high-end gun that can fetch $800 to
$900 at a pawn shop. It is unclear how much Nzinga made from the alleged
sale.

Nzinga serves as the New Black Panther Party's chief of staff. He recently
made news after going on CNN and offering a $10,000 reward for the capture
of George Zimmerman, whose role in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon
Martin is being investigated by Florida authorities.

Martin's killing has attracted the country's attention. Black leaders say
the incident was racially motivated and call for Zimmerman to be arrested.
Others, however, say the killer is protected under Florida's "stand your
ground" law and was acting in self-defense.

There are inconsistent accounts of the circumstances of the shooting.
Title: Elderly couple placed into jeopardy by Spike Lee
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
**Do the stupid and evil thing!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/spike-lee-zimmerman-tweet-567891


Elderly Couple In Fear Over Spike Lee Tweet

Star erroneously linked Floridians to man who killed Trayvon Martin

MARCH 27--With Twitter and Facebook continuing to explode with posts purporting to contain the address of George Zimmerman, property records and interviews reveal that the home is actually the longtime residence of a married Florida couple, both in their 70s, who have no connection to the man who killed Trayvon Martin and are now living in fear due to erroneous reports about their connection to the shooter.
 
The mass dissemination of the address on Edgewater Circle in Sanford--the Florida city where Martin was shot to death last month--took flight last Friday when director Spike Lee retweeted a tweet containing Zimmerman’s purported address to his 240,000 followers.
 
The original tweet was sent to Lee (and numerous other celebrities like Will Smith, 50 Cent, and LeBron James) last Friday afternoon by Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles man who uses the online handle “maccapone.” Higgins included the direction, “EVERYBODY REPOST THIS.”
 
Higgins, pictured at right, first began disseminating the Sanford address to his Twitter followers last Wednesday, including the claim that Zimmerman “Like the fat punk he is, he still lives at home with mommie & daddy.” In a simultaneous post to his Facebook wall, Higgins told his 4000 friends, “FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT & TOUCH HIM.” He also claimed in another post that, “REAL TALK MY PEOPLE OUT THERE IN FLORIDA JUST TOLD ME GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS NOT AT HIS HOUSE THEY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.”
 
Higgins’s dissemination of Zimmerman’s purported Edgewater Circle address was not, however, limited to cyberspace. At a protest rally last Thursday in an L.A. park near his Crenshaw home, Higgins held a sign containing Zimmerman’s name, address, and phone number.
 
Except, of course, none were accurate.
 
The man who shot Martin is George Michael Zimmerman. Higgins has repeatedly identified him as “George W. Zimmerman.”
 
The residence on Edgewater Circle is actually the home of David McClain, 72, and his wife Elaine, 70. The McClains, both of whom work for the Seminole County school system, have lived in the 1310-square-foot lakefront home for about a decade, records show.
 
In an interview tonight, Elaine McClain told TSG that she and her husband were “afraid” due to the online linking of her address to Zimmerman. “We're keeping everything locked,” she said. McClain added that the couple was particularly unnerved by a letter mailed to them at their home. On the envelope, she said, were printed the words “Taste The Rainbow,” the slogan for Skittles. Martin was carrying a pack of Skittles and a can of ice tea when he was gunned down by Zimmerman.
 
McClain said her husband returned the envelope unopened to the post office.
 
The McClains only became aware that their address was being widely circulated online two days ago, when a TV reporter arrived at their home asking for “George.” Bewildered by their sudden--and erroneous--connection to Martin’s killer, the elderly couple’s distress can only be heightened by posts made by Twitter and Facebook users who threaten to visit their residence in search of Zimmerman. Or other posts that goad followers to vigilante action.
 
Higgins has not responded to numerous TSG messages, so it is unknown where he came up with the information tying Zimmerman to the McClains's home. A check of Zimmerman’s residential history shows no connection to the Edgewater Circle property, which is about four miles from his actual home in Sanford.
 
So how did Higgins screw things up?
 
Besides overlooking the different middle initial, perhaps that answer is connected to an old voter record for a “William George Zimmerman” at the Edgewater Circle property. That registration, which dates back to 1995, is for a 41-year-old man. The Zimmerman who shot Martin is 28.
 
Elaine McClain identified William George Zimmerman as her son, noting that he has not lived at the Edgewater Circle residence for seven years. “He is six-foot-five and thin as a rail,” McClain said of her son, who now lives elsewhere in Seminole County. McClain said she was previously married to a man named Zimmerman, but that he was not related in any fashion to the Zimmerman who shot Martin.
 
When told that Twitter posts containing her address continued to pour in this evening, an exasperated Elaine McClain remarked, “Maybe we should get a lawyer and send a cease and desist letter to Spike Lee.”
Title: Spike Lee messes up lives of elderly couple
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2012, 08:55:50 PM


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/spike-lee-zimmerman-tweet-567891
Title: Re: Spike Lee messes up lives of elderly couple
Post by: G M on March 27, 2012, 08:57:36 PM


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/spike-lee-zimmerman-tweet-567891

Crafty, look up.
Title: Fugitive Slave Mentality
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2012, 08:29:14 AM
Interesting analysis here from a left POV

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/fugitive-slave-mentality/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120328

and a few days later I insert a logical response found at that URL:

Originally Posted by Citizen, RI
Mr. Gooding-Williams - You have desperately tried to demonstrate that by virtue of the fact that Mr. Zimmerman is not black and Mr. Martin was, that Zimmerman was taken at his word. That claim alone would be bad enough, given that Chief Lee's assertion had to do with the *evidence* in view at the time of the investigation immediately after the incident.

But taking the Chief's decision and comparing it to the Fugitive Slave Law is appalling. The Chief DID NOT take Zimmerman *at his word*, he took Zimmerman's statement and compared it to the evidence available at the time and, finding no inconsistencies, elected to not arrest Zimmerman. This, by the way, can be reversed at any time during the investigation should further evidence show an inconsistency that would indicate Zimmerman's account is incorrect.

One reason why race will continue to be an issue in our country is because people continue to inflate emotions and misappropriate incidents in order to maintain race as an issue where it is not one.

And you, sir, have done more damage by creating an equivalency, out of thin air, between this incident and a horrific historical injustice allowed by law. By twisting a fact (that Zimmerman was not arrested) with fantasy (solely on the basis of his word because he was not black) and drawing an irresponsible analogy with an historical racist law, you have taken us another step back in race relations. Congratulations on accomplishing your objective.

Title: I hope Spike didn't spend all his "Nike" money
Post by: G M on March 28, 2012, 08:23:05 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-28/news/os-trayvon-martin-spike-lee-morgan-firm-20120328_1_spike-lee-tweeted-address

A couple who say they were forced to leave their home after director Spike Lee re-tweeted their address to his Twitter followers has hired the Morgan & Morgan law firm to represent them.

 "At this point, they have retained us to protect their interests" and their safety, attorney Matt Morgan said of Elaine and David McClain, an elderly Sanford-area couple in their 70s.

 The couple's address was tweeted by a man who believed he had uncovered the address of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman who shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last month.

 The problem is, the address does not belong to Zimmerman, but to the McClains, who have a son named William George Zimmerman who lived there in 1995 and still lives in Central Florida.


 He is no relation to George Zimmerman, 28, who killed Trayvon on Feb. 26, sparking national outrage and international interest. Zimmerman has claimed self defense and has not been arrested.

 After Lee's retweet, the couple's other son says, the McClains have been forced to flee their home and live in a hotel given the rapidly spreading threats of violence against the real Zimmerman.

 "At this point, they've had to move out of their home and their lives have been upended," Morgan said.

 Morgan declined Wednesday to discuss any possible future litigation on the couple's behalf. Lee has more than 200,000 followers on Twitter.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03/28/funeral-director-saw-no-signs-fight-trayvons-hands

The funeral director who prepared Trayvon Martin’s body for burial told HLN’s Nancy Grace Wednesday that he did not see any cuts or bruises on the teen’s hands that would have been indicative of a struggle with George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed the Florida teen.

Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale said there appeared to be a gunshot wound in Martin’s upper chest area, but he received the body after the autopsy was completed so it was difficult to tell whether he had other injuries. He also could not determine the bullet’s entry or exit point.

“As for his hands and knuckles, I didn’t see any evidence he had been fighting anybody,” Kurtz said.

Citing police sources, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told investigators Martin punched him and slammed his head into the ground repeatedly before he fired the shot that killed the unarmed 17-year-old. He claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, and he has not been charged in the case at this point.

While Kurtz is not a forensics expert, the funeral director said he has handled the bodies of many homicide victims in his career. This case in particular affected him as he learned more about what happened to Martin and how the case was handled.

“I think the police investigation was the most unprofessional one I've ever seen in my lifetime,” Kurtz said.

Title: Why I wrote Stand Your Ground
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2012, 11:52:49 AM



http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404276/op-ed-why-i-wrote-stand-your-ground-law
Title: NBP
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
The New Black Panthers’ Bounty on George Zimmerman
Posted By John Perazzo On March 29, 2012 @ 12:54 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 44 Comments

Distilled to its essence, the original, widely accepted narrative of Trayvon Martin’s death was that of a clearly delineated battle between good and evil which went something like this: On the night of February 26th in Sanford, Florida, a racist vigilante named George Zimmerman relentlessly and unjustifiably stalked an African American “child,” as Al Sharpton tenderly described him, who had been minding his own business, eating “a bag of Skittles.” Zimmerman then gunned the boy down in “cold blood,” according toJesse Jackson—simply because, like so many Americans, he instinctively viewed all black males as potential criminals. Notably, a host of major media reports described the Hispanic gunman specifically as a “white Hispanic”—a term rarely if ever used prior to the Martin killing—to emphasize the familiar “oppressor-versus-victim” racial storyline that the left has grown so proficient at reciting.
Recently the New Black Panther Party—never known for mincing words—has weighed in on the case as well, ominously declaring that “White America,” having “failed black people” for “400 years,” will no longer be permitted to “kill black children and get away with it.” To drive the point home, the Panthers initially offered a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of George Zimmerman. Lest there be any ambiguity about what the Panthers meant by “capture,” the group not only demanded “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” but also circulated a flyer that read: “MURDERED in Cold BLOOD—Child killer of Trayvon Martin—WANTED DEAD or ALIVE.” Soon thereafter, the Panthers upped the ante to $1 million, a sum which they expected to collect in donations “from the black community [including] athletes and entertainers.”
The Panthers, it is worth noting, have been unpersuaded by some inconvenient facts that emerged following the announcement of their bounty, including eyewitnessevidence that Trayvon Martin actually attacked Zimmerman (rather than vice versa) and was beating the latter quite badly just prior to the shooting. Of course, not all the facts are known yet, but as far as the New Black Panthers are concerned, the collection and evaluation of evidence are merely tiresome formalities that would serve only to delay and deny “justice” for the racist killer. The Panthers’ southern regional leader, Mikhail Muhammad, puts it succinctly: “He [Zimmerman] should be fearful for his life. You can’t keep killing black children.” Righteous crusades against evil don’t require due process; they only require victory.
Anyone familiar with the New Black Panthers knows that they have long been vexed by the racism which they claim pervades “White America.” Indeed, who could forget one of the Panthers’ most famous leaders, the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, whose angst about white racism led him to express his deepest “love” for one Colin Ferguson, a black gunman who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters (killing six of them) in a racially motivated rampage aboard a New York commuter train in 1993. Determined to stamp out white racism by any means necessary, Muhammad announced: “I honestly wanna kill the enemy…. I would be embarrassed if we couldn’t point to one Colin Ferguson that decided one day to … just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.”
When Muhammad died of a brain aneurysm in 2001, he was succeeded as Panther chairman and crusader-in-chief-against-racism by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. Like his mentor, Shabazz reads American history as an unpunctuated narrative of white-perpetrated oppression. He asserts, for instance, that George Washington was little more than a slave owner who “raped black women,” while “old wooden-teeth-wearin’, wig-wearin’ Thomas Jefferson, [was] nothin’ but a slave-master, a slave-owner, an Indian-killer.”
Shabazz was once a featured speaker at an Al Sharpton-organized “Redeem the Dream” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, where the young Panther—troubled as he was by the intransigent scourge of American bigotry—unambiguously called for a race war. Expressing “solidarity with Reverend Sharpton,” Shabazz spoke of a proverbial “black jury” finding “white America” guilty of “injustice and racism”; he called on young African Americans, including “gang members,” to unite against their “common enemy”; and he articulated his “black dream that when we see caskets rolling in the black community … we will see caskets and funerals in the community of our enemy as well.”
By Shabazz’s reckoning, the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case cries out for precisely such retributive “justice.” Long before this case, in fact, Shabazz made it clear that if any white person “lays their hand on any black man or woman in this county,” the black community should swiftly and mercilessly “crush that devil.”
So as to avoid portraying Shabazz as nothing more than a two-dimensional moron, a third dimension should be pointed out at this time: By no means does the Panther leader uniformly detest all non-blacks. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for instance, he lavished praise upon a newly prominent Middle Eastern Arab named Osama bin Laden, characterizing him as a Muslim “brother” and “a bold man” who was “not bowing down” to the West, but rather was “standing up” for his beliefs and “bringing reform to this world.” “The real terrorists,” Shabazz explained, “have always been the United Snakes of America.”
Under Shabazz’s leadership, the New Black Panthers adhere to a “Ten-Point Platform” that demands “the overdue debt of reparations” to be paid by “this wicked racist government [which] has robbed us”; that exhorts “all Black People” to “unite and form an African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense”; and that demands the release of all nonwhite inmates “from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.” In the Panthers’ calculus, the collective innocence of blacks is as axiomatic as the collective guilt of whites—including, of course, “white Hispanics” like George Zimmerman.
From that premise, it is but a short logical leap to the conclusion that the evidentiary specifics of any particular case involving race are of no real consequence. And while racial hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may not endorse the Panthers’ call for violence, they have, for decades, shared the Panthers’ vision of collectivized white guilt and black innocence. Moreover, they remain prepared to exploit any incident which they believe might help them keep that vision alive. Thus do they focus so fervently, so predictably, on incidents bearing even the remotest resemblance to white-on-black violence, which has been a statistical rarity for decades. And thus do they now cleave like leeches (see photos here and here) to Trayvon Martin’s parents, casting them as the latest new “faces” of their anachronistic, morally bankrupt movement.
When Trayvon Martin was killed, President Obama counseled all Americans “to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen.” It is significant that he has not seen fit to encourage a similar analysis of the modern “civil rights” crowd’s inane and hackneyed ramblings.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Title: FL SD law: Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2012, 09:06:55 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decision
By DAVID OVALLE The Miami Herald
 A man charged with murder had no choice but to defend himself with lethal force against a burglar he had chased down, a judge has ruled, citing the Stand Your Ground law.
 

Greyston Garcia, whose murder charges were thrown out by a Miami-Dade judge last week based on Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law. Photo By DAVID OVALLE
dovalle@MiamiHerald.com
A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.
Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the four- to six-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.
Last week’s ruling drew widespread attention at a time when critics are assailing Florida’s self-defense law in the wake of the fatal shooting of a Miami Gardens youth, Trayvon Martin, 17, by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.
Citing the law, Sanford police did not arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, 28. Trayvon’s supporters have said Zimmerman targeted the unarmed teen because he was black.
In Garcia’s case, police painted the defendant as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25.
But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property . . . the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property.”
Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim.
Garcia’s defense attorney, assistant public defender Eduardo Pereira, hailed the decision, saying: “Although controversial, the result in this case is due to the hard work of our office, which remains dedicated to protecting the Constitution by defending each client’s rights pursuant to the laws that apply to and protects us all.”
Florida’s controversial 2005 Stand Your Ground law eliminated a citizen’s duty to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker. Authorities have derided the law because it puts the onus on judges, not juries, to decide whether someone is immune from prosecution.
Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains her office’s lawyers in self-defense cases, said her office would appeal the decision because “we feel the judge abused her discretion.”
“The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to retrieve your property. She, in effect, is saying that it’s appropriate to chase someone down with a knife to get property back,” said Hoague, who stressed that a jury should weigh the merits of the case.
The case unfolded the morning of Jan. 25, when Garcia discovered Roteta and another man rummaging through his truck and stealing its radio. Garcia grabbed a knife and chased Roteta, who took off running.
After more than a block, Garcia caught up with Roteta. Garcia’s defense attorney said Roteta swung a bag filled with three stolen car radios at Garcia’s head.
At a hearing earlier this month, a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death,” Bloom wrote.
As Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he countered with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest.
His defense attorney said that Roteta’s cohort told police that Roteta also had an open pocket knife in his hand during the chase. However, police found a folded-up knife in the dead man’s pocket.
The confrontation was captured on video surveillance, but the judge said the images were too grainy to clearly tell what happened.
Garcia, speaking to Miami homicide detectives, initially denied involvement. But after he was shown the surveillance video, Garcia admitted he chased down Roteta to get his radio back.
At first, Garcia claimed Roteta had a screwdriver in his hand. Then, he admitted he did not see a weapon but feared for his life when the bag of radios was swung at him, according to Bloom’s order.

Title: Back to Trayvon vs. Zimmerman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2012, 09:33:56 AM
second post of day:

Back to Trayvon-Zimmerman
============

Zimmerman:

We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman:

He looks black.

911 dispatcher:

Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]

911 dispatcher:

He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK.

Zimmerman:

Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]

911 dispatcher:

OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111?

Zimmerman:

That’s the clubhouse.

911 dispatcher:

He’s near the clubhouse now?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.

And he’s a black male.[1:03]

911 dispatcher:

How old would you say he is?

Zimmerman:

He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

911 dispatcher:

Late teens?

Zimmerman:

Uh, huh.

Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman:

OK.

911 dispatcher:

We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman:

OK.

These aszholes. They always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]

911 dispatcher:

OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?
==================
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin and began walking back to his SUV; Martin approached him, according to the Sentinel account.

Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem; Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

Martin said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, Zimmerman said, according to the Sentinel.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk. The police report described Zimmerman's back as wet and covered with grass, as though he had been lying on the ground.


Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, the police report said.

"I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me," Zimmerman told police.
===========
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...erman-shooting

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Title: Spike finally mans up
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2012, 10:39:56 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/spike-lee-reaches-settlement-with-elderly-couple-after-retweeting-wrong-address/
Title: Justifiable deaths triple
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 31, 2012, 05:31:04 PM


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/
Title: Re: Justifiable deaths triple
Post by: G M on March 31, 2012, 08:44:26 PM


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.
Title: Re: Justifiable deaths triple
Post by: G M on March 31, 2012, 09:02:46 PM


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/floridas-crime-rate-was-its-lowest-in-four-decades-in-2010/1166168

Florida's crime rate was its lowest in four decades in 2010

 By Jamal Thalji, Times Staff Writer
 In Print: Wednesday, April 27, 2011



Florida's crime rate sank to a four-decade low in 2010, Gov. Rick Scott announced Tuesday.

There were 4,105 crimes reported for every 100,000 residents in 2010, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. That's a drop of 7 percent from the year before and the lowest crime rate on record since 1971.

In 2010 the total number of violent crimes (murders, assaults, robberies and forcible sex crimes) fell 10 percent while property crimes (burglaries and auto thefts) dipped 6 percent. The data are culled from 410 police agencies statewide.

"The numbers are certainly encouraging," St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said. "But we still have work to do."

Though crime was down, it was as devastating as ever. Last year, two Tampa police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. Three St. Petersburg officers have been shot and killed on the job this year.

In fact, while murder dropped statewide and nationally in 2010, it rose in three Tampa Bay counties: Hernando (from four to nine deaths), Hillsborough (56 to 65 deaths) and Pinellas (27 to 35 deaths). Only Pasco County saw a decrease (12 to 10 deaths).

Murder is traditionally known as the toughest crime to prevent.
Title: Re: Justifiable deaths triple
Post by: G M on March 31, 2012, 09:09:34 PM


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/floridas-crime-rate-was-its-lowest-in-four-decades-in-2010/1166168

Florida's crime rate was its lowest in four decades in 2010

 By Jamal Thalji, Times Staff Writer
 In Print: Wednesday, April 27, 2011



Florida's crime rate sank to a four-decade low in 2010, Gov. Rick Scott announced Tuesday.

There were 4,105 crimes reported for every 100,000 residents in 2010, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. That's a drop of 7 percent from the year before and the lowest crime rate on record since 1971.

In 2010 the total number of violent crimes (murders, assaults, robberies and forcible sex crimes) fell 10 percent while property crimes (burglaries and auto thefts) dipped 6 percent. The data are culled from 410 police agencies statewide.

"The numbers are certainly encouraging," St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said. "But we still have work to do."

Though crime was down, it was as devastating as ever. Last year, two Tampa police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. Three St. Petersburg officers have been shot and killed on the job this year.

In fact, while murder dropped statewide and nationally in 2010, it rose in three Tampa Bay counties: Hernando (from four to nine deaths), Hillsborough (56 to 65 deaths) and Pinellas (27 to 35 deaths). Only Pasco County saw a decrease (12 to 10 deaths).

Murder is traditionally known as the toughest crime to prevent.


Ok, it looks like Dade and Broward counties together averaged 23.9 homicides a month in 2010.
Title: More killings called self-defense
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2012, 04:38:09 AM


More killings called self-defense
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311873214574462.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
By JOE PALAZZOLO and ROB BARRY

At a time when the overall U.S. homicide rate is declining, more civilians are killing each other and claiming self-defense—a trend that is most pronounced in states with new "stand your ground" laws.

These laws, which grant people more leeway to attack and even kill someone who is threatening them, are attracting close scrutiny following February's controversial killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida by a neighborhood watchman. Florida has one of the broadest self-defense laws of the 25 states with some version of a "stand your ground" principle.

So-called justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, the most recent data available, when 326 were reported, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics from all 50 states. Over that same 11-year period, total killings averaged roughly 16,000 a year, according to the state figures, which the Journal obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from Florida.

Homicides, By the Numbers

As 'Stand Your Ground' laws proliferate nationwide, there has been an increase in the number of cases in which killers are determined to have acted in self defense.

The data on justifiable homicides and their relationship to "stand your ground" laws hasn't been rigorously studied, according to criminal scientists, and it leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?

The statistics don't capture why a killer felt threatened, or whether the victim was armed. And by definition, the dead man—and justifiable-homicide victims are almost exclusively male, unlike nonjustifiable homicides—isn't around to testify.
Still, the numbers provide a rich snapshot of justifiable-homicide characteristics over the 11-year period:

• In about 60% of justifiable-homicide cases in which the relationship between victim and killer was known, the pair were strangers. This differs sharply from nonjustifiable cases, where more than three-fourths of victims knew their killers.

• Firearms were used in more than 80% of justifiable cases. (In seven cases, the victims were asphyxiated or strangled.) In nonjustifiable cases, guns were used about 65% of the time.

• The average age of victims in justifiable cases was 30; in nonjustifiable cases, the average was 32. By either yardstick, the February killing of 17-year-old Mr. Martin was an outlier.

The death of Mr. Martin, a black teen, is driving a widespread debate about the role of race. The nationwide data show that in three-quarters or more of all killings, "justifiable" or otherwise, the killer and victim were of the same race. Proportionally, blacks are more often the victims of homicide.

A split appeared in the data when the race of killer and victim differed. Among all homicides, when races differed, the victim was more often white. By contrast, in justifiable-homicide cases, when the races differed, the opposite was true: The victim was more often black.

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University, said that difference "is certainly, on the face of it, something that needs to be explored." He noted it is difficult to draw conclusions without deeper study. "Could it be an element of racism? You can't necessarily assume that," he said.

Critics of the stand-your-ground laws say they breed a shoot-first mentality that not only can lead to more killings, but can make it tough to investigate killings that might otherwise be worth a closer look.

"I choose to believe prosecution for murder has a deterrent effect. It should be a huge deal to take a life," said David LaBahn of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. He said laws such as Florida's give civilians stronger protections than police officers who kill in the line of duty.

Supporters of stand-your-ground laws say they empower people to confront criminals in life-threatening situations, rather than flee. "I don't want to find out whether I can outrun a bullet," said James Corley, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who shot and killed an armed intruder a few years ago.

In that 2009 incident, an intruder had broken into a club for recovering alcoholics and demanded everyone's wallets at gunpoint. Mr. Corley shot him with a concealed weapon. The local prosecutor didn't pursue charges, concluding that Mr. Corley acted in self-defense.

For decades, many states embraced the "Castle Doctrine," the principle that a person's home is their castle and they are generally within their rights to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against intruders.

Outside the home, however, most states required people to try to retreat, rather than take on an aggressor.

A wave of "stand your ground" laws, including Florida's in 2005, expanded the doctrine to include places outside the home.
The National Rifle Association is a prominent backer of the new laws. An NRA official didn't respond to requests for comment.

Oklahoma State Senator Harry Coates, one of the sponsors for the law that passed in his state in 2006, said: "At the time, we were dealing with a tremendous number of carjackings."

Under the Castle Doctrine, he said, "It was a little unclear whether you could protect yourself. So we put it in the statutes that yes, you can shoot to kill if your life is in peril, period." Sen. Coates added, "It's not to allow you to blow people away unless your life is being threatened."

The Journal obtained most of the state-by-state data from the FBI, which collects it from the states, and also obtained Florida data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Florida doesn't use the FBI's guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides.

The FBI data don't capture all homicides. The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years.

In absolute terms, the number of homicides of all kinds reported in the data increased slightly between 2000 and 2010. But when adjusted for population growth, the overall homicide rate declined slightly in that data.

By contrast, over that period, the number of killings categorized as justifiable rose by 85% to 326 cases in 2010 from 176 in 2000, the figures show.

Five of the states that enacted "stand your ground" laws during the past decade—Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana and West Virginia—reported no significant change in justifiable homicides. In Michigan, which passed its law in 2006, they fell.
Overall, the figures show the sharpest increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.

While the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade's latter half, the data show.

In Texas and Georgia, such cases nearly doubled and in Florida, they nearly tripled. Meanwhile, in states that saw no change in their self-defense laws, justifiable homicides reported to the FBI stayed nearly flat after a slight uptick in the middle decade.

Florida's particularly strong law not only eliminates the duty to retreat, but also presumes that a person who used deadly force in his home or vehicle had a reasonable fear of harm, and it immunizes the killer from civil lawsuits. At least six other states have laws mirroring Florida's.

Justifiable homicides in Florida rose from an average of 12 a year before the law was passed in 2005 to an average 33 a year afterward, according to statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

There are a number of ways a homicide can be deemed justifiable. Prosecutors can decide not to bring charges, or a person can be cleared of wrongdoing by a jury. A judge can also find that someone acted in self-defense.

That's what happened in an unusual case in Miami this past week. Citing the Florida law, a judge dismissed a murder charge against Greyston Garcia, who had chased and stabbed to death a suspected burglar who had stolen his car radio. The judge ruled that a bag of radios swung by the suspect, Pedro Roteta, at Mr. Garcia amounted to a lethal threat.

Mr. Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property," the judge said.
Prosecutors plan to appeal, according to a spokesman for Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. Mr. Garcia's lawyer, Eduardo Pereira, said: "Mr. Garcia defended himself when attacked by an armed burglar."

In the February killing of Mr. Martin in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, a neighborhood-watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense in shooting the teenager. Mr. Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged. His lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment.

The scope of "stand your ground" laws is being tested in several court cases across the country, including in Texas, where self-defense killings increased from an annual average of 26 before the law went into effect in 2007 to 46 after, according to the data.

Jose Manuel Morales was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Enil Lopez in a December 2007 gang fight in Dallas. According to Mr. Morales's lawyer, he was acting in defense of his brother, Juan Morales.

Mr. Morales's murder conviction, for which he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, is now in question because the trial judge incorrectly told the jury the brothers had a duty to retreat. A Texas appeals court is considering whether the error was severe enough to warrant a new trial.

Mr. Morales's lawyer, John Hagler, declined to comment specifically on the case. He did say the new law has given criminal-defense attorneys such as himself a new tool where few existed before. "If you've got two guys shooting it out, how many defenses are there?" he said. "I've had cases where my guy shot a guy in the back with an automatic rifle 11 times and claimed self-defense," Mr. Hagler said, noting that as the lawyer representing the accused, "you've got to do something."
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, whose office is prosecuting Mr. Morales, said the Texas law was too susceptible to abuse. "If someone is trying to kick in your door, I don't think you should have a duty to retreat," said Mr. Watkins, who declined to comment on the Morales case. "But you can't pursue an individual and then claim self-defense."

Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 01, 2012, 08:26:31 AM
Thus far, all I see is another version of "If people can carry guns, it'll be mayhem". I don't see the law being abused in any meaningful way, at least not yet.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2012, 08:32:47 AM
I agree 100%.  This having a veneer of scientific polling, our side needs to be aware of the data and the inferences which the forces of disarmament seek to imply using this data and how to best answer.
Title: Good aggregator of Martin v. Zimmerman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2012, 04:23:57 PM


http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/misconceptions-in-the-trayvon-martin-case
Title: Indiana SD against unlawful law enforcement
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2012, 09:26:42 PM
sorry, no citation handy:

Will Indiana's self-defense measure mean "open season" on cops?

You may have heard of the bill passed recently by the Indiana General Assembly that gives citizens the right to physically resist--even with deadly force--any LEO they "reasonably believe" is unlawfully entering their dwelling or is about to cause them injury.

At this writing, the legislation awaits the signature of Gov. Mitch Daniels to become law. Daniels is expected to approve the measure this week.

When he does, "it will mean basically open season on police officers," predicts Tim Downs, president of the state FOP, which campaigned vigorously although unsuccessfully against the bill. "Law enforcement officers are definitely going to be put in harm's way."

In this report, we explore the background and implications of the new law, which understandably has sent shock waves through the Indiana law enforcement community and has cops in other states wondering if they're next.

HOT POTATO DECISION. The legislation was drafted in response to a controversial decision by the Indiana Supreme Court last May in a domestic disturbance case, Barnes v. State of Indiana.

Back in 2007, a distressed woman in southern Indiana had called 911 during a heated argument with her husband. When officers arrived, the man, "very agitated and yelling," belligerently informed them that they were "not needed." When they tried to enter the couple's apartment to check on the complainant's wellbeing, he blocked the doorway and shoved one officer against a wall. He was subjected to a neck restraint, Tasered, and then arrested on 4 counts, including battery on a police officer.

In appealing his subsequent conviction, the defendant argued that the officers' forcible entry was illegal and that he had a common-law right to "reasonably resist unlawful entry" by law enforcement into his home.

The state Supreme Court acknowledged that such a right, sometimes called the "castle defense doctrine," can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215. On 2 occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it: in Bad Elk v. United States [177 US 529 (1900)] and in United States v. Di Re [332 US 581 (1948)].

However, legislative and judicial thinking has changed significantly in recent years, the Indiana Supreme Court majority pointed out in its 3-2 decision. The Model Penal Code has now eliminated the right because "alternate remedies," including civil suit, now exist for an "aggrieved" party and because forceful resistance is "likely to result in greater injury." A "majority of states have abolished the right" to resist via statutes and judicial opinions, the Court stated.

"We believe...that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," the justices declared. "[W]e find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

According to the Indianapolis Bar Assn., "the same issue has been ruled upon similarly" by courts in an overwhelming majority of other states.

Click here to read the full decision.

RESPONSE TO "UPROAR." According to media reports, the Court's ruling ignited a "public uproar." Before long, legislators had drafted an act in the Indiana General Assembly [Senate Bill 0001] to rectify the situation by affirming the "robust self-defense rights" of the state's residents.

Earlier this month, the bill was approved 38-12 by the state Senate and 67-26 by the House. In its final form, it includes these key provisions to "ensure that a citizen feels secure...against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant"; e.g., an officer of the law:

• "A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:

(1) "protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) "prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or

(3) "prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

• A person is not justified in using force against the police if he or she:

(1) "is committing or escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) "provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury;

(3) "has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor"...unless the officer "continues or threatens to continue unlawful action;

(4) "reasonably believes the public servant is...acting lawfully [or is] engaged in the lawful execution of [his] official duties."

However, the bill specifies that even deadly force can be justified in resisting the police if a citizen "reasonably believes" an officer is "acting unlawfully" and "the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person." In other words, Downs states, "There is no limit on the resistance that can be used."

Click here to read the legislation in full.

POLICE REACTION. The only organized voice that has spoken out against this legislation, says President Downs, is the Indiana state FOP. When the bill was passed despite the group's vehement objections, Downs requested an audience with Gov. Daniels to plead in person for a veto. Early this week, he spent 20 minutes with Daniels but was unable to persuade him to kill the bill. At this writing, the governor is believed to be just hours away from affixing his approval.

Downs has been an active LEO for more than 3 decades, currently serving as chief of police for the Lake County (IN) SD, and he has headed the state FOP since 1999. We asked what he thinks will be the outcome when Daniels signs the legislation into law.

Downs: It's only a matter of time before an officer or a civilian gets seriously hurt or killed because of this law. At the very least, it will result in more use of force. If a subject offers resistance he believes is justified, an officer isn't going to just meekly back off. He'll escalate force to overcome the resistance, one or both of them will likely be injured or worse, and a subject who survives will go to prison.

With this law successfully on the books in Indiana, I believe other states may look at it and be encouraged to adopt similar legislation.

Force Science News: Are there any subtleties in this law that make it less crazy than it seems?

Downs: No, it's insane. Backers of the bill kept saying it gives the police more protection, but there is no protection in it whatsoever. Criminals and other people who dislike the police are interpreting it that they can do anything they want against us now. I'm already getting hate mail from people saying, "Let's get it on. If I kill you, I'm justified in doing it." This is potentially lethal thinking. I've not found a police officer yet who has anything good to say about this statute.

FSN: As the legislation is written, much hinges on a subject's "reasonable belief" as to whether an officer is acting lawfully. Don't most suspects automatically believe officers are wrong in the actions taken against them, regardless of the circumstances?

Downs: Suspects always think we're in the wrong. The average citizen, even if they're well-intentioned, has no training in the law and police procedure on which to base a 'reasonable' decision. They're going to subjectively judge the circumstances to decide whether an officer is acting lawfully. And this subjective decision is going to be made at a time when emotions are likely to be highly charged, and drugs and/or alcohol will be involved a huge percentage of the time, affecting people's thinking.

Police officers are called upon every day to investigate domestic disturbances, child and elder abuse, and many other serious matters. Sometimes they don't have time to secure a warrant, yet they're duty bound to make entry onto private property and into private residences in order to protect the innocent. Empowering people to resist them is a recipe for disaster that will lead to senseless loss of life.

FSN: Is there any leeway given for officers who make legitimate mistakes and unwittingly force entry into an incorrect residence?

Downs: No. This is one of the many realities of police work that the politicians who voted for this don't understand.

FSN: And if it is determined later that the belief on which a subject acted was not reasonable and therefore the resistance was not justified, by then the damage from resisting is already done, right?

Downs: Right.

FSN: Who was the driving force behind this legislation?

Downs: Well, one group that sticks out and that surprised me was the National Rifle Assn. They give a lot of money and backing to politicians, and NRA people lobbied hard at the state capitol in favor of this bill. They thought the Supreme Court decision last year gave authorities too much power.

Also the press got a lot of people upset about not being able to defend themselves from unlawful intrusions when the decision came down. One legislator told me that a poll showed that 60% of the citizenry favored the bill. You'd have to prove that to me. I find it hard to believe. Many, many civilians I spoke to thought it was ridiculous. We had many legislators on our side, including one who's a former police chief, but the ones against us had the power.

FSN: What do you recommend for Indiana officers as this bill becomes law?

Downs: Stay on high alert during any response, especially to a residence. Even more than before, you don't know what you may be going into.

FSN: Are you planning to test the constitutionality of this law?

Downs: We'll definitely have our attorneys look into any possible way we can get it reversed. This law is not only dangerous, it's not needed. If an officer acts unlawfully, there are plenty of state and federal statutes to deal with it. That's a matter best handled by a judge and jury, not by a person standing on a doorstep thinking, 'I'm going to take care of this myself.' "
Title: More narrative FAIL.
Post by: G M on April 03, 2012, 09:44:17 AM
**Of course, this was before he was a "white-hispanic". :roll:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-narrative-destroying-edition/

Quote of the Day: Narrative Destroying Edition

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Dan Zimmerman


(http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-courtesy-dailycaller.com_.jpg)
 
“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”
Title: The Zimmerman walkback continues
Post by: G M on April 05, 2012, 02:05:00 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI

I'm sure it'll be a COLD day in hell when Rev. Al and Rev. Jackson say they are sorry.
Title: Dershowitz attacks Zimmerman charging docs
Post by: G M on April 13, 2012, 06:48:56 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/12/dershowitz-the-charging-instrument-filed-against-george-zimmerman-is-unethical-and-will-never-make-it-past-a-judge/

Dershowitz: The charging instrument filed against George Zimmerman is “unethical” and will never make it past a judge
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 13, 2012, 04:27:56 PM
I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on April 13, 2012, 07:33:32 PM
I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.


I agree, but what are you exactly saying?  Can you expound?  What is your point?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 14, 2012, 09:17:28 AM
I' been doing some reflecting. We have the best trained police in the world. I don't know why we trust them to do their jobs. We need to believe in them. They are highly trained and efficient at what they do.


I agree, but what are you exactly saying?  Can you expound?  What is your point?

My point is that the media has turned this into a circus, when in fact, the have a limited knowledge of criminal investigations, and that we as a country comprised of different races, should trust the law enforcement community's judgment, which is comprised of members of every race.

Unfortunately, Zimmerman has already had a public trial, at least in the hearts and minds of nearly every American and guilty or innocent, he will never see a fair trial because of what the media has allowed.

If we are to be a system of law, where anyone, you myself or others, are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, the media must stay out of investigations, particularly ones that will have a substantial divide in them due to the differences in race and culture. If our system of law fails, we fail. We will be relegated to nothing more than a totalitarian society which is in direct contrast to what the Constitution promises each of us.

It is imperative that we trust the law enforcement community because if we do not, we will wind up with anarchy or totalitarianism. Those are the only possible outcomes and albeit, our system isn't perfect, it is the best system that has been thought up yet.
Title: AZ senate passes bill on guns in public buildings
Post by: Mick C. on April 14, 2012, 04:00:26 PM
The Arizona Senate has passed a law allowing carry in public offices and government places, it's on Gov. Brewer's desk:

Arizona Senate OKs bill on guns in public buildings

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/04/12/20120412ariz-senate-oks-bill-guns-public-buildings.html#ixzz1s3glGMXk

The Arizona Legislature has given final approval to a bill that could allow guns on public property, including city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol.

Gov. Jan Brewer has five days to sign the bill into law, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. If the bill becomes law, Arizona would join nine other states in allowing guns inside public government buildings, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Arizona already ranks among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Two years ago, Arizona became one of only a handful of states to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Arizona cities and counties are railing against House Bill 2729, saying they'll either have to let guns into buildings where the public would rather not have them or pay millions of dollars to provide the security required to keep them out.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, is being pushed by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group.

"This bill is about preventing murder," said Arizona Citizens Defense League communications director Charles Heller. "When bad people come in armed, they will get stopped by police officers and a metal detector. The alternative is you can let honest people go armed into the building. Either way, you provide a solution."

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, called the bill a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

"This isn't about the Second Amendment. Don't give me that garbage," Gallardo said. "We are allowing guns into public facilities that should not have them. Do we really want guns at our public library?"

The bill proposes making it legal for people to enter public property with a weapon unless the property is secured by either a state or federal certified law-enforcement officer or an armed security guard and metal detectors. It also must have secure gun lockers available.

There are exceptions. The bill would allow a private operator of a multipurpose facility, such as a professional sports arena, to limit or ban guns on the property. It would not apply to private entities that rent space in a public building. It also would not apply to K-12 schools, colleges or universities.

A similar bill passed the Legislature last year, but Brewer vetoed it, saying it was poorly written. Supporters of this year's bill have said they are confident it fixes Brewer's concerns. Brewer doesn't typically comment on bills in advance.

Sen. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, voted against the bill.

"This is a bad bill. It was a bad bill last year, and it's bad again this year," Cajero Bedford said. "For those of you who like to complain about unfunded mandates, this one takes the cake."

A study conducted by legislative staff estimates that security costs for a government entity to ban guns could range from $5,000 to $113,800 per public entrance in the first year with ongoing costs of $54,400 to $108,800 per year. The amounts are based on estimates that the annual salary and related costs of a security guard are $54,000, and some entrances may need two officers, depending on traffic. The study estimates stationary metal detectors cost $4,000 each and a hand-held detector costs $400.

"Maricopa County reports that if firearms are prohibited from all county buildings that currently do not have the security features outlined in the bill, it would cost $19.5million in ongoing costs and an additional $11.3million in one-time equipment costs," the study says.

Heller called that "a lie."

"There is nothing in this bill that mandates metal detectors or security," he said, saying that governments have the other option of removing signs banning guns. "Just take the sign down. It won't cost you a cent."

Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, was not deterred by the talk of costs. He voted for the bill.

"No cost is too high to protect my constitutional rights," Smith said.

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox asked Brewer to veto the bill.

"She was a member of the Board of Supervisors when a member of the public brought a gun into a county building and shot me," Wilcox said. "There is a time and place for guns, and that place is not in government buildings."

Phoenix Government Relations Director Karen Peters said her city's costs would be significant as well.

"We have so many public facilities where the public prefers that guns not be present, like libraries and recreational facilities," Peters said. "We would have to install this technology at every entrance and staff it all the hours we are open. It increases operating costs for the facilities and makes it more difficult for us to provide the amenities and services the communities want."

She said Phoenix will send Brewer a letter asking her to veto the bill as she did last year.

National and state gun-advocacy groups support the bill. Law enforcement, chambers of commerce, court organizations and the Arizona Library Association have registered their opposition to the bill.

Garrick Taylor of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry sent a letter to lawmakers opposing HB 2729. He said the bill violates private property rights, will impact private landowners with both public and private tenants, doesn't include exceptions to protect critical infrastructure such as power facilities, and will have a significant fiscal impact.

"HB 2729 remains a flawed bill that would have negative impacts on our economy," Taylor said.

But Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said the bill is good for Arizona.

"I am a true believer in the statement that an armed citizenry is a safe citizenry," Melvin said. "Our founders, when they gave us the Second Amendment, knew what they were doing. With this type of legislation, we have a safer society."



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/04/12/20120412ariz-senate-oks-bill-guns-public-buildings.html#ixzz1s3fEZUbU
Title: The feminist origins of stand your ground laws
Post by: G M on April 16, 2012, 02:40:17 PM
http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-groundduty-to-retreat.html

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Stand Your Ground/Duty to Retreat

If the Republicans were smart (and if pigs flew) they would be rephrasing this Stand Your Ground question in "war on women" terms.  I'm impressed how many of the cases that I have found so far involve women defending themselves from abusive intimate partners (and sometimes the reverse, as in State v. Glowacki (Minn. 2001))--and being charged because they didn't leave their own homes rather than use deadly force.

Fortunately, the courts have had the good sense to recognize that there is no duty to retreat in your own home and have ordered retrials with different jury instructions.  Just a couple of examples: State v. Livesay, 233 P. 2d 432 (Idaho 1951) (woman shot, perhaps by accident, her abusive husband when he returned home from jail for domestic violence and attacked her; her right to defend herself in her own home was upheld against a jury instruction denying her the right to use deadly force when she had provoked the confrontation; also found that a “duty to retreat” instruction was incorrect). Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) (duty to retreat not applicable in one’s own residence, even when the attacker is her spouse).  State v. Thomas (Ohio 1997) (no duty to retreat in one's own residence, even when the attacker has an equal right to be there):

Thus, a person who, through no fault of her own, is assaulted in her home may stand her ground, meet force with force, and if necessary, kill her assailant, without any duty to retreat.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2012, 05:02:56 PM
GM:  Interesting point you raise there.

Mick-- please use the subject heading when you post so a search command can find it in the future.

All:  What do we make of the AZ bill?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 16, 2012, 05:48:18 PM
All:  What do we make of the AZ bill?

Knowing only what is in the above article, I'd tend to support it.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 18, 2012, 08:00:15 AM
I like the Arizona bill. Bad people are going to continue their misdeed whether others are armed or not. It is better to be armed and prepared than to be a victim. Nothing says "no" to rape and victimhood like being properly armed does.
I saw that GM was reviewing some cases on the stand your ground law and duty to retreat. I wonder what exists in the way of violent crime stats in pro firearm states as opposed to states that have hefty gun control laws.
Title: More guns, less crime
Post by: G M on April 18, 2012, 12:49:59 PM
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334778375&sr=8-1

“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal


(James Bovard Wall Street Journal )


On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review


(John O. McGinnis National Review )
About the Author
John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?, the latter also published by the University of Chicago Press.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 18, 2012, 01:52:31 PM
Thank you GM.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2012, 03:51:28 PM
Concerning the AZ bill, as we all know, polictical conversations can get rather warm sometimes and the idea of some or all carrying guns does make me a bit leery.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 18, 2012, 04:11:47 PM
Concerning the AZ bill, as we all know, polictical conversations can get rather warm sometimes and the idea of some or all carrying guns does make me a bit leery.

Really? Ever lose your cool in an arguement and stab someone with knife you had on your person?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
Well, I have been known to make some other people rather mad and in such moments it occurs to me I'd rather they not have a gun or two on them.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 18, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
Well, I have been known to make some other people rather mad and in such moments it occurs to me I'd rather they not have a gun or two on them.
That's why training is necessary and everyone needs to be armed, because any jerk that would stab someone over a difference of opinion, isn't going to respect a law banning them from having weapons anyways.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 18, 2012, 05:57:24 PM
Most people don't road rage, despite having control over a machine much more powerful and deadly than any handgun. Most people don't have a few drinks and then stab a family member over a debate. In my state, public libraries are lawful places for people with CCW permits to carry concealed. Not a single shooting anywhere in the state to my knowledge.

People who commit felony assaults/murders out of spontanious rage are a statistical outlier in any population. Disarming the whole population in an attempt to negate those few is not a good or effective policy, IMO.
Title: Brewer vetoes bill allowing guns on public property
Post by: Mick C. on April 18, 2012, 06:17:29 PM
From the AZ Republic today:

Brewer vetoes bill allowing guns on public property

Gov. Jan Brewer rebuffed gun-rights advocates by vetoing for a second time a bill to allow guns on public property, and sent a strong message that such a proposal would need wider support from police, cities and the public before she would sign it.

Brewer's veto of the bill, which could have let guns into city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol, was the latest setback for a push to expand the right to carry guns in public places in Arizona.

Legislative efforts to put guns on university campuses, just outside K-12 school grounds and in homeowners associations all appear to have run into roadblocks this session.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in her veto letter, Brewer, who vetoed a similar bill last year, recognized the legitimacy of laws banning guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

"The decisions to permit or prohibit guns in these extremely sensitive locations -- whether a city council chamber or branch office staffed with state workers -- should be cooperatively reached and supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including citizens, law-enforcement officials and local government leaders," Brewer wrote in her veto letter.

House Bill 2729, sponsored by Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, was pushed by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group. It proposed making it legal for people to enter public property with a weapon unless the property was secured by either a state or federal certified law-enforcement officer or an armed security guard and metal detectors.

National and state gun-advocacy groups supported the bill. Cities, counties, law-enforcement agencies and business organizations opposed it, saying they would have had to either let guns into buildings where the public would rather not have them or pay millions of dollars to provide the security required to keep them out.

A study conducted by legislative staff estimates that security costs for a government entity to ban guns could have ranged from $5,000 to $113,800 per public entrance in the first year with ongoing costs of $54,400 to $108,800 per year.

Brewer said the fiscal impact was one reason she opposed the bill, but she also mentioned broader concerns and even went as far as to offer a warning to gun lobbyists who may try again next year.

"While I appreciate the efforts of the bill sponsor ... there must be a more thorough and collaborative discussion of the proper place for guns in the public arena," Brewer wrote.

Charles Heller, communications director of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, criticized Brewer's decision.

"We expected more from an alleged friend of freedom," he said. "This means that some people will still be deluded into thinking that a sign (banning guns in public buildings) makes them safe."

He declined to comment on whether his group may try to run the bill again next year, but he said it will change one tactic.

"We just need to put more letters on her desk next time she's thinking about vetoing so she knows how much people care about freedom," he said.

Gowan did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Bill opponents were thrilled at the veto -- and this session's trend against expanding gun rights.

"Hallelujah," said Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson. "It seems as if (Brewer) is saying that the public is not asking for these bills. She got it. Thank goodness."

Aboud said she hopes the gun-advocacy lobbyists get it, too.

"Twice run, twice passed, twice vetoed," she said. "How many times is it going to take for people to figure it out? This is making our state a laughing- stock."

A similar bill passed the Legislature last year, but Brewer vetoed it, saying it was poorly written. Brewer said her concerns from last year were not addressed in the new version.

Arizona ranks among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Two years ago, it became one of only a handful of states to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Hildy Saizow, president of the grassroots group Arizonans for Gun Safety, said Arizonans don't want these bills.

"Finally, we're getting some common sense in here saying, 'No, this is bad public-safety policy, and we're not going to allow this to happen,'" Saizow said. "No guns on college campuses, no guns in public events, no guns around schools. The gun lobby has hit its limit, and for good reason."



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/04/17/20120417arizona-gun-bill-public-property-brewer-veto.html#ixzz1sRdPMV14
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 18, 2012, 06:43:55 PM
Can she at least sign into law an act that creates a magical aura around all public buildings that transforms guns into frogs or candy, because that'd be really cool!
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 18, 2012, 07:50:41 PM
Less than thrilled with Brewer's response, and I'm a huge fan of the lady generally speaking. I'm pretty sure all the Spartans and Indian warriors were armed. Very polite societies.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 18, 2012, 08:06:43 PM
Well, the slaves owneby the Spartans were not allowed weapons. Throughout human history, free peoples were armed while slaves/subjects were not.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Hello Kitty on April 18, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
Good point. I didn't know what to do with the Helots, then again, the Helots weren't Spartan citizens either. Still a good point though.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 19, 2012, 04:00:10 AM
To make it clear, my visceral unease is not with libraries and the like, it is with city council chambers and things like that.  I'm not saying I do not get the logic of the law, I simply admit to a visceral unease.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: G M on April 19, 2012, 05:40:43 AM
Well, under the proposed AZ law, as I understand it, there would be the option to post a security checkpoint at the public entrance.

Title: Twitter lynch mob: George Zimmerman is out on bail? Let’s kill him!
Post by: G M on April 23, 2012, 04:53:05 AM

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

Twitter lynch mob: George Zimmerman is out on bail? Let’s kill him!

 Posted at 7:16 am on April 23, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

 



TaNashia Taylor@UBlow_TaNashia


Ima kill zimmerman myself *loads semi* where he at

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 


George Zimmerman was released on $150,000 bail late Sunday night in what the Associated Press called a “low-key event.” Threats of death from the Twitter lynch mob were anything but low-key.
 



Jawan's Girlfriend@WhatItDo_BooBoo


"@xSimplyAniya: I think imma personally kill George Zimmerman ..anyone's welcome to join (:" Leggggoooo !

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Nay Nay@HeLoves_SexcNay


I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS ASSS BOAAAAA

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Trizzy T. Montana@TrizzyTroof_CA


I would kill George Zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Chatia@Mslips88


someone pass me a gun, imma go follow zimmerman, shoot and kill him and say #imstandingmyground

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Yes Its ZAIN@YesitsZain


Lets kill #zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Louis Davis Jr@HeartBreakJay_


They done let Zimmerman free lets kill that MF

 23 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



WillFolarinMawana@RealWillMawana


George Zimmerman Released From Jail 150,000 Bail! WTF! Nigga You Are About To Die, Start Writing Your Will! Justices Has Not Been Served

22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 
Others hoped someone else would take out Zimmerman so they wouldn’t have to dirty their hands.
 



جيرمين سميث@GuccJermaine


Kill that mexican muther fucker george zimmerman #WhiteTrash

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



The Associated Press✔
@AP 22 Apr 12

BREAKING: George Zimmerman released from Florida jail on $150,000 bond in #Trayvon Martin shooting case -JM




 ian moses@DaItalianBeast


@AP Kill george zimmerman

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Ralph Cola@RalphMDCXLV


TF!!! Zimmerman was freed on bail? Kill that man

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Jordan Irving@jordyfxs


They let this nigga Zimmerman out of jail?! Somebody kill this dude already!

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 



Jai Marie@DiaryOf_A_Doll


So I just found out that they released zimmerman dumb ass out of fuckin jail I hope somebody get that nigga! That bitch deserve to die smfh!

 22 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
 
One genius called for the mob to murder Zimmerman because she thinks charges just disappear when someone makes bail.
 



Ms.Lovely@Stallionnett101


Once u been convicted of a crime & let out on bail u can't be charged 2x for the same thing so that means sum1 gonna have to kill Zimmerman

 23 Apr 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Title: ABC says this is a foto of Z's bloodied head
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2012, 07:51:30 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-shows-bloodied-image-of-zimmermans-head-on-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law - Zimmerman
Post by: DougMacG on April 24, 2012, 10:25:54 AM
Interesting points from a Thomas Sowell race post requested to be copied here:
------------
"The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.

That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn't.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/24/who_is_racist_113933.html
-------------
Also this:

"the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game."
Title: Schmidt: Choosing a Self-Defense Lawyer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 24, 2012, 04:36:20 PM

The following comes from a newsletter which I receive from one "Tim Schmidt".  I'm not sure why it shows up in my mailbox, but it does.  Occasionally I read it, but usually I don't.  I am glad I read it on this particular occasion. 

We have spoken of "Preparing our Witnesses" with our verbalizations during a problem.  Here the discussion is on finding and choosing a lawyer with regard to self-defense matters.
================================================

Armed American Report
Click here for important Membership Information! 
Hello, fellow Armed Citizen.

There's a saying that goes "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

What that means, is that the person saying it believes that it's ALWAYS better to come out of a gunfight alive and facing legal charges than to end up getting killed for fear of firing too soon, or breaking some law.

On the surface, I think we all agree: It's always better to be alive, and if you're attacked by a criminal, you may not have many options other than to 'do what it takes to stop the threat'. But there is a LOT more to legal defense than just telling your story to a jury, and having them see that you're really a good guy at heart.

Sadly, armed citizens go down for murder when they thought they did the right thing. It's sad, and it's not common... but it happens. Defending your actions in court, and making sure that you're always within the letter of the law are both things that you ned to be thining about right now- BEFORE you are forced to use your weapon to defend yourself.

Where do you go to do this? Why, the United States Concealed Carry Association, of course!

 
It Doesn't Have to Make Sense: It's Just the Law - One Lawyer
...In any given year, a small number of gun owners will make a desperate call from jail searching for that One Lawyer to simplify their lives...
by kl jamison
There is a legend of a Texas sheriff who telegraphed the Texas Rangers for help with a riot. He found his rescue was only a single Ranger. He asked why only one Ranger had been sent and was told "One riot, One Ranger." Like most such stories, if it isn't true, it should be.

In any given year, a small number of gun owners will make a desperate call from jail searching for that One Lawyer to simplify their lives. The question is always "which one?".(1)

Other inmates of the jail will be connoisseurs of the legal abilities of various lawyers. Their opinion may be colored by recent results, which may have been affected by a turn of circumstances. Bail bondsmen are a source of information. However, the recommended lawyer may simply be the attorney who collects his bad debts.

Any phone book will devote a substantial number of pages to lawyers. It is possible to select one by calling the first listing, and profitable to the firm of Aaron, Aaron and Aaron, but not practical. The Aaron's may confine their practice to estates and trust law, personal injury law, or endangered species law, and no matter how endangered one might feel, they would not help. Advertisements help to narrow the field. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said that he would never hire an attorney who advertises. This justice was never in the position of making a frantic call from jail, and when he practiced law would be more likely to meet prospective clients at his Club than the jail. Legal ethics limit the amount of information advertisements can contain, which is further limited by extortionate fees for larger ads.(2) Advertising makes it possible to determine which lawyers practice criminal law, in what states, and if they take credit cards.

State Bar Associations are closed shops; in order to practice law in a state an attorney must be a member of the State Bar Association or have local counsel who is a member. In any given location three separate jurisdictions exist: federal, state and local. Each jurisdiction has its own unique rules and practices. In the nature of these things, some attorneys are more experienced in one jurisdiction than the others.


   Local Bar Associations can suggest lawyers in specific fields.
 

Clients often reject lawyers in their own area in the belief that they are hopelessly corrupt. These people go to great pains and expense to get a lawyer from elsewhere. It is not clear why they think lawyers from elsewhere are different. It is said that a good lawyer knows the law, but a great lawyer knows the judge. There is something to be said for this saying. A lawyer who knows the judge knows how he will react to evidence or argument. A judge who knows an attorney is more likely to believe him. This is not a conspiracy it is human nature.

Attorneys want to get paid up front. Once an attorney enters his appearance in a case, he is stuck with it. Taking payments may not be possible. Every attorney has stories of clients who stopped paying, leaving them suffering indentured servitude. In 1924, in a real "Trial of the Century," Clarrence Darrow took the case of Leopold and Lobe without a retainer. He made new law in saving the spawn of obscenely wealthy families from a well-deserved execution. He was also stiffed for his fee. Many law firms take credit cards, as do bail bondsmen. Few people can meet unbudgeted expenses in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in the course of an evening. When the banks are open, it is possible for Grandma to tap her life savings, negotiate a second mortgage on the house, or a title loan on the car. The NRA's Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund provides funding, but only in cases of general significance, and only after its Board votes.(3) All these resources take time. Nothing beats a credit card for immediate payment; the ultimate cost may be less than a stay in jail. Keeping a couple of unused credit cards, one for bond and the other for lawyers could come in handy. It is also possible to hire an attorney by assigning the bail bond. However; this is only possible when the defendant pays the entire bond himself.


Three different jurisdictions have their courthouses in a two block radius of Kansas City Missouri.
 

The amount of bond and legal fees will vary with the severity of the case. When there is blood on the ground or a constitutional principle at stake the client has a "55 Gallon Drum" problem. This problem is addressed by stuffing $100 bills into a 55-gallon drum, cramming them in as tightly as possible, then wheeling the barrel into my office.(4) Many persons shop around for the lowest price. However, the objective is not a bargain, but freedom. One often gets what one pays for. It does not take much effort to plead a person guilty or go through the motions of a defense; it is therefore less expensive. Some lawyers go for volume, some are expensive.

Legal ethics prohibit a guaranteed legal result.(5) If a lawyer offers a guaranteed result, he is likely to violate other legal ethics as well, and this cannot work well for the client. It is therefore not possible to charge one fee for a successful result, and another for a guilty verdict.

It is less stressful to find a lawyer in advance of trouble. This is not a matter of finding loopholes, but of learning the rules before engaging in an activity. There are rules for scuba diving, mountain climbing, carrying a gun and self-defense; the wise participant learns them in advance. The person consulted should be an attorney. Some persons espouse "sovereign citizenship" and "common law" theories which allegedly exempt the person from any law of which they disapprove. Apostles of these unlikely superstitions claim legal success. I have been unable to confirm any such victory. I do know of two such individuals who made their situations worse. One turned a speeding ticket into a jail sentence; another turned the chance of a fair trial into a conviction. A lawyer is necessary. A weekend hunter will not find a trophy animal in the wilderness without a guide. A defendant will not find justice in the thickets of the law without an attorney.


   Talk can be expensive.
 
The National Rifle Association provides a reference list of attorneys, as does the Second Amendment Foundation.(6) These attorneys can be accepted as "gun people," but are not otherwise vetted. Computer search engines may turn up others. Attorney referral services may be found in yellow pages and the internet. These resources may reflect lawyers who have purchased a place on the list more than any qualifications. Local Bar Associations may provide referrals to attorneys in relevant fields.

Armed with a selection of lawyers to interview, one must have an idea of the purpose of the interview. The first objective is to convince the lawyer of one's innocence. Criminal defense lawyers usually represent people who are guilty of something. For a criminal a conviction is a cost of doing business, for the survivor of a gunfight, it is a tragedy. It is a completely different mindset to represent an innocent man who cannot afford to lose. Next is to determine what the attorney can do for the client. Bad things usually do not happen during office hours.(7) It must be possible to reach the lawyer at two in the morning, not his voice mail but a human lawyer who can give human advice. The lawyer's retainer will be unknown until a charge is filed, although it will be some function of a 55-gallon drum, and perhaps two. The lawyer's hourly rate will give some indication. For every hour spent on the case, the hourly rate is deducted from the retainer. When the retainer is reduced to zero, bills are sent. Certain expenses become extra bills. Charges for expert witnesses, process servers, and investigators are typical. Some firms also bill for photocopies, faxes, and office staff.( General advice the lawyer can give about weapons and self-defense law will be useful in preventing problems. It is also important in helping the client decide if he is willing to entrust his future to the lawyer's decisions.

Some lawyers will take a small fee to be on call in the same way that they are registered agents for corporations. This gives the lawyer the advantage of a file to work from with contact information of persons to underwrite bail and perhaps an extra credit card.

Criminal defense lawyers keep prosecutors honest, a more difficult project than one gathers from watching "Law and Order." If the worst thing happens, your One best friend in the world will charge by the hour.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

Please send questions to Kevin L. Jamison -- 2614 NE 56th Ter -- Gladstone, Missouri 64119-2311 -- KLJamisonLaw@earthlink.net. Individual answers are not usually possible but may be addressed in future columns.

This information is for legal information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific questions you should consult a qualified attorney.

(1) One is tempted to suggest a near-sighted and unshaven lawyer in Gladstone, Missouri, but the advice here is more general.
(2) Legal ethics exist for Good and Sound reasons and are followed by members of the Bar. No smirking will be tolerated.
(3) See www.nradefensefund.org. Contact NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, 11250 Waples Mill Rd, Fairfax VA 22030 nracrdf@hrahq.org (703) 276-1250
(4) The problem will then be addressed, I did not say solved.
(5) I don't mind the lawyer jokes; I raise my fees whenever I hear them.
(6) See www.nra.org or www.saf.org.
(7) I was once called at two in the afternoon to assist an acquaintance who had "just killed" someone. I arrived before the detectives, which they found disturbing, but it worked out. This timing is unique.
( I find such billing to be an accounting burden, other firms delight in it.
Title: George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting
Post by: G M on April 25, 2012, 04:34:14 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting
 

By Chris Francescani

SANFORD, Florida | Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:20pm EDT

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun - until two months ago.

On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

Read it all.
Title: UK bans US SD expert
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2012, 10:46:56 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18002220

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01h78ds/Victoria_Derbyshire_09_05_2012/
Interview begins at 06:30
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: prentice crawford on May 11, 2012, 05:34:19 PM
Woof,
 Not sure that the punishment fits the crime here.


 By Gil Aegerter, msnbc.com
Marissa Alexander, whose case brought allegations that Florida's Stand Your Ground law is being unfairly applied, was sentenced to 20 years in prison Friday after being convicted of three counts of aggravated assault after firing a warning shot during a dispute with her husband.

Alexander, 31, claimed she fired a shot from a handgun into the wall to protect herself during a confrontation with her husband, who she said had abused her, WJXT reported. Two children were with him when she fired a shot in his direction, and she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.

 Her attorneys claimed self-defense and cited the state's Stand Your Ground law, which gives people some protection from prosecution for using potentially deadly force in cases in which they feel their life is threatened. The law came under nationwide scrutiny during the Trayvon Martin case, when neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teen and authorities waited weeks before charging him.

                                               P.C.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2012, 07:10:10 PM
Shooting towards husband and her two children sounds rather bad and SYG a rather desperate defense.  Maybe a plea bargain was involved here?
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: JDN on May 11, 2012, 08:13:51 PM
Corey (the Prosecutor) said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

The jury was out 12 minutes.  She went BACK into the house and shot the gun.  That is NOT stand your ground.  There is no excuse to go back into the house.  That said, no one was harmed.  It's also family.

I think the penalty is  absolutely terrible.  However the Judge had no discretion.  Plus the Prosecutor was quite aggressive; she's good; she won.  Interesting, it is the same Prosecutor in the Zimmerman case.

Odd, Congresswoman Brown who vehemently complained about the Prosecutor in this case, however, "Brown has been more complimentary about Corey's work in the Trayvon Martin case, where her office filed second degree murder charges against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February 26 death of the unarmed African-American teen-ager."  Politics?

Again, I don't know the "facts" of that case either.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=ju_c2
Title: Busted nose, bruised knuckles, broken narrative
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2012, 10:22:50 PM


http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/broken-nose-broken-narrative/
Title: Petition to FL Gov. Scott
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2012, 10:33:11 AM


http://www.nagr.org/RickScottPetition.aspx?pid=ND517
Title: POTH follow up on Martin-Zimmerman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2012, 01:04:02 PM
Its POTH, so caveat lector:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120517

SANFORD, Fla. — The killing of Trayvon Martin here two and a half months ago has been cast as the latest test of race relations and equal justice in America. But it was also a test of a small city police department that does not even have a homicide unit and typically deals with three or four murder cases a year.
An examination of the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the case shows a series of missteps — including sloppy work — and circumstances beyond its control that impeded the investigation and may make it harder to pursue a case that is already difficult enough.
The national furor has subsided for the moment. But as the second-degree murder case against the defendant, George Zimmerman, moves from the glare of a public spectacle to the grinding procedures of the court system and eventual trial, the department’s performance, roundly criticized by Mr. Martin’s family as bungling and biased, will be scrutinized once again, though in more meticulous detail.
With doubts shadowing the quality and scope of the police work, the prosecution and the defense will be left to tackle critical questions even as they debate the evidence. And ultimately, what happened on the rainy night of Feb. 26 may come to rest on the word of one man, George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who fired the fatal shot.
In interviews over several weeks, law enforcement authorities, witnesses and local elected officials identified problems with the initial investigation:
¶ On the night of the shooting, door-to-door canvassing was not exhaustive enough, said a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation. If officers had been more thorough, they might have determined that Mr. Martin, 17, was a guest — as opposed to an intruder — at a gated community called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. That would have been an important part of the subjective analysis that night by officers sizing up Mr. Zimmerman’s story. Investigators found no witnesses who saw the fight start. Others saw parts of a struggle they could not clearly observe or hear. One witness, though, provided information to the police that corroborated Mr. Zimmerman’s account of the struggle, according to a law enforcement official.
¶ The police took only one photo at the scene of any of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries — a full-face picture of him that showed a bloodied nose — before paramedics tended to him. It was shot on a department cellphone camera and was not downloaded for a few days, an oversight by the officer who took it.
¶ The vehicle that Mr. Zimmerman was driving when he first spotted Mr. Martin was mistakenly not secured by officers as part of the crime scene. The vehicle was an important link in the fatal encounter because it was where Mr. Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious teenager in a hooded sweatshirt roaming through the Retreat. Mr. Zimmerman also said he was walking back to the vehicle when he was confronted by Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, before shooting him.
¶ The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away.
¶ The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle.
Some Sanford officers were skeptical from the beginning about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him over and over again, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed he received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin uttered during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded contrived.
The Sanford police — who contended that their 16-day investigation, done in consultation with the original prosecutor in the case, was detailed and impartial — also encountered other obstacles. One involved the investigators’ inability to get the password for Mr. Martin’s cellphone from his family, who apparently did not know it. That was significant because Mr. Martin had been talking to a girl on the phone moments before he was killed, but the young woman did not contact the police after Mr. Martin’s death was made public.
From what is known of the investigation and the available evidence, what exactly happened in the dimly lighted residential development that Sunday night may remain out of reach. Given Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion that he was acting in self-defense, and lacking enough evidence to the contrary, the original prosecutor in the case, Norm Wolfinger, whose jurisdiction includes Sanford, filed no charges against him.
That decision resulted in an increasingly strident public outcry. After Gov. Rick Scott of Florida contacted Mr. Wolfinger and had a conversation with him in late March, the prosecutor recused himself, citing, among other things, an unspecified conflict of interest.
The governor selected another state attorney to handle the case, Angela B. Corey of the Jacksonville area. On April 11, after nearly three weeks of investigation, Ms. Corey charged Mr. Zimmerman with second-degree murder. An accompanying affidavit said that Mr. Zimmerman had “profiled” Mr. Martin, who was black, and had assumed he was a criminal. Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Ms. Corey declined to be interviewed, as did Mr. Wolfinger. Governor Scott also declined several requests for an interview about how and why he selected Ms. Corey for the case.
In announcing the charge, Ms. Corey praised the Sanford Police Department’s work, indicating that it had conducted a “thorough and intensive” inquiry and was a “tremendous help” to her office.
Eight Minutes
What appears unchanged since the beginning, however, is that investigators say they do not know who started the fight. Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which has come to shadow a number of homicide cases since it was adopted in 2005, justifies the use of deadly force in certain threatening situations but does not require a person to retreat. The law became the framework within which the police and prosecutors had to work after Mr. Zimmerman claimed that Mr. Martin confronted and pounced on him.
Mr. Zimmerman had called the police from his vehicle to report what he believed was a suspicious person in the Retreat, something he had done numerous times in the past. He later told investigators that he got out of his vehicle and followed Mr. Martin but lost sight of him. As Mr. Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, he told them, Mr. Martin emerged and then attacked him. Mr. Zimmerman told investigators that at one point, Mr. Martin had his hand over his mouth. And before he shot the youth, he explained to the police, Mr. Martin had reached for Mr. Zimmerman’s gun.
“There is a perception that we were trying to protect George Zimmerman,” the Sanford police chief, Bill Lee Jr., who temporarily stepped aside in March to quell the furor and later offered to resign, said in a recent interview. “We think that what he did was terrible. We wish that he had just stayed in his vehicle.”
“There was no bias in the investigation. We did not lean one way or another. We were looking for the truth,” he said.
Chief Lee declined to discuss specifics about the case, but he added, “I have been frustrated by the negative attention the police and the city have received that does not accurately reflect who we are and what we have done in this investigation.”At 7:09 p.m., Mr. Zimmerman, who was driving to a Target store, made his call to a police dispatcher.
Within eight minutes, Mr. Martin was dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, his body crumpled on a stretch of grass behind a row of town houses. When the first officer arrived at 7:17, Mr. Zimmerman was waiting not far from the body. He raised his hands in surrender before relinquishing his 9-millimeter pistol from the holster in his waistband.
He was handcuffed and taken into “investigative detention” at Sanford police headquarters, where he was read his Miranda rights and answered questions without a lawyer present. Investigators described him as unhesitatingly cooperative. At some point, Mr. Zimmerman provided the police with a permit allowing him to carry a concealed weapon. His clothes were taken into evidence after his wife came to the station with a new set.


CONT.
Title: Amazing how different this is from POTH article
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2012, 04:53:16 PM
second post of day

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852
Title: Dershowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2012, 07:15:27 AM
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/18/new-evidence-is-consistent-with-george-zimmerman%E2%80%99s-self-defense-claim/
 
New Evidence is Consistent with George Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim
May 18, 2012 2:12 pm
Author:
 Alan Dershowitz
 
George Zimmerman. Photo: wiki commons.
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. Moreover, the New York Times has reported that traces of marijuana were found in Trayvon Martin’s body and that Martin’s father initially said that the voice crying for help was not that of his son. It is also been reported that a bruise was found on Martin’s ring finger that would be consistent with Martin having punched Zimmerman. No other wounds, aside of course from the fatal bullet hole in the front of Martin’s body, were found.
If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical and forensic evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.
You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.
As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”
But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.
Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:
“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”
The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”
Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.
Speaking of doing their job, the New York Times’ “reporting” on the case has been generally biased against Zimmerman. It has suggested that if the police had done their job properly the evidence would point to Zimmerman’s guilt. Moreover, it included in its reporting an inflammatory item of uncorroborated gossip. This is what it said:
“The reports may give rise to other mysteries as well, including the identity of a woman who called another investigator, less than two full days after the shooting.
The woman refused to identify herself or give any callback numbers, but told the investigator that Mr. Zimmerman “has racist ideologies and that he is fully capable of instigating a confrontation that could have escalated to the point of Zimmerman having to use deadly force.”
I think the New York Times should ask itself whether it would have published the contents of a phone call from an unidentified person that made similar inflammatory charges against Trayvon Martin. I believe that the publication of such unsourced gossip—which would be totally inadmissible in any trial—violates the New York Times’ own policies. It has some explaining to do.
Title: Punched to Death
Post by: bigdog on May 21, 2012, 03:16:23 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/george_zimmerman_claims_he_was_fighting_for_his_life_how_deadly_is_an_unarmed_teenager_.html


How easy is it to kill a man in a fistfight?
 
It happens more than twice a day, on average. Fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders in 2010, or 5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
That is some interesting data there BD.

I would add that being all alone means that "losing" utterly leaves one at the mercy of the winner-- there are no bystanders to say "That's enough!"
Title: Martin participated in underground fight club
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2012, 10:23:33 AM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/youtube-pulls-video-of-trayvon-martin-at-fight-club-but-they-cant-hide-it-forever-here-it-is-again/
Title: Zimmerman, the most likely story
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2012, 09:16:15 PM


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872
Title: Important SCOTUS decisions: Grahman v. Conner; TE v. Garner
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2012, 03:12:21 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1
Title: Re: Important SCOTUS decisions: Grahman v. Conner; TE v. Garner
Post by: bigdog on May 30, 2012, 04:43:59 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386

See page three and four for some discussion of the Tennesee case: http://law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v01-1/Ziporin-Denv-U-Crim-L-Rev-Spring-2011.pdf
Title: Re: Important SCOTUS decisions: Grahman v. Conner; TE v. Garner
Post by: bigdog on May 30, 2012, 04:46:24 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1

See http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ for some good discussion involving the Graham case. 
Title: I'ld do the same - self defense with good reason
Post by: JDN on June 12, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
A Texas father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter and punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him, authorities said.

The father was casually acquainted with the alleged abuser, said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon.
The girl was left inside the family's house during the social gathering, while other members of her family were tending to horses, the sheriff said.
The alleged abuser was known for his horse-grooming abilities, Harmon said.
The father returned to the house, caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said.
The man was pronounced dead on the scene, while the daughter was taken to a local hospital in Victoria, Texas, for examinations before being released.

The incident took place Saturday.
Harmon described the girl as "OK besides the obvious mental trauma."
Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."
Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.
Authorities were withholding the deceased man's name while they notified next of kin. Officials did not know immediately if he has a prior criminal history.
Lavaca County Precinct Judge Alene Lyons, who is coordinating information in the case including autopsy results, said Monday
that a preliminary autopsy report indicated the victim "died from blunt-force head and neck injuries."
"It will take six weeks to get the full report back because they also did a toxicology report," Lyons said.
Title: Re: Self-Defense Law
Post by: Mick C. on June 14, 2012, 07:40:49 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/13/texas-civil-rights-group-are-we-sure-that-dad-who-beat-his-daughters-molester-to-death-was-engaged-in-self-defense/

Just to show how out-of-touch people can be with reality...

I'd imagine his accuser is probably one of the most disliked men in Texas right now.
Title: No charges for Shiner, Texas dad who beat to death daughter's alleged attacker
Post by: Mick C. on June 19, 2012, 09:58:38 PM
SHINER, TX -- Hearing his 5-year-old daughter crying from behind a barn, a father ran and discovered the unthinkable: A man molesting her. The father pulled the man off his daughter, authorities say, and started pummeling him to death with his fists.

With his daughter finally safe, the father frantically called 911, begging a dispatcher to find his rural ranch and send an ambulance.

"Come on! This guy is going to die on me!" the man is heard screaming on the 911 call. "I don't know what to do!"

A recording of the tape was played during a news conference Tuesday where the Lavaca County district attorney and sheriff announced that the father would not face charges.

In declining to indict the 23-year-old father in the June 9 killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a Lavaca County grand jury reached the same conclusion as investigators and many of the father's neighbors: He was authorized to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

"It's sad a man had to die," said Michael James Veit, 48, who lives across the street from where the attack happened in this small community run on ranching and the Shiner beer brewery. "But I think anybody would have done that."

The family ranch is so remote that on the 911 tape, the father is heard profanely screaming at a dispatcher who couldn't locate the property. At one point, he tells the dispatcher he's going to put the man in his truck and drive him to a hospital.

"He's going to die!" the father screams, swearing at the dispatcher. "He's going to f------ die!"

The tense, nearly five-minute call begins with the father saying he "beat up" a man found raping his daughter. The father grows increasingly frazzled, shouting into the phone so loudly at times that the call often becomes inaudible.

The Associated Press is not identifying the father in order to protect the daughter's identity. The AP generally does not identify victims of sexual assault.

"He's a peaceable soul," V'Anne Huser, the father's attorney, told reporters at the Lavaca County Courthouse. "He had no intention to kill anybody that day."

The attack happened on the family's ranch off a quiet, two-lane county road between the farming towns of Shiner and Yoakum. A statement released by the district attorney said a witness who saw Flores "forcibly carrying" the girl into a secluded area scrambled to find the father. Running toward his daughter's screams, the father pulled Flores off his child and "inflicted several blows to the man's head and neck area," investigators said.

Emergency crews responding to the father's 911 call found Flores' pants and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body. The girl was examined at a hospital, and Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn said forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested.

The father was never arrested, but the killing was investigated as a homicide.

Philip Hilder, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, said he would have been surprised if the grand jury had decided to indict the father. Hilder said Texas law provides several justifications for the use of deadly force, including if someone commits a sexual assault.

"The grand jury was not about to indict this father for protecting his daughter," he said.

Authorities said the family had hired Flores before to help with horses on the ranch. He was not born in the U.S. but was here legally with a green card. Attempts to locate Flores' relatives through public records were unsuccessful.

On Tuesday, a new "No Trespassing" sign was freshly tacked onto a gate barring entrance down a gravelly, shrub-canopied path leading to the barn and chicken coop on the ranch, which belonged to the father's dad.

At the father's house, the front yard could pass for a children's playground: blue pinwheels sunk into patchy grass, an above-ground swimming pool, a swing set, a trampoline and a couple of ropes dangling from a tree for swinging. A partial privacy fence is painted powder blue.

No one answered at the father's home. A few miles away, at a home listed as belonging to the father's sister, a woman shouted through the front door that the family had nothing to say. Huser, the father's attorney, told reporters that neither the father nor anyone else in the family would ever give interviews and asked that they be left alone.

Veit, who lives across the street from the ranch, described the father as easygoing and polite -- down to always first asking permission to search Veit's property for animals that had wandered off the ranch, even though the families have long known each other.

Veit's son was a classmate of the father's at Shiner High School in a graduating class of about two dozen. Veit, 48, said the young father was never known to be in trouble.

"Just like a regular kid, went to dances, drank beer like the rest of the kids around here," Veit said.

Shiner, a town of about 2,000 people about 80 miles east of San Antonio, revolves around the Spoetzl Brewery that makes Shiner, one of the nation's best-selling independent beers. Even gas stations here sell it on tap.

Flores' death is only the sixth homicide the Lavaca County Sheriff's Office has investigated in the last eight years. Shiner residents boast their squeaky-clean image on a highway welcome sign: "The Cleanest Little City in Texas."

At Werner's Restaurant, customer Gail Allen said she didn't want to speak for the whole town, though her comments echoed what others said.

"The father has gone through enough," said Allen, 59, who has nine grandchildren. "The little girl is going to be traumatized for life, and the father, too, for what happened. He was protecting his family. Any parent would do that."

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8707343
Title: Zimmeran-- new evidence removes doubt
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2012, 04:43:44 PM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-zimmerman-evidence-removes-any-doubt/?singlepage=true
Title: Did politics drive prosecution in Trayvon Martin case?
Post by: bigdog on July 04, 2012, 04:04:38 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nejame-angela-corey/index.html

I was unaware of this: "Many in the African-American community in Jacksonville are outraged over Corey's prosecution of an abused black woman who claimed she shot a gun into the air to ward off her abuser. She received a 20-year prison sentence."
Title: Justice and Politicians
Post by: DDF on July 04, 2012, 08:22:47 AM
Politely, I ask; when aren´t politics used to drive prosecutions? I say this because there are several examples of politics and justice tied together, as well as examples of crimes not being prosecuted.
You´re all aware of several examples of both, so no need to beat a dead horse with examples.
To me, I think it a serious flaw to have the justice system and politics tied together.

Edit: I should clarify... I find selective enforcement of the law to be a serious error whenever it is applied, especially in regard to politics. Ity erodes the moral fabric of which the justice system must be comprised.
Title: Hot tip for Renzo Gracie: STFU
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 08, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
http://www.wimsblog.com/2012/09/renzo-gracie-twitter-and-self-defense-a-case-study-of-what-not-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-18722
Title: Re: Hot tip for Renzo Gracie: STFU
Post by: Stickgrappler on September 10, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
http://www.wimsblog.com/2012/09/renzo-gracie-twitter-and-self-defense-a-case-study-of-what-not-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-18722

glad no one was killed. he said he wasn't inebriated, just wonder if he was under any influence, if not i think Renzo's ego got the best of him.
Title: Re: Punched to Death
Post by: Stickgrappler on September 10, 2012, 10:16:55 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/george_zimmerman_claims_he_was_fighting_for_his_life_how_deadly_is_an_unarmed_teenager_.html


How easy is it to kill a man in a fistfight?
 
It happens more than twice a day, on average. Fists and feet were responsible for 745 murders in 2010, or 5.7 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI statistics. (The data on this have been remarkably stable in recent years. In the five preceding years, the percentage of murders perpetrated by fists or feet fluctuated between 5.6 and 6.1.) It doesn’t even take an experienced brawler to punch someone to death: An 11-year-old California girl appears to have killed a classmate with her bare hands in a February fistfight



Woof bigdog,

belated thanks for posting that link and stats!

~sg
Title: Law suit between two schools. $7.7 million judgement
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
http://ussd.com/jury-awards-7-7-million-to-united-studios-of-self-defense-in-lawsuit-against-z-ultimate/
Title: UT case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 09, 2013, 08:00:18 AM


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/08/we-have-the-right-to-defend-ourselves-community-rallies-around-utah-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/

By they way, note that the attorney, Mitch Vilos, is the author of the "SD Law of the 50 States" book that we sell here.
Title: VP Biden advises wife to break DE law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 21, 2013, 10:54:41 AM


http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/21/gun-expert-joe-biden-advises-his-wife-to
Title: Re: VP Biden advises wife to break DE law
Post by: G M on February 21, 2013, 11:10:11 AM


http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/21/gun-expert-joe-biden-advises-his-wife-to

Anyone who listens to Biden about anything is setting themselves up for trouble.
Title: Heartbeat away from the presidency
Post by: G M on February 27, 2013, 06:21:27 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/more-self-defense-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

More self-defense advice from Joe Biden: “Just fire the shotgun through the door”


posted at 8:41 pm on February 27, 2013 by Erika Johnsen






Because the advice he offered last week to simply “fire two blasts” outside the house wasn’t recklessly bogus enough, here’s the vice president expounding even further on his recommendations for in-home self-defense in an in-depth interview with Field & Stream on Monday (h/t Washington Examiner):
 

F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
 
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
 
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
 
Honesty, did no one bother to inform the vice president, after his first round of similarly awful advice, that just blasting away on the back porch will 1) reveal your position, 2) leave you effectively disarmed, and 3) possibly get you into some legal trouble?
 
Personal anecdote, as a young woman of the sort at which the vice president heartily chuckled last week: I’m fairly handy with a twelve gauge, if I do say so myself — I’ve been using them for years on family shooting expeditions, so I’ve had plenty of practice time to get comfortable with them. Just this past Christmas, however, I had my first opportunity to try out an AR-15, and not knowing what to expect, I firmly nestled the ‘assault weapon’ into my shoulder, braced for impact, and… there was virtually no kick. Effortlessly accurate at both short and long distances, and easy to operate, too.
 
I would never argue that a shotgun is a good option for home defense and deterrence (especially those singularly musical sounds of a ready-to-go pump-action) in the case that a single intruder is bearing down on you, since it doesn’t take much precision at close range… but you better not miss. Tradeoffs, people.
 
And just firing the shotgun out the door when you think people might be looking to enter your home? …So much for “gun safety” advocacy.


G M: The myth that "you can't miss with a shotgun" is very common and very wrong. There are many factors involved in the patterning of individual shotguns, including ammo selection, chokes and bore size. As a less than perfect rule, you can expect that shot will spread one inch in diameter for every yard it travels from the muzzle of the shotgun. So, at 9 feet, the shot will have roughly expanded three inches in diameter. Can that miss an assailant? You better believe it!
Title: Virginia Man Arrested After Following Biden’s Advice
Post by: G M on March 01, 2013, 08:44:43 AM
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/virginia-man-arrested-after-following-bidens-advice/

Virginia Man Arrested After Following Biden’s Advice


Posted by Jammie on Mar 01, 2013 at 7:58 am





We recommend this man call the idiot Biden as a defense witness.
 

Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
 
Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.
 
Local TV station WAVY 10 reports that the man observed two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. The men allegedly had weapons and told him to close his bedroom door. He stepped outside of his bedroom and did as instructed, then fired his shotgun through the closed door and then several more times at the window.
 
According to the news report there were no injuries and the suspects were not apprehended by police.
 
Biden’s comments to Field & Stream came as he summarized a hypothetical question in which someone from California pondered “when the end days come” or if there’s an earthquake.
 
Earlier this month, Biden told an interviewer that he had advised his wife, Jill, “if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”
 
According to Delaware attorneys contacted by U.S. News, in Biden’s home state it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. Shooting a gun in the air could result in felony reckless endangering and aggravated menacing charges, in addition to misdemeanor charges, the lawyers said.
Title: Student disarms gunman, gets suspended
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: bigdog on March 02, 2013, 07:06:03 PM
Nonsensical.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2013, 08:53:22 PM
The more paranoid amongst us see this in quite a contrary manner.  There is no good faith interpretation to this.  It is part of an ongoing and very purposeful effort to turn the American people into sheeple.
Title: State's main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied
Post by: bigdog on March 10, 2013, 04:11:29 AM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-05/news/os-zimmerman-witness-8-medical-records-20130305_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-bernie-de-la-rionda

From the article:

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position
Title: Brave mall security guard arrested
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2013, 10:13:17 PM


http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/update-mall-security-guard-darien-long-has-been-arrested
Title: 80 yr. old homeowner arrested after shooting burglar, then charges dropped.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2013, 07:27:16 AM
80-year-old Homeowner Arrested After Shooting Burglar
Mar 28, 2012
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/80-year-old-homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-burglar.html

An 80-year-old Army veteran was arrested after he shot a burglar who had broken into his Chicago-area home.  Police have charged Homer Wright with one felony count of unlawful gun use. They charged the man who broke into Wright’s home, 19-year-old Anthony Robinson with felony burglary.
 
Wright, who owns a pub in Englewood, called his arrest “unjust.”
 
“I think it’s wrong and it’s unjust that I can’t protect me and my whatever, and that’s wrong,” Wright told The Chicago Sun-Times.
 
Police said Wright was arrested because he had two previous weapons convictions – in 1968 and 1994.
 
Wright told the Chicago Tribune that he was awakened. by his wife – who heard a noise. Wright found Robinson inside the house trying to steal liquor. So he grabbed a pistol and shot the burglar once in the leg.  Court records indicate the suspect had been arrested at least 13 times since 2009, the Sun-Times reported.
 
Wright’s arrest has infuriated his family and his neighborhood, many of whom called the elderly man a pillar in the community.
 
“If a man can’t defend himself from harm, what can he do,” Daryl Smith, a tow truck owner told the Chicago Tribune. “We’re outraged as a community and we’re calling for the state’s attorney’s office to drop the charges. This man has done nothing wrong.”
 
18th Ward Committeeman William Delay said Wright was just trying to protect his home – and besides – he didn’t kill the burglar.
 
“He only maimed this guy yet he has been arrested and is sitting in jail,” Delay told the Sun-Times. “Where is the justice in that?”
 
Wright was released on his own recognizance.
 
His grandson, Courtney Cook, had some advice for the burglar.
 
“If you want to rob somebody, you got to face the consequences,” he told the Sun-Times.
===========================
Charges dropped:

April 2, 2012 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- The Chicago homeowner charged after he shot an intruder no longer faces those charges.

Homer Wright was charged with unlawful use of a weapon because he was convicted in the past of weapons charges and wasn't allowed to own a gun.   Now, prosecutors are dismissing the charge, but did not say why during a court hearing Monday morning.

Wright shot a 19-year-old burglar in the leg after he says the suspect broke into his Chicago home last week.   Police arrested the 19-year-old but also arrested Wright when they found out about his previous conviction.   Wright was arrested and charged after the shooting at his Englewood home, which is also his place of business.

Wright was released on an I-bond.

"The judge seen it himself, an old man protecting his family and his home," said Homer Wright's grandson Courtney Cook. "An 81-year-old man is protecting himself and his family. Is he supposed to be the victim?"

Some Englewood community residents are upset that Wright was arrested for allegedly shooting 19-year-old Anthony Robinson.

Police say Robinson broke into Wright's home situated behind the tavern he owns.

"Where in America can you not defend yourself?" said Darryl Smith of the Englewood Political Task Force. "And because you have a felony is your life less valuable than any other person? Had he not had a gun, we would be here for another reason, because he was beaten to death."

"If they come into your house, whether you are a convicted felon or not, you are going to protect yourself and your family," said 18th Ward Committeeman William Delay.

Wright has two felony convictions on his record dating back almost 20 years.

"He has a right to defend himself," said Richard Kling, clinical professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. "Had he not been a convicted felon, he would have the right to shoot the person dead. His problem is not the shooting but that he possessed a gun, which he was not allowed to do because of a prior record... He certainly could have used a knife. If he had used a knife there would have been no charges."


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8604705
Title: George Zimmerman Waives Right To 'Stand Your Ground' Hearing
Post by: bigdog on May 04, 2013, 06:30:16 PM
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/180116799/george-zimmerman-waives-right-to-stand-your-ground-hearing
Title: VP Biden advocates gun felony
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2013, 03:34:23 PM
A couple of months old, but for the record, here it is:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
Title: Judge reduces sentence; interesting facts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2013, 09:32:59 PM


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-murder-verdict-reduced-20130520,0,6854907.story
Title: Arrested for warning shot and gun confiscated
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/
Title: Re: Arrested for warning shot and gun confiscated
Post by: G M on May 30, 2013, 05:35:35 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/

I disagree with the charges, but warning shots are a bad idea.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2013, 03:59:01 PM
You are a thoughtful man GM, especially with regard to this sort of issue.  Care to flesh that out?
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: G M on May 31, 2013, 01:13:05 PM
You are a thoughtful man GM, especially with regard to this sort of issue.  Care to flesh that out?

If you ever press a trigger outside of a shooting range, it had better be because "I had no other choice at that moment".

In a gunfight, time and ammo are precious, especially time. If you have time to fire a "warning shot", you have time to move to cover, you have time to communicate, you have time to plan.

You are legally and morally responsible for every bullet that leaves a firearm in your possession. Bullets ricochet and still have plenty of mass and energy to maim or kill.

Outside of prisons, law enforcement ended the practice of "warning shots" decades ago for the above reasons.
Title: Common mistakes in self-defense shootings
Post by: G M on May 31, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/specials/2013concealed_story.html?id=227425

Common mistakes in self-defense shootings

Seen here, pointing a gun at someone, absent the justification to do so, is the crime of aggravated assault. Do you know when it is justified to point a gun at someone? If not, you need to do your homework.
One of my favorite sayings is "he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." It happens all the time in the real world of self-defense, where an otherwise legitimate act of self defense is clouded by mistakes the defender made either before, during, or after the act of self defense. Sometimes the error can be corrected at trial, but many times it can't. In studying and working on self-defense cases over the years, I have seen a few common themes which can turn a justified shooting into a crime, at least in the minds of the jury.


Chemicals

The very first way to get you arrested and prosecuted for what would be an otherwise legitimate use of force is to use a gun while intoxicated, or even after a couple of drinks. Being under the influence opens a wide door for the prosecution, wide enough to convict you. Juries do not like drunks. They really do not like drunks who are handling guns. And they really, really do not like drunks who use deadly force, then claim self-defense.

I have worked on several cases where the armed citizen had been drinking, and in all cases, the drinking played a major part of the prosecution's theory of the case. Even when the level of intoxication was minor, below the legal limit, the issue is brought up by the prosecution. Sometimes it is the only negative issue in the case, so instead of attempting to defeat the self-defense claim, the prosecution claims he was intoxicated (even if he wasn't). Of course, they likely cannot link the intoxication to any wrongdoing regarding use of deadly force, but they use it to smear the good name and reputation of the armed citizen. Juries will likely see through that, but why take that risk?


Training

Secondly, can you document your training? You do have training in use of deadly force in self-defense don't you? Society demands (through court cases involving police use of force) that officers must receive competent, relevant and up to date training in the use of deadly force in order to avoid a negative outcome in a "failure to train" lawsuit. You see, people can and do make mistakes. But, society and the courts will often times forgive a mistake made in good faith, but will likely punish the individual if the mistake was made through lack of training and/or education.


Much less aggressive, but still the crime of brandishing unless you have the right to display the gun in your hand in public.
I believe it will only be a matter of time before this same philosophy becomes a standard in the world of the armed citizen. Take it from a guy who has trained over 15,000 people in the use of deadly force in self defense. You want that training under your belt and you want it documented. Having deadly force training can be brought up on your behalf at trial, if it can be reasonably shown that you had the training, and relied upon the training in your decision making process. Opening that door at trial means that you can likely bring in your instructor or instructors to discuss the training you received, which by extension means you get to educate the jury as to what you knew at the time of the incident. Failure to have this training and failure to document it means you go it alone at trial. Because I teach firearms for a living, I have an extensive training resume, and I know that I can call upon any of my instructors to come to court for me and discuss the material they taught. It's like walking around with the "A-team" of firearms instructors in my pocket for back-up, only they shoot better!


Gunpoint

Another common theme in self-defense prosecutions is when a person commits an aggravated assault (pointing a gun at another person but not being justified to do so).

There is a distinction between drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack, and drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack and pointing it at them. The distinction is often up to 10 years in prison for the latter, if convicted of aggravated assault, (a felony) compared to a year in jail for the misdemeanor crime of brandishing. Additionally, if the armed citizen has a clean record, he can often plea bargain the brandishing charge to a deferred prosecution, (resulting in no criminal conviction and restoration of his gun rights). If an aggravated assault is plea bargained, it is often times to a lessor felony conviction, and loss of gun rights.


Hand on gun, in bladed position will likely not get you arrested but this position, coupled with the command to "stay back," will likely communicate the message effectively. And you are just a moment away from drawing if necessary.
But, why does a person get into this trouble in the first place? Likely it is a combination of failure to know the law regarding when you can display a gun as a warning, combined with lack of confidence in your skill to use a gun for self-defense. Both these conditions can be addressed with professional training. And, compounding the problem is often times the armed citizen doesn't think the incident was important enough to call the cops, and when police do show up to investigate the "man with a gun" call, the armed citizen is hard-pressed to convince the police that HE was the victim, not the individual or individuals who claim you pointed a gun at them and threatened to shoot them.

My advice is to avoid drawing the gun unless you absolutely need to do so, avoid pointing the gun at anyone unless you absolutely need to do so, and then call the police to report the criminal activity which caused you to draw the gun. If you cannot articulate criminal activity on the part of the aggressive parties, don't draw the gun.

An alternative to drawing the gun at all is simply to take a bladed stance, with gun side away from the potential attacker or attackers, and place your hand on the gun underneath your concealment garment, with a warning to back off. Your resolve to use deadly force if necessary is communicated, but there is no exposure of the gun.

We are also seeing more and more incidents of persons chasing after others who were burglarizing their house, or perhaps trying to steal your car or other property, and then shooting the individuals while they're attempting to get away, seem to be increasing. Typically, when the incident is dissected, the armed citizen had the right to threaten deadly force to stop the crime, but when the individual turns to run (or drives away in your SUV) you are going to be hard pressed to justify shooting. But it happens anyway. Society has no problem with armed citizens who use deadly force to protect life, but juries typically have a tough time justifying killing someone to stop a property crime.



Post Shooting Procedures

Lastly, the way a person who has used deadly force in self-defense interacts with the police after the incident can also land him or her in jail. This is one of the most commonly discussed issues in the world of self-defense. Do you talk to the police after a shooting incident, or to you demand to talk to an attorney before answering the cop's questions? There are pros and cons to each side of the argument.

Let me explain. Those people who believe that the armed citizen should say nothing to the police primarily come from the defense attorney side of the argument. Most criminal defense attorneys spend a great deal of their professional time trying to mitigate statements their clients made to the police. If I were a criminal defense attorney who spent all his working time trying to explain to juries why his client told police an incriminating story, I would likely feel the same way. But remember, the vast majority of criminal defendants are actually guilty of criminal conduct. So whatever they would tell the police is either confessional in nature or false. In either case, the statements do not help the defendant.

One thing to understand is that if you clam up and refuse to talk to the police, you very likely will be arrested. You see you purposely killed someone and absent evidence of justification, you have committed the crime of murder.

The other side of the argument comes from the professional firearms instructor cadre, with people like Massad Ayoob, John Farnam and others explaining that you, the victim of a criminal assault, need to let the police know what was happening that caused you to fear for your life. 1) You were the person attacked. 2) You will sign the complaint against the individual, or be a witness at trial (depending on the jurisdiction you are in). 3) There were witnesses to the incident, and telling the police who those witnesses are. 4) There is evidence of that criminal attack, and pointing that out to the officers. And lastly, 5) you recognize the seriousness of this incident, and would like legal representation before you give a formal statement to the police.

Taking this approach will not guarantee protection from criminal prosecution but at least you got your side of the story out to the police first. Assuming you tell the truth, that story will likely be given at trial too and your consistent statements will absolutely help your defense. And, by pointing out the evidence of the crime being committed against you, the police have an alternative crime to investigate.

Let's look at legal representation. What you say or don't say will both be used by the police to make a judgment call regarding whether not they will arrest you for a crime. The few critical minutes after an incident is not the time for you to start thinking about how you are going to handle this critical part of your self-defense incident.

Thumbing through the yellow pages to look for a self-defense attorney while sitting in police lock-up is a pretty poor legal defense plan. People spend hours and hours trying to decide what type of gun to carry or what bullets to use but ignore this important part of their response to criminal attack. Having an attorney to call after a self-defense incident is vitally important to your overall self-defense plan.

 
-- Photos and text by Marty Hayes, J.D.

Marty Hayes is the President and founder of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network Inc. , and, in his capacity as an expert witness, has worked on dozens of murder and assault cases over the years.
Title: The Backwards Trial: A George Zimmerman Prosecution Primer
Post by: G M on June 24, 2013, 05:20:02 PM

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/?singlepage=true

The Backwards Trial: A George Zimmerman Prosecution Primer

The bizarre trial, in which the prosecution must impeach the police investigation, begins.


by
Mike McDaniel



With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is remarkably backwards. The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.
 
With that in mind, a primer about what to expect may be useful.

 


The “Scheme Team”: Attorneys Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, and Daryl Parks are not only closely aligned with the prosecution, but they have already negotiated one civil settlement with the insurance company representing the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the neighborhood where George Zimmerman lived and served as Neighborhood Watch captain. Crump has been instrumental in engaging the full might of prominent racial-grievance figures, and arguably caused Florida Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint Special Prosecutor Angela Corey to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder. Crump was also pivotal in encouraging the FBI to investigate Zimmerman for hate crime or civil rights violations.
 
It was Crump who apparently discovered Witness Eight, “Dee Dee,” Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Martin before he was shot. Crump conducted an interview with her with ABC’s Matt Gutman present, and claimed that her testimony would obliterate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. His claim would influence the prosecution to charge Zimmerman. He eventually arranged an interview with Dee Dee with deputy prosecutor Bernard0 de la Rionda. Not only was the “Scheme Team” present at that interview, but Martin’s mother was seated next to Dee Dee, an almost unimaginable violation of interview protocol.
 
The Scheme Team represents Trayvon Martin’s parents, ”those sweet parents” as Corey called them at her press conference in the style of a political victory rally announcing Zimmerman’s arrest. For the time being, they have contented themselves with conducting daily press conferences in the courtroom, but if the trial should not go their way, expect them to further inflame racial tensions.
 
The Prosecution: Without conducting any new investigation, Corey’s office produced an affidavit that not only failed to produce any probable cause that Zimmerman violated any of the three essential elements of the offense. It was also factually incorrect and withheld vital information of Zimmerman’s innocence. Any attorney or police officer filing an affidavit promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This one, filed by special prosecutor investigators T.C. O’Steen and Dale Gilbreath at the direction of de la Rionda and on behalf of Corey, fell far short of the most minimal requirements of the law. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and commentator Mark Levin, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, and other notables took it to task in the harshest terms.
 
In response, an enraged Corey called the dean of Harvard Law School and, speaking with a representative of the Office of Communications, ranted about Dershowitz for 40 minutes and threatened to sue him and Harvard. Harvard was apparently unimpressed; Dershowitz still teaches there.
 
Bernie de la Rionda has taken the lead in handling the case. De la Rionda learned no later than August 2, 2012, that Dee Dee committed perjury but, despite multiple requests from the defense over many months, withheld that information until the evening of March 4, 2013, only hours before the matter would be heard in court and he would be forced to divulge the information.
 
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry, and unprofessional response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: “I forgot about it.” Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot — for seven months — that his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions despite de la Rionda’s admission.
 
Another example of de la Rionda’s malfeasance is his withholding — for many months — of digital color photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries taken immediately after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. It’s easy to see why de la Rionda would not want the defense to have those photos — they clearly depict Zimmerman’s badly broken and bleeding nose, and his bruised, lacerated, and bloody face, as well as multiple bloody cuts on the back of his head.
 
Recently, the IT director for the special prosecutor’s office blew the whistle on de la Rionda’s hiding of evidence from Martin’s cell phone, including photos of stolen jewelry, an image of Martin blowing what appears to be marijuana smoke, and an image of what appears to be Martin holding a handgun.  Discovered in early January 2013, much of that and other evidence was not turned over to the defense until June.
 
The Defense: Mark O’Mara and Donald West are experienced attorneys who have demonstrated professionalism up until this point in the trial. Normally, it is the defense that tries its case in the court of public opinion, yet in this case it has been the prosecution relying on public opinion and political support to sustain their case.
 
The Media: The media wasted no time in working with the Scheme Team — their narrative was quickly born and disseminated: Trayvon Martin, 17, was actually a small, slight, innocent scholar with a bright future. On February 26, he was temporarily living with his father in Sanford and walked to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he bought iced tea and Skittles for his little brother. On the way home, he was spotted by Zimmerman, a huge, hulking “white-Hispanic” many times his size who “profiled” Martin and ruthlessly ran him down as Martin fled in fright, desperately trying to reach the safety of his temporary residence.  Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was black and wearing a hoodie, and brutally murdered him without provocation.
 
For the media, the Zimmerman case fit well with their preferred narrative lines, and they embraced it fully as a too-good-to-check case. However, their bias and lack of professional skepticism quickly blew back at them.
 
NBC was caught doctoring the call Zimmerman made to the Sanford Police to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist (a civil suit against NBC is on temporary hold during the criminal trial). CNN’s attempt to brand Zimmerman a racist by claiming he called Martin a “coon” during the same phone call also fell flat, and CNN had to retract their story (Zimmerman said that it was “cold”). ABC’s Matt Gutman, who worked closely with Crump, filed a variety of stories, including a story about Zimmerman walking in the halls of the Sanford Police Department without handcuffs. Gutman failed to inform readers that, at the time, Zimmerman was fully cooperating with the Sanford Police and was not under arrest, and like any citizen could enter and walk in the public access halls of any government building.
 
ABC also provided grainy police surveillance photos purporting to show that Zimmerman suffered no injuries. Clear and unmistakable photos of Zimmerman’s injuries forced them to retract that story as well.
 
Dee Dee: The young woman known as Dee Dee was represented by Crump and de la Rionda to the court to be a juvenile — a ploy to keep her identity hidden under juvenile privacy laws. However, it was eventually revealed that she was 18 when interviewed by de la Rionda on April 12, 2012. That interview revealed that Dee Dee did not have information that contradicted Zimmerman’s self-defense account, and that she would be a terrible witness. De la Rionda’s questioning of her was inept and appeared to indicate that he had tampered with her testimony, which in many respects made no sense. Dee Dee, by her own admission, knew Martin for many years and would know his habits, his social media posts, and have intimate knowledge of his criminal activities. These are absolutely not things the prosecution would want a jury to hear, yet putting her on the stand would open the door to that, as well as to her perjury regarding her age and her lie that she was so distraught by Martin’s death that she was hospitalized and could not attend his funeral.
 
The Facts: Normally, the prosecution is the natural ally of the police. Using their investigation — the facts — prosecutors are able to establish all of the elements of the offense and win a conviction. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution must ignore, try to explain away, or try to construct reasonable doubt about the case of the police — a bizarre state of affairs.
 
The Sanford Police Department conducted an unbiased and competent investigation, and the local prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, declined to press charges because all of the evidence supported Zimmerman’s self-defense claim under Florida law, and none contradicted it. Prosecutor investigator Dale Gilbreath admitted this on April 20, 2012.
 
However, that investigation and its results did not fit the narrative, and so Corey was tasked not with doing justice, but with charging and convicting Zimmerman regardless of the evidence. Corey’s office has never produced the slightest evidence proving that the Sanford Police failed in their duty or exhibited racial bias.
 
That being the case, what are the grounds for charging Zimmerman with any crime?
 
The facts of the case are simple. On a cold, rainy evening, George Zimmerman was leaving his neighborhood to shop for groceries when he spotted Trayvon Martin in the gated neighborhood, a neighborhood that had recently been plagued by thefts and burglaries, most committed by young black men. He did not recognize him as a resident. Because Martin was wearing a hoodie, Zimmerman only became aware of his race later when Martin approached his vehicle, and only mentioned his race in response to a dispatcher’s question.
 
Martin appeared to be under the influence of drugs to Zimmerman, and rather than walking with purpose to get out of the rain, Martin appeared to be casing the area. Zimmerman didn’t know it at the time, but Martin was under the influence of marijuana — it would be found in his blood.  Zimmerman called the police and asked for officers to speak with Martin to see who he was and what he was doing, and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep telling him what Martin was doing.
 
After approaching Zimmerman and circling his vehicle menacingly, Martin ran off between two long rows of homes. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running, and tried to get to a position where he could see Martin to direct the police he believed to be on the way and due to arrive at any minute. By the time he was able to leave his vehicle, Martin was long gone, and Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost him and was returning to his vehicle to meet the officers.
 
Zimmerman hung up, and within seconds was approached by Martin, who punched Zimmerman in the nose and took him to the ground. Martin repeatedly pounded his head into the concrete sidewalk while Zimmerman screamed for help. This was seen and heard by multiple witnesses, and recorded – poorly — by the police as a witness called 911.
 
Stunned, helpless, and afraid for his life, Zimmerman drew his 9mm handgun and fired one round into Martin’s torso at near-muzzle contact range. Martin sat up and Zimmerman was able to get away from him.
 
The police arrived within seconds and Zimmerman cooperated fully with them. Their photographs, observations, and collected evidence — recorded in their reports — fully supported Zimmerman’s account.  Zimmerman continued to fully cooperate with the police, including taking and passing two-voice stress tests (a sort of lie detector), and participating in a videotaped walkthrough of the events of that night with them.
 
There is no question that if Martin wanted to be in his temporary home, out of the rain and out of sight of Zimmerman, he had more than enough time. However, he chose to hide and lay in wait for Zimmerman, a man who thought he had lost track of Martin. Martin was not a slight child, but a lean and muscular 5’11” and 158 pounds — substantially taller than Zimmerman.
 
But why would a young man like Martin attack Zimmerman? Martin was a teenager on a fast track to trouble. His social media presence shows a young man immersed in thug culture. He tried to obtain guns, and often wrote about drug use, which explains the narrative’s constant repetition that Martin was carrying tea and skittles when shot. He was not. He was carrying a watermelon-flavored drink and Skittles, two of the three ingredients, along with Robitussin cough syrup, of a drug concoction know as “Lean” or “Purple Drank.”  Martin often wrote about using that concoction, and about smoking “blunts,” hollowed-out cheap cigars filled with marijuana. There is evidence that Martin bought a blunt at the 7-Eleven he visited about 45 minutes before his attack on Zimmerman. Martin was caught at school with stolen property — women’s jewelry — and had been suspended from school multiple times. The most recent suspension of ten days put Martin with his father in Sanford.
 
As for Zimmerman’s racism, the FBI’s investigation not only found no evidence of racism, but quite the opposite. When a relative of a Sanford Police officer beat a black homeless man, his tireless advocate was none other than George Zimmerman.
 
Judge Nelson: Judge Debra Nelson replaced the earlier judge, removed for obvious bias against Zimmerman. Judge Nelson would quickly prove herself no slouch at anti-Zimmerman bias. Her rulings have unmistakably favored the prosecution. Among the most egregious example of that bias has been her treatment of Crump.
 
Nelson initially allowed O’Mara to depose Crump, but before the deposition could be done, Crump submitted an affidavit instead, and Nelson accepted it over O’Mara’s objections and canceled the deposition. O’Mara was soon able to provide evidence that Crump was untruthful in the affidavit, but Nelson would not allow a deposition. O’Mara filed a motion with a higher court that overturned Nelson’s decision. Unfortunately, this occurred so late in the process that Crump has not yet been deposed and likely will not be before the trial begins.
 
Nelson has refused to rule on the multiple motions for sanctions against de la Rionda, saying only that she’ll handle them after the trial. This of course gives the prosecution the ability to continue to withhold discovery.
 
Nelson’s rulings, on balance, have hampered the defense and assisted the prosecution, and she shows no tendency toward balance as the case goes to trial.
 
What To Expect: As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.
 
Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.
 
Do not expect Zimmerman to testify. The facts, including his videotaped reenactment of the events, will speak for him. Also expect the defense to produce highly qualified, impressive, and believable scientific witnesses. Expect the prosecution to produce poorly qualified, confusing, and easily impeachable scientific witnesses (particularly expect Judge Nelson to allow such incompetents to testify for the prosecution).
 
Expect the defense to be calm, steady, professional and trustworthy. Expect the prosecution to be angry, arrogant, and — if their pre-trial demeanor is any guide — to take considerable liberty with the facts and the truth. Expect them to defend the narrative with all their might; it is their case.
 
The narrative remains. Several prospective jurors expressed fear that a “not guilty” verdict would result in riots, or put their families and themselves in danger. Despite evidence of growing public boredom with the case, this is not an unreasonable fear.
 
Should Zimmerman be convicted, expect the case to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct, and to multiple and egregious instances of reversible error by Judge Nelson. There is reason to believe that the appeals court is carefully watching this case. Even so, expect Judge Nelson to do all she can to assist the prosecution and to hamper the defense, and to help the Scheme Team.
 
Regardless of the outcome, there will be no winners at the conclusion.
Title: Whether to talk to the police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2013, 08:18:00 AM
This is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree.  Here is a good pair of talks on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6wXkI4t7nuc#at=84
Title: Zimmerman's reenactment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2013, 12:13:34 PM
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/george-zimmerman-re-enactment-video-with-the-police-before-he-had-a-lawyer-and-right-after-the-shooting/
Title: Zimmerman Prosecution Predictably Collapsing
Post by: G M on July 01, 2013, 02:05:31 PM
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/06/30/zimmerman-prosecution-predictably-collapsing/?singlepage=true

Zimmerman Prosecution Predictably Collapsing

June 30th, 2013 - 10:13 am


The state of Florida’s politically driven decision to charge George Zimmerman with murder has resulted, as some of us predicted it would, in a pathetically weak case. It has taken only a few days of trial to collapse of its own weightlessness – undone, in fact, by the direct testimony of a prosecution witness, as Bryan Preston relates at the Tatler and Ed Morrissey details at Hot Air.
 
Over a year ago, I explained why this would happen:

 



When Trayvon Martin was first shot to death nearly two months ago [on February 26, 2012], state authorities sensibly opted not to charge George Zimmerman with murder. It wasn’t that they were looking to excuse wrongdoing. It was that the evidence was insufficient to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Plainly, there was a lack of criminal intent: There was obviously no premeditation; and, alternatively, the facts do not remotely suggest that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind regardless of human life” (e.g., the savage indifference of a man who fires into a crowd, heedless of the consequences). To the contrary, the known facts indicate (a) Zimmerman’s concern that Martin was acting suspiciously (the depraved do not call the police, as Zimmerman did, before shooting), and (b) a struggle in which Zimmerman may well have been severely beaten and, in any event, would have a strong basis to persuade a jury that he shot in self-defense.
 
In advancing that argument, Zimmerman would be aided by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which gives the law-abiding latitude to use guns for protection….
 
The “Stand Your Ground” point was gravy as far as the baseless murder charge was concerned. If a prosecutor cannot prove the statutorily required intent element (mens rea) for murder, then the accused’s conduct cannot amount to murder, period. The accused only needs to rely on a legal defense of his conduct (such as self-defense) if the prosecution’s proof is sufficient to establish the offense (here, murder) in the first place. But “Stand Your Ground” would have been very relevant had Zimmerman been formally accused of an offense less serious than murder. Regarding that, as I observed when Zimmerman was initially charged:
 

Florida law makes causing the death of a person under the age of 18 manslaughter, provided there has been “culpable negligence.” It also criminalizes as manslaughter the “unnecessary killing” of a person in order to resist or prevent that person’s violation of law (e.g., the use of lethal force to repel a clearly non-lethal threat). Neither of these charges would [be] a slam-dunk; indeed, they’d be losers if Zimmerman shot because he was justifiably in fear of his life.
 
Despite the palpable lack of evidence that Zimmerman had the required intent to commit murder, the state bowed to pressure from the racial grievance industry (led by Huckster-in-Chief Al Sharpton), shamefully aided and abetted by the most politicized, race-obsessed Justice Department in American history. Lest we forget, it was Attorney General Eric Holder’s collaboration with Sharpton and threat to trump up a federal civil rights prosecution that induced state officials in Florida to reconsider the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman.
 
It’s easy for a corrupt process to produce criminal charges. It is quite something else to prove them. To try to fill the gaping intent hole in its case, the Zimmerman prosecution has transferred the hobgoblin of racism from the headlines into the courtroom. Indeed, it did not even wait for the trial to do that; the prosecutor injected racism directly into the charging documents.
 
As I noted at the time, the affidavit in “support” of the murder charge employed the explosive term “profiling” to describe Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin. That word has no place in a charging instrument: It was transparent code to imply, in the absence of any evidence, that Zimmerman is a bigot who assumed Martin was up to no good just because he was black.
 
“Profiling” is an ambiguous term. Generally speaking, it is a perfectly appropriate, commonsense practice – a marshaling of various characteristics and behaviors typically found in kinds of criminal conduct. It is routinely used by police to avoid hassling innocent people. Like all sound police practices, it can be abused – a bad cop can invidiously home in on one characteristic (like race, religious belief, political stance) and groundlessly associate it with criminality. The latter is rare, but it is unfortunately what the racial grievance industry, echoed by the media, has conditioned the public to think of when the term “profiling” is used. It is this slanderous connotation of “profiling” that the prosecution wants people (especially juror-people) to associate with Zimmerman. Rather than as a legal term, the charging documents use “profiling” as an atmospheric – since prosecutors had neither the evidence to prove racism nor the courage to be forthright about what they were doing.
 
It would be bad enough to do this in a case where attitudes about race were pertinent – say, a prosecution for violating someone’s civil rights. But it is even more shameful to do it in a case where attitudes about race are legally irrelevant. However much the media may be fascinated by racial dynamics, racism or the lack of it should have no bearing on a prosecution for what the law calls “depraved indifference” murder (second-degree murder in Florida).
 
Apropos of that, Powerline’s John Hinderaker has had an interesting exchange with Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca. Putting aside the lack of evidence that Zimmerman is a racist, John forcefully argues that, in the context of this homicide prosecution, his purported racism is “utterly beside the point.” The crux of the case, instead, is a simple matter of whether Zimmerman’s admitted shooting of Martin was in legitimate self-defense. Mr. Branca counters that the prosecution is using racism (or at least the specter of racism) to substitute for its dearth of evidence on the required mental element – namely, that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind.”
 
Mr. Branca is quite right that this is what the prosecution is trying to pull. He goes off the rails, though, in suggesting that this is a viable theory. With due respect, I think his explanation of the statutory term “depraved mind” is wrong. In part, he is conflating two separate mens rea concepts that arise in murder cases: depravity and premeditation.
 
After correctly observing that “Murder involves premeditation to kill or, in Florida, a ‘depraved mind’,” Mr. Branca elaborates (italics are mine):
 

In order to prove the second degree murder charge the State brought against Zimmerman they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind. To get to a depraved mind they need to show some kind of hatred or ill-will. In most murder 2 cases the people know each other and have a long history of animus, which is the source of the “depraved mind”. Here Martin and Zimmerman did not know each other, so the State is forced to pursue some more generalized hatred – such as racism.
 
I disagree. Generalized hatred has nothing to do with “depraved mind” murder. In such cases, we are not talking about intent driven by an attitude specifically related to the victim, triggered by long-held animus. We are talking, instead, about something almost diametrically opposite: a perverse lack of regard for human life – not the victim’s human life but all human life.
 
Explaining this concept (with reference to New York state law) in the 2012 case of Gutierrez v. Smith, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals instructs (my italics):
 

The archetypal depraved indifference murder … would resemble “shooting into a crowd, placing a time bomb in a public place, or opening the door of the lions’ cage in the zoo.”  By contrast, … a one-on-one shooting or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder.”
 
Zimmerman’s killing of Martin is a one-on-one shooting. Now, to be sure, the court did not say that one-on-one killings can never qualify as “depraved indifference” murders. But it is exceedingly rare. When it does occur, the focus is not on the subjective intent of the killer but the objective recklessness of the killing – e.g., a mother who beats her infant to death (uncommon brutality combined with a particularly vulnerable victim), or perhaps a game of Russian Roulette (or “Polish roulette” as it was called in a 1989 New York case – People v. Roe – in which the accused loaded a gun with both real and dummy bullets, pointed the gun at the victim, and callously fired).
 
With due respect to Mr. Branca, when the murderer knows his victim and there is a long history of animus, we are usually talking about premeditated murder. The animus tends to prove that the decision to kill was made before the act that caused death. In Florida, that is first-degree murder, which is not charged in the Zimmerman case.
 
Depraved mind murder, to the contrary, involves a state of mind evincing no regard for human life. Far from a feeling of hatred or ill-will toward the victim, what makes the killing depraved is the perverse lack of feeling for the victim (i.e., there is no recognition of the victim’s humanity). Having a motive is indicative of acting with deliberation, not recklessness or indifference. In a depraved mind case, motive is superfluous because what establishes the mens rea is the objective barbarity of the act itself, not some fuzzy “generalized hatred” that may have been crawling around the killer’s brain.
 
It is virtually inconceivable that a situation involving self-defense on the killer’s part will fit a “depraved mind” charge. And I am not limiting myself to situations when the self-defense claim is legally convincing. I am saying that in any one-on-one scenario where self-defense is worth raising, it is nigh inconceivable that a “depraved mind” murder has occurred. To be more concrete, let’s say we are in a self-defense situation where the claim is legally insufficient: for example, the use of lethal force was not a proportionate response to the threat; or perhaps the killer provoked the altercation that eventually led to his use of lethal force. In such circumstances, we can reject the self-defense claim but still recognize that the killing was not “depraved.” The degree of inhumanity required to make a killing “depraved” is not going to be found in circumstances where a person is defending himself, even if that defense is – as a matter of law – excessive.
 
There is thus a chain of abuses that makes the Zimmerman prosecution a disgrace. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is a racist. Racism cannot be inferred from invocations of “profiling” – which tell us more about the prosecutors than about Zimmerman. The imagined “profiling” cannot be inflated into a “generalized hatred.” Even if there were a generalized hatred, it cannot substitute for proof of the required mental element of depraved indifference to human life – racism is a noxious attitude, but there are people who are mildly racist; no one is mildly depraved.
 
It is abundantly clear that the murder of Trayvon Martin is not a case of second-degree murder, a charge that carries a possible life sentence and a minimum of 25 years’ imprisonment (because a firearm was used). Yet, the special prosecutor brought the charge anyway. Plainly, she hoped Zimmerman would be either railroaded in a trial that substituted incitement for proof, or intimidated into pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
 
This case does not belong in a criminal court. That it has gotten this far is a sad triumph of demagoguery over due process.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2013, 02:51:46 PM
There you go, being logical again.  :lol:

That said, the simple fact is that, not without examples to back it up, many people, particularly black Americans, believe that police departments, especially white officers, are racists against black people.

At least now, just as in the Duke lacrosse alleged rape of a stripper case, the Truth will win out and silence the "nattering nabobs of negativity" , , , until the next time.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: G M on July 01, 2013, 05:04:42 PM
There you go, being logical again.  :lol:

That said, the simple fact is that, not without examples to back it up, many people, particularly black Americans, believe that police departments, especially white officers, are racists against black people.

At least now, just as in the Duke lacrosse alleged rape of a stripper case, the Truth will win out and silence the "nattering nabobs of negativity" , , , until the next time.

This was never about "justice", it was about churning up hatred to feed to the racial industrial complex/Obama vote. Imagine how disappointed they were to find out Zimmerman wasn't Jewish and was a hispanic Obama supporter. The NY Times had to mint "white hispanic" just for this case.
Title: Rules for recording the police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 04, 2013, 10:19:10 AM
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police
Title: Zimmerman's fate and looming race riots
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2013, 08:07:53 AM

Hat tip to Objectivist:

Zimmerman’s Fate and Looming Race Riots
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On July 3, 2013 on www.frontpagemag.com
 

The murder case against George Zimmerman is rapidly unraveling, due in large part to the compelling testimony of key witnesses. Ordinarily, there is nothing unusual about compelling testimony changing the course of a trial, but in this case it is witnesses presented by the prosecution that are bolstering the case for the defendant. Thus, with each passing day it is becoming more apparent that the real reason for bringing this case to trial was to assuage the media-driven concerns of the racial grievance industry, led by chief arsonists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Shamefully aiding and abetting them is the racially polarized Justice Department led by Attorney General Eric Holder.

We begin with the witnesses. Billed as the state’s “star witness,” 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, the last person to talk to Trayvon Martin before his death, proved to be a major embarrassment. If there is a racial element to this case, other than the prosecution’s unsubstantiated accusation that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin, Jeantel introduced it during her testimony. She revealed that Trayvon Martin had referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker,” even as she subsequently denied it was a racial term. Another compelling part of her testimony was in regard to a letter she had supposedly written to Martin’s mother describing the chain of events that led to Trayvon’s death. During questioning by defense attorney Don West, Jeantel was forced to admit that, despite signing it, she was incapable of reading the cursive script in which it was written.

West further grilled Jeantel about her inconsistent statements to police, and the discrepancies in her testimony. Jeantel blamed them on questions posed by law enforcement officials, and the lengths of the interviews. As to the omission of details, she claimed she was trying to spare the Martin family from enduring additional grief. In the end, Jeantel admitted she didn’t know who threw the first punch, and that she lied under oath. The former admission makes it virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman didn’t fire in self-defense. The latter admission challenges Jeantel’s entire credibility.

Yet it was testimony from John Good, who witnessed the fight between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, that provided the most damaging, and perhaps fatal blow to the state’s case. Good testified that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman, raining punches down on him Mixed Martial Arts style. Good further testified that the scream he heard must have come from Zimmerman, because he was on the bottom, and Martin was facing away from Good.

On Monday, detective Doris Singleton, who questioned Zimmerman the night of the shooting, became the latest prosecution witness to undermine the state’s case. She testified that Zimmerman asked her about the crucifix she wore on her neck, and buried his head in his hands after learning that Martin had died. During the exchange Singleton testified that Zimmerman said it was ”always wrong to kill.” ”I said to him, ‘If what you’re telling me is true then I don’t think that’s what God meant, you couldn’t save your own life,’” she said. Singleton further testified that Zimmerman was shocked when he learned that Martin was dead.

Audiotape of Singleton’s interview with Zimmerman was played in court. He explained he had joined the neighborhood watch after his home had been broken into. As to the fatal encounter with Martin, Zimmerman said Martin “jumped out” at him from the bushes and said, “What the f— is your problem, homey?” Zimmerman claimed he didn’t have a problem, and said Martin responded by saying, “Now you have a problem,” and punched him in the nose. When Zimmerman fell, Martin allegedly got on top of him, throwing punches. “He put his hands on my nose and said, ‘You’re going to die tonight,’” said Zimmerman on the tape. Zimmerman then stated that Martin saw his (Zimmerman’s) gun and started to reach for it, which is when Zimmerman  drew it and shot the teenager.

Hirotaka Nakasone, an FBI audio voice analyst, further discredited the state’s case, saying he was unable to determine which of the two men was captured screaming on audio.

The state’s best witness was former lead investigator for the Sanford Police, Christopher Serino, who testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were “lacking” in terms of his story. He was further concerned that Zimmerman didn’t identify himself to Martin. Yet under cross-examination by defense attorney Mark O’Mara regarding Serino’s suggestion to Zimmerman that there might be a videotape of the incident, Serino admitted Zimmerman was buoyed by the possibility. ”I believe his words were, ‘thank god. I was hoping somebody would have videotaped it’,” said Serino. O’Mara then asked Serino what that response indicated to him. “Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar,” the detective responded. The defense then asked Serino if pathological liar was removed from the equation, did he believe Zimmerman was being truthful. “Yes,” he testified.

Additional witnesses presented by the prosecution have, to date, corroborated Zimmerman’s version of the events in question, save one: Selma Mora testified last Thursday that Zimmerman was on top of Martin in the moments before a gunshot ended the fight, telling the court that a man wearing “patterns between black and red” was on top, meaning Zimmerman. ”One of them was on the ground, and the other one was on top in position like a rider,” the Spanish-speaking Mora testified through a translator. Yet unlike Good, Mora did not see the fight prior to the gunshot.

Again, these are witnesses for the prosecution, whose job is to prove that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet it is more complicated than that. Because the state filed second degree murder charges against Zimmerman (as opposed to manslaughter, where they might have argued he acted without just cause), Florida law requires them to prove Zimmerman ”acted according to a ‘depraved mind’ without regard for human life.”

So why did the state pursue that charge? Because Trayvon Martin became a cause célèbre for race-hatred promoters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who called for marches and boycotts against the city of Sanford. Their efforts were aided and abetted by corrupt media, which bent over backwards to insert race into the equation. Those efforts included the New York Times referring to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic,” NBC purposefully editing an audiotape of his 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist, CNN claiming Zimmerman used the word “coon” when he actually said “cold,” and innumerable news outlets publishing a picture of Martin at age 13, despite the fact that he was 17 and over six feet tall at the time of the incident.

If a report by “sundance” at conservativetreehouse.com is accurate, the media’s effort to paint Zimmerman as racist was part of a well-coordinated publicity campaign undertaken by Martin family attorneys Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson, in conjunction with publicist Ryan Julison, who was instrumental in providing publicity for the Pigford Farmer’s lawsuit and settlement. “Within the prior networking connections to this lawsuit, and within the media consulting/advocacy, is where the outline of the Congressional Black Caucus and substantive race-dependent civil rights leaders such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP’s Ben Jealous are connected to Ryan Julison through Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson and the Pigford II Lawyer, Greg Francis,” he writes, further noting that their efforts were all about creating a “systematic campaign of optical control.”

Andrew McCarthy reveals the consequences of such a campaign with respect to the DOJ, citing the initiation of a “federal civil rights prosecution that induced state officials in Florida to reconsider the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman.” “It’s easy for a corrupt process to produce criminal charges,” writes McCarthy.

“It is quite something else to prove them. To try to fill the gaping intent hole in its case, the Zimmerman prosecution has transferred the hobgoblin of racism from the headlines into the courtroom. Indeed, it did not even wait for the trial to do that; the prosecutor injected racism directly into the charging documents.”

The Florida prosecutor did that by inserting the term “profiling” into the document which, McCarthy notes, was an effort “to imply, in the absence of any evidence, that Zimmerman is a bigot who assumed Martin was up to no good just because he was black.”

Yet it is PJMedia’s J. Christian Adams, a former attorney at the Justice Department, who reveals a disturbing reality regarding why the DOJ forced Florida’s hand. “Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin,” Adams writes. He further notes that even as the DOJ abetted the mob demanding racial justice in Florida, it did absolutely nothing about New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad, who put a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head and called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture him.

In terms of making the case a national sensation, all of these efforts have been enormously successful, even as they remain mind-numbingly irresponsible — as well as substantially dangerous. If numerous comments posted on Twitter are any indication, the failure to convict Zimmerman of murder will precipitate large-scale rioting around the nation. In that regard, former Chicago police officer Paul Huebl adds fuel to an already burning fire. “With today’s social media I fully expect organized race rioting to begin in every major city to dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots of past decades,” he writes.

“If you live in a large city be prepared to evacuate or put up a fight to win. You will need firearms, fire suppression equipment along with lots of food and water. Police resources will be slow and outgunned everywhere.”

Philadelphia Tribune columnist Charles D. Ellison takes it one step further, insisting that the “pervasive cynicism currently surrounding the trial could be validated by an acquittal–and there is the risk of a flashpoint as intense as the aftermath of that fateful Los Angeles police brutality verdict in 1992.”

The message here is clear: either Zimmerman is found guilty, irrespective of the evidence, or the country will burn.

Barring a bombshell turn of events, the state will have a difficult, if not impossible, task proving that Zimmerman acted according to a depraved mind without regard for human life. The six female jurors and four alternates hearing the case have been sequestered and will remain so for the duration of the trial. Thus, it remains impossible to know if they are aware of the extra-judicial firestorm this case is engendering, and whether that firestorm will have any effect on their verdict.

Obviously, there is one man who could go a long way toward defusing this entire scenario should he choose to do so. President Barack Obama could rise above the fray and explain to every American that our system of justice means nothing if the threat of violence can corrupt the verdict of a murder trial. The President could make it clear that violent outbursts of any kind are absolutely unacceptable and attempt to defuse an already tense environment. He won’t, however, because race riots are good for the Democratic Party. They fire up the base. It’s what the whole show was for.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: G M on July 08, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

"Obviously, there is one man who could go a long way toward defusing this entire scenario should he choose to do so. President Barack Obama could rise above the fray and explain to every American that our system of justice means nothing if the threat of violence can corrupt the verdict of a murder trial. The President could make it clear that violent outbursts of any kind are absolutely unacceptable and attempt to defuse an already tense environment. He won’t, however, because race riots are good for the Democratic Party. They fire up the base. It’s what the whole show was for."

Exactly.
Title: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot, gunshot wound expert
Post by: G M on July 09, 2013, 01:44:53 PM
**Di Maio wrote the textbook that is the top reference on the forensic examination of GSW.**


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-when-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/

July 9, 2013 1:00 PM
George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot, gunshot wound expert testifies

By Erin Donaghue

 George Zimmerman listens to testimony in the courtroom for the 21st day of his trial in Seminole circuit court, July 9, 2013 in Sanford, Florida.
/ Photo by Joe Burbank-Pool/Getty Images

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. -- A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.

George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain standing trial in the teen's shooting death, has said Martin attacked him and was on top of him just before the fatal gunshot. Prosecutors have argued Zimmerman profiled the teen and started the confrontation.


Taking the stand for the defense, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a forensic pathologist, said that Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with the gun's muzzle being against his clothing, which would have been two to four inches away from his body when he was shot.

"If you lean over someone, you notice the clothing tends to fall away from the chest," Di Maio said. "If instead you're lying on your back and someone shoots you, the clothing is going to be against your chest."

Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, left the courtroom as Di Maio testified. The jury saw graphic photos of Trayvon Martin's gunshot wounds in court.

Who was the aggressor in the Feb. 26, 2012 altercation in the Sanford, Fla., gated community has been a key issue in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, which is in its eleventh day of testimony.

Di Maio said that Trayvon Martin would have been alive for about one to three minutes following the gunshot wound, but would have been able to move and speak for at least ten to fifteen seconds.

The testimony was a contrast to the remarks of a medical examiner who conducted Martin's autopsy, who said that the teen could have been alive for up to ten minutes after the gunshot. Dr. Shiping Bao also said he didn't believe Martin would have been able to move after receiving the shot.

Prosecutors have said that George Zimmerman told investigators he moved Martin's arms away from his body after the gunshot, although Martin was found with his arms tucked beneath his chest. Answering a question from defense attorney Don West, Di Maio said that someone may be able to move their arms after receiving a similar gunshot.

Zimmerman's injuries indicate "you've had severe force, it's not just like you bumped your head or something like that," Di Maio said.

Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with having his head hit against concrete more than once, Di Maio said. The former neighborhood watch captain said the teen smashed his head into a sidewalk several times before he claimed he acted in self-defense.

The testimony was a contrast to another medical examiner, Dr. Valerie Rao, who testified for prosecutors that Zimmerman had "insignificant" injuries that didn't appear to result from multiple impacts against concrete.

Pointing to photos of Zimmerman's injures, Di Maio also said Zimmerman's nose may have been fractured, an injury he said was consistent with being punched in the nose, as Zimmerman said Martin did.

Di Maio also said it's possible to receive trauma without visible wounds. "You can get severe trauma to the head without external injuries, actually," Di Maio said.




Di Maio also explained that if clothes taken into evidence are wet and packaged in plastic bags, and not paper bags, it can ruin the samples since "bacteria multiplies and you get mold and it stinks to high heaven." Defense attorneys believe DNA evidence found on Martin's hooded sweatshirt and undershirt was degraded since the clothing wasn't packaged properly.




Di Maio was still on the stand early Tuesday afternoon after court recessed for lunch.
Title: Re: Self-Defense / Zimmerman race trial
Post by: DougMacG on July 10, 2013, 10:28:51 AM
72 more shot and 11 more killed in Chicago over the holiday weekend.  Black on black crime for the most part.  No coverage to speak of.  Some of the rare coverage said violent crime was still down from last year in Chicago.  Lower violent crime than last year in Chicago is not exactly the gold standard of safe neighborhoods. 

Was the Zimmerman show trial ever about anything other than race?  Trayvon was black.  People thought Zimmerman was white, though he is Hispanic and 8 times more black than Elizabeth Warren is 'native'.  A media outlet doctored a tape to make the 911 call sound racial, when all he did was answer a question of what race the man was.  People went nuts, demanding prosecution and got it.  It was overcharged at 2nd degree murder.  That is what it would be if he shot him when when he first saw him, not as the result of a fight and getting his nose broken. 

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman's claim self defense constitutes more than reasonable doubt to the charge, if not truth.  Zimmerman did not set out to shoot him.  He followed him and called 911 instead.  More likely from what we hear about the testimony, Trayvon started a fist fight and was winning it against a guy who had a gun.  Bad choice.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 10, 2013, 06:52:37 PM

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-zimmerman-trial-and-black-skin-privilege/
Title: POTH: No reefer madness here
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2013, 06:32:15 AM
 Was Trayvon Martin aggressive and paranoid from smoking marijuana, and did that lead him to attack George Zimmerman? That’s what lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman are arguing. He is on trial for killing Mr. Martin, but claims he acted in self-defense, and the judge in the racially charged, nationally followed case decided earlier this week that the jury could be presented with Mr. Martin’s toxicology report, which shows that he had marijuana in his system.
Related


As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.

Some observers of the case note that the toxicology test also found 7.3 nanograms per milliliter of THC-COOH, one of the main metabolic byproducts formed as the liver breaks down THC. But these metabolites of marijuana have no psychoactive properties, and they have no effect on behavior. They can also remain in the body, like THC itself, for up to four weeks. This is why their presence does not reveal when — or exactly how much of — the drug was used.

For argument’s sake, though, suppose that the tiny amount of THC found in Mr. Martin’s blood somehow managed to mildly intoxicate him that night. The scientific studies, including my own research, on the short-term effects of the drug on cognitive functioning show how unlikely it is that marijuana could have caused him to behave erratically or have difficulty following instructions.

Granted, the drug can temporarily slow people down in completing familiar tasks that involve memory or abstract reasoning, and it can lower a person’s level of vigilance or focus. But research subjects in my studies have shown that they can make plans, exhibit self-control and cooperate closely with others even under heavy influence of marijuana — never mind when only slightly affected, as Mr. Martin could, at most, have been.

There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. It is true that very high THC concentrations — far beyond Mr. Martin’s levels — can cause mild hallucinations and paranoia, but even these effects are rare and usually seen only in very inexperienced users.

If anything, it is marijuana withdrawal that can increase aggression. But it, too, is rare and is mainly seen after abrupt cessation of heavy, almost daily use of the drug. We have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin was this kind of user, making it unlikely that marijuana withdrawal could have made him act aggressively toward Mr. Zimmerman. Remember, too, that Mr. Martin calmly purchased iced tea and candy from a 7-Eleven store shortly before his encounter with Mr. Zimmerman, which contradicts the notion that he was uncontrollably aggressive or at all paranoid at the time, whether from marijuana use, withdrawal or anything else.

There was a time, back in the 1930s, when scientific data on marijuana was thin on the ground. This left us vulnerable to exaggerated anecdotal accounts of its harms, especially its supposed tendency to induce aggression or even insanity. Newspapers and magazines routinely ran stories drawing a connection between marijuana use and heinous crimes, and some people even claimed it was a cause of matricide. These fables contributed to its de facto criminalization in 1937, through the Marijuana Tax Act. During Congressional hearings that year concerning the act, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Administration) declared, “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

Seven decades and hundreds of studies later, we no longer have an excuse for indulging the myth of “reefer madness.” It has no place in our courts — which means Mr. Martin’s toxicology report doesn’t, either.

Carl L. Hart, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University, is the author of “High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know about Drugs and Society.”
Title: Ten Reasons not to talk to the police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2013, 12:19:02 PM
This is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree.  I post this here as an articulation of one side of the conversation's POV:

http://www.kirkpiccione.com/10-reasons-not-talk-police/
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2013, 01:19:04 PM
GM, BD, anyone:

Please help me understand the idea of a DA being able to change the charges after testimony has been given.  Intuitively this seems unfair.

TIA,
Marc
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: DougMacG on July 13, 2013, 08:56:58 AM
GM, BD, anyone:
Please help me understand the idea of a DA being able to change the charges after testimony has been given.  Intuitively this seems unfair.
TIA, Marc

Mark Steyn today: "In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state's "theory of the case" is that it has no theory of the case: Might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it's something. If you're a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat."


Marc,  I cannot answer the question legally but agree with you it seems totally unfair to ask a jury to convict on a change not made by the police or prosecutor PRIOR to the trial.

Meanwhile the first half of 2013 shootings map in just one neighborhood of Chicago goes mostly unnoticed:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VN0pGWhIeIM/Ud-aLvoYTUI/AAAAAAAAQQw/TUuyyr2HLQU/s640/e.JPG)

Title: What to say to police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2013, 11:11:55 AM
12 July 13

What to say to police:

When involved in a lethal-force incident, where you fired shots, otherwise
attempted to apply deadly force, or even brandished a gun without firing,
you'll  likely be confronted by police a short time later. They're just
doing  their job, but you need to be the one to look after your own best
interests.

In light of the recent "Salinas Case" ruling by the US Supreme Court, my
advice to students in this regard has changed only slightly. In any event,
it bears reiterating.

I've recently consulted with a group of distinguished a lawyers, who are
also my friends and colleagues, on this subject, and what follows is in
general agreement by all:

Simply "remaining silent" is not sufficient, by itself, to assure your
rights and best interests are preserved.  Interesting that we live in a
country where you have to speak, in order to assert your right not to speak!
And, once one stops answering police questions and demands that his lawyer be
present before continuing, he shouldn't start up again prior to his lawyer
arriving. When he does, we get into an ambiguous situation, where the
prosecution can later claim that, having asserted the right to remain silent
at one point, the defendant subsequently changed his mind, thus, in effect,
waiving his rights.

In addition, one should not wait until he is arrested to invoke his
rights. Any time you are party to a police investigation, certainly when your
are "Mirandized," your rights need to be unmistakably, unilaterally invoked,
and without delay!

Invocation of your 5th Amendment rights to decline to answer questions and
have your lawyer personally present before questioning resumes must be
unconditional and unambiguous. "Do you think I should have an attorney?"
won't suffice!

No need to be snotty, but you must be clear, and you must mean it! 
Confusion and ambiguity are always the enemy! Slam the door shut with a clear,
unequivocal statement that you wish to exercise your 5th Amendment rights,
now. Don't ask them what they think!

Insisting that police call an ambulance for you that will take you to a
hospital may also be a good strategy. Most will agree that going to a
hospital to be checked-over is probably good advice for anyone who has been
involved in a lethal-force incident.

So, here is my advice when confronting arriving police in the wake of a
lethal-force incident:

Palms out at chest-level, no weapons in sight:

1) "Officers, thank God you're here!"

2) "I'm the one who called."

3) "Those men:

(a) attacked us,
(b) tried to murder us,
(c) We were in fear for  our lives"

4) "I will sign a complaint"

5 "I'm happy to chat with you when my lawyer is present. I absolutely
request my attorney, and I am respectfully invoking my 5th Amendment Rights to
decline to answer any questions until he is personally present, sir."

It is appropriate to call officers' attention to:

(a) evidence that may not be obvious,
(b) witnesses who may not be  obvious,
(c) danger that may not be obvious (eg: an armed suspect still in  the
area)

Always be polite and non-threatening, but take a deep breath and speak
clearly.  Don't mumble and don't become chatty.

Finally, when you are "Mirandized," the officer will probably ask you, "Do
you understand your rights, as I've explained them to you?"

The best answer is, "Officers, I'm not answering that question, nor any
other, until my lawyer is here, nor will I sign, nor initial, any  document."

We could go on for many more pages, but the foregoing pretty much sums it
up. You must protect yourself, as no one else will!
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2013, 08:38:21 PM
Well, at long last the correct decision was reached in the Zimmerman case today.  Still, the man faces a lot of challenges going forward from here, including security issues, and a life changed forever.

As a father, my heart goes out to the Martins.   I hope they are left in peace with their grief by the media.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2013, 02:42:14 PM
AS many of you here know, at DBMA we are big believers in knowing the law where you live, hence http://dogbrothersgear.com/Recommended-Reading/Self-Defense-Laws-Of-All-50-States.html

I stay in touch with attorney author Mitch Vilos. Here are some comments of his on the Zimmerman case for posting by me:

"Although Zimmerman's attorney did a spectacular job in dealing with the claim of "lies" because of contradictions in the several statements Mr. Zimmerman gave, you can see what can happen when you get fast and loose with your mouth before you actually retain an attorney (and that attorney undoubtedly told him NOT to go on the air and help friends write books and on and on). So it turns out the contradictions between all the statements and the physical evidence have emerged into the State's strongest argument.

"I've been saying for years (see Chapters 7 & 14 of our book, Self Defense Laws of all 50 States, 2nd Ed. ) that if you threaten or shoot an unarmed person, you might as well just shut up; you will be arrested and probably prosecuted and you will not be able to talk yourself out of being arrested and prosecuted. It can ultimately only hurt you. SHUT UP and insist on talking to an attorney before you talk to anyone else, even medical personnel unless it's life threatening. Your attorney will have plenty of time to explain your theory of the case as time passes. But if you haven't blown it by contradicting yourself over and over (which is possible even if you are telling the truth because of the tunnel vision and stress of a defensive incident), your case will ultimately be in much better shape. There are even jury instructions that say the jury cannot hold exercising your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination against you.

"Now, if you decide to not follow this advice and decide to talk, you cannot embellish or exaggerate what happened. Video evidence, forensic evidence, etc. will ultimately make you out to be a "liar" in the end.""

-Attorney Mitch Vilos
Title: Black woman claims Stand Your Ground in shooting of white man
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2013, 07:13:27 AM
Well, it looks like we may have a lab case for the hypothetical posed by so many , , ,

http://www.speroforum.com/a/ABTQXCNTFM32/73128-Black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man#.UeQC25ywUpk
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: DougMacG on July 15, 2013, 08:22:59 AM
First, I would point out the legal advice given in this thread is extremely valuable.  If someone is choosing to carry a gun (or any else of deadly potential), the question of exactly how things will play out if you use it needs they to be contemplated, in advance, to its conclusion. 

In all legal situations, don't screw things up any worse than they are before your lawyer can begin his or her work.  The discharge of your weapon in your hand for any reason outside of a gun range is most certainly a serious legal situation.
-----------------------------
Please help me understand the idea of a DA being able to change the charges after testimony has been given.  Intuitively this seems unfair.

Bringing this excellent question forward.  Mark Steyn made the same point prior to the verdict:

In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state's "theory of the case" is that it has no theory of the case: Might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it's something. If you're a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/case-516709-zimmerman-child.html

This is not right.  As Alan Deshowitz argues, for various reasons (child abuse?), this prosecutor should be disbarred.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html
Title: An offer I can strongly endorse!
Post by: G M on July 15, 2013, 11:57:46 AM

George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.
 
I was pleased with the verdict. I believe the jury made the right decision, the only decision any juror could rationally make when presented with all the evidence and testimony.

We are innocent in this country until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the moment police arrived at the scene and the investigation began, Zimmerman was considered innocent. He was found by those investigating the case that he justifiably used deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

The detective who investigated the shooting, the Chief of Police and the District Attorney, after viewing the evidence believed Zimmerman was innocent of any wrong doing or they would have arrested him and prosecuted the case. They did not arrest or prosecute.

Zimmerman's problems should have ended there, but people who should know better, people who are educated and know the law, but don't respect the law, just wouldn't leave an innocent man alone.

Shame on President Obama, Eric Holder, Florida Governor Rick Scott, State Attorney Angela Corey, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the media, and all the other irresponsible people who played the race card where there was none and politically pressured the justice system into prosecuting an innocent man.
 
Those who are still calling for "justice" need to take a course in the Judicious Use of Deadly Force so they too will understand what the detective investigating the Zimmerman shooting, the Chief of Police, and the District Attorney all understood when they chose not to arrest or prosecute Zimmerman for justifiably using deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

We teach Judicious Use of Deadly Force at Front Sight, right along with our lectures on Criminal and Civil Liability Following the Use of Deadly Force.
 
For 17 years, we have prepared our students to properly handle a Zimmerman type scenario and many more situations like it.
 
Our students are trained to carry guns to protect themselves, their families, and those around them from unavoidable and immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death.

Our students are trained to know that the best gun fight is the one you avoid.

I'm sure that George Zimmerman, knowing what he knows now, even though he did not break any laws and was found innocent of all charges, wishes he had avoided that gun fight.
 
George Zimmerman's lesson is a good lesson for all gun owners.

If you can avoid a lethal confrontation, do so.

But please do not lose sight of the fact that it is ALWAYS better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Get a gun and GET TRAINING. Training is the key to making proper and responsible decisions in the use of deadly force and training is the key to expertly defending yourself in an unavoidable lethal encounter.

Go here http://www.frontsight.com/patriot/ to grab a 5 Day Front Sight Course, plus 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, and our entire set of 7 Front Sight Training Manuals for only $200.

This is $2,500 in training, PLUS a full set of training manuals for only $200 as my way of helping every responsible American citizen become expertly trained in the use of a handgun for self- defense. Get trained NOW http://www.frontsight.com/patriot/

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
 Founder and Director
 Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
 7975 Cameron Drive, #900
 Windsor, CA 95492
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
 1.800.987.7719
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: G M on July 15, 2013, 01:09:09 PM
GM, BD, anyone:

Please help me understand the idea of a DA being able to change the charges after testimony has been given.  Intuitively this seems unfair.

TIA,
Marc


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lesser+included+charge

Lesser Included Offense
(redirected from Lesser included charge)


A lesser crime whose elements are encompassed by a greater crime.
 
A lesser included offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary.
 
The rules of Criminal Procedure permit two or more offenses to be charged together, regardless of whether they are misdemeanors or felonies, provided that the crimes are of a similar character and based on the same act or common plan. This permits prosecutors to charge the greater offense and the lesser included offense together. Although the offenses can be charged together, the accused cannot be found guilty of both offenses because they are both parts of the same crime (the lesser offense is part of the greater offense).
 
When a defendant is charged with a greater offense and one or more lesser included offenses, the trial court is generally required to give the jury instructions as to each of the lesser included offenses as well as the greater offense. However, a defendant may waive his or her right to have the jury so instructed. If the jury finds guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt as to a lesser included offense, but finds reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt with regard to the greater offense, the court should instruct the jury that it may convict on the lesser charge.
 
It is not uncommon for a prosecutor and defendant to negotiate an agreement by which the defendant pleads guilty to the lesser included offense either before the trial begins or before the jury returns a verdict. Such a plea negotiation is generally acceptable to the prosecuting attorney because the evidence establishing guilt for the lesser included offense is usually strong. The defendant is generally willing to make such an agreement because the lesser included offense carries a less severe sentence.
 
The notion of lesser included offenses developed from the common-law doctrine of merger. In the past, felony and misdemeanor trials involved different procedural rights. The merger doctrine determined an individual's procedural rights at trial if the individual was charged with both a felony and a lesser included misdemeanor. In that circumstance the misdemeanor was considered to have merged with the felony, and felony procedural rights applied. The merger doctrine has been repudiated in modern U.S. law because an accused's procedural rights are essentially the same whether the accused is charged with a misdemeanor or a felony.
 
Further readings
 
Holten, N. Gary, and Lawson L. Lamar. 1991. The Criminal Courts: Structures, Personnel, and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 
Torcia, Charles E., ed. 1993. Wharton's Criminal Law. 15th ed. Vol. 1. New York: Thomson Legal.
 
——. 1992. Wharton's Criminal Procedure. 13th ed. Vol. 4. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan.
 
HOWEVER:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353410/injudicious-criminal-justice-florida-john-fund

The government’s presentation of its case in court was so badly bungled that panicky prosecutors demanded at the very end of the trial that jurors be allowed to consider not just a second-degree murder charge but also manslaughter and third-degree murder due to child abuse (the 158-pound Martin was 17 at the time of his death). The judge allowed the jury to consider the manslaughter charge but not the charge of child abuse.

Noted Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz told radio-talk-show host Steve Malzberg that such last-minute maneuvering is apparently allowed in rare circumstances by Florida law — but  “these prosecutors should be disbarred,” he added. “They have acted absolutely irresponsibly, in an utterly un-American fashion.”
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 15, 2013, 03:41:09 PM
GM:

Very helpful.  Thank you.
Title: POTH: A Zimmerman juror speaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2013, 01:29:27 PM
Zimmerman Juror Discusses How Verdict Was Reached
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Published: July 15, 2013

 

MIAMI — George Zimmerman was guilty of nothing more than “bad judgment,” one of six jurors to find the neighborhood watchman not guilty said Monday night.

The juror, the first to share her story publicly, spoke anonymously, telling Anderson Cooper of CNN that she believed Mr. Zimmerman’s account that Trayvon Martin attacked him. Fearing for his life, Mr. Zimmerman had no choice but to shoot the teenager, the juror said. Mr. Martin was unarmed.

“I think his heart was in the right place,” the juror said of Mr. Zimmerman’s eagerness to try to protect the neighborhood. “It just went terribly wrong.”

She said later, “It pretty much happened the way George said it happened.”

Juror B37, the number she was assigned for the trial, also said that when the six jurors first began to deliberate, they were evenly divided between guilt and innocence. One voted for second-degree murder and two voted for manslaughter. B37 said she was one of three who initially voted “not guilty.”

“There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something,” the juror said.

But after sorting through the evidence and Mr. Zimmerman’s account, the three jurors changed their minds. Second-degree murder was discarded first. Then, after much confusion over the jury instructions, manslaughter was also set aside, she said.

The jurors, who gave their verdict Saturday, concluded that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, she said. “I have no doubt George feared for his life,” she said.

Unlike the swirl of anger and passion over the role of race outside the courtroom, race did not come up during 16 hours and 20 minutes of deliberations, she said. No juror, she said, viewed the case through the prism of race.

The fact that Mr. Martin was black did not drive Mr. Zimmerman to suspect and follow him, she said. It was the overall situation — he was cutting through the back, the townhouse complex had been hit by a rash of burglaries, and Mr. Martin appeared to be walking aimlessly in the rain, looking in houses, she said.

“I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anybody who came in and saw them acting strange,” she said, regardless of race.

The juror also said that she and most of the other jurors believed Mr. Zimmerman was the one screaming for help during the recording of a resident’s 911 call because he was the one being beaten. An “important” piece of evidence, she called it.

“It was a long cry and scream for help — whoever was crying for help was in fear for their life,” she said.

For whatever reason, Mr. Martin, she said, decided to confront Mr. Zimmerman and threw the first punch.

“Trayvon got mad and attacked him,” she said.

The juror also said that Rachel Jeantel, Mr. Martin’s friend who spoke to him on the phone moments before he was killed, was “not a good witness.” The juror said Ms. Jeantel “clearly didn’t want to be there.”

Clearly sympathetic to Mr. Zimmerman, the juror, who is married to a lawyer and has two grown children, referred to him as George. She said she felt sorry for Mr. Zimmerman and for Mr. Martin, calling the situation a “tragedy.” The six women became very emotional, she said, immediately after they handed their verdict to the bailiff.

“It’s just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man’s life afterwards,” she said. “You find him not guilty, but you are responsible for that not guilty, and all the people who want him guilty aren’t going to have any closure.”

On Monday it was announced that the juror had signed with a literary agent with the intent of writing a book. But by early Tuesday, the agent, Sharlene Martin, had rescinded the offer and the juror dropped her plans to write a book. The juror said in a statement that being sequestered “shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.”

“The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice,” she said in the statement. “Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.” 
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2013, 01:31:29 PM
second post

moving GM's post to this thread:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmermans-justified-lethal-force-and-self-defense-law/?singlepage=true

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

Textbook, but it appears most haven't read the textbook.





by
Bob Owens

Bio





July 16, 2013 - 11:52 am



Those who understand self-defense law knew the verdict in State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman was assured as long as the jury made their decision based upon the law.
 
Why?

 


Let’s start with what constitutes an “aggressor” in a conflict. Aggressor is not a fixed state. For example, the individual who throws the first punch may be the initial aggressor, but may not be the aggressor throughout the length of the conflict. It is possible for conflicts to ebb and flow, to go from verbal to physical and back again. If a fight continues long enough, it is possible that the person who is the aggressor may change from one person to the other several times.
 
In a self-defense case, the later stages of a confrontation may be more relevant to determining who reasonably feared for his life than the beginning stages. The jury can take the whole incident into account, but may give more weight to determining the “aggressor” at the moment that deadly force was employed.
 
The prosecutors did not attempt to try this case based upon the principles of self-defense law in order to convict George Zimmerman of violating that law. In their 40-witness prosecution case, they made no attempt to address whether Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life or not. Instead, the prosecution of George Zimmerman by the state was primarily one of character assassination and innuendo, and built upon assertions and vitriol. They asserted that frustrated curse words delivered in a flat monotone and following someone in public — neither of which is remotely illegal — were evidence of a crime. They never argued the facts or the law, as they knew the facts and the law supported Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.
 
In the case of the conflict between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, what happened prior to their meeting face-to-face — which the prosecution focused on — has relevance, but did not reasonably carry much weight. Zimmerman broke no laws in following Trayvon Martin in public at a distance. Zimmerman broke no laws if he did as Rachel Jeantel suggested — walk up to Trayvon Martin and ask “what are you doing here?” or similar words to that effect. Similarly, Trayvon Martin broke no laws if he came up from behind George Zimmerman and asked: “What you following me for?”
 
At this point, neither men has done anything remotely illegal. If they had continued talking, it is quite likely that George Zimmerman would have found out that Trayvon Martin had every right to be there — even if he was mildly “on drugs,” as Zimmerman correctly behaviorally profiled him (according to medical examiner Bao’s toxicology reports). Both men would have continued on with their lives, and probably never would have interacted again.
 
Of course, that isn’t what happened. We know for a fact that the verbal confrontation became a physical confrontation at some point.
 
Zimmerman asserts that Trayvon sucker-punched him, and that the initial strike broke his nose. Frankly, even this carries little weight in relation to the self-defense law of this case. Nothing up until this point carries much weight, because nothing either man had done up until this point remotely approaches deadly force.
 
Self-defense law isn’t relevant through the scramble for position that takes the men away from the “T” intersection, and to the eventual positioning of Trayvon Martin mounted upon George Zimmerman. Up until this point, Trayvon Martin was possibly guilty of felony battery, but he had not done anything justifying a lethal-force response.
 
Note: a punch can be considered deadly force to a reasonable jury. I don’t believe this first punch rose to that level. Only after Trayvon Martin had firmly established a mounted position of control dominating George Zimmerman did the actions of Trayvon Martin against George Zimmerman start building a legal justification for the use of deadly force.
 
When Trayvon first bounced Goerge Zimmerman’s head off the concrete by either punching his head and driving it into the concrete, or by more intentionally grabbing his head and smashing it against the concrete, the very first blow — no matter how hard the strike — was the legal justification for the use of deadly force.
 
Self-defense law is not predicated upon sustaining injuries. In another circumstance, you would not have to wait for someone wielding a knife to finally stab you, or allow a man with a gun to keep shooting at you until he finally makes a hit before you respond. Trayvon Martin’s first attempt to slam George Zimmerman’s head into the concrete was assault with a deadly weapon, whether he successfully connected or not.
 
We know, of course, from the testimony of PA Lindzee Folgate, Dr. Valerie Rao, and the forensic pathologist that Trayvon Martin successfully hit George Zimmerman’s head on the concrete sidewalk with varying levels of force numerous times.
 
We know from the testimony of eyewitness John Good and George Zimmerman and the botched identification of Jane Surdyka that Trayvon Martin was the “final aggressor” in this conflict. He had established a powerful dominant position that left George Zimmerman nearly defenseless.
 
Trayvon Martin was able to deliver punishment at will, and chose to use concrete, a deadly weapon.
 
He refused to stop as George Zimmerman offered no effective resistance. He refused to stop as George Zimmerman screamed for help. He refused to stop when John Good told him to stop — John Good then went back inside to call 911.
 
Self-defense law is based upon a reasonable person standard when determining the legitimate use of deadly force. George Zimmerman had offered virtually no effective resistance in a fight 40 seconds long. He was quickly downed and mounted, and suffered repeated punches including having his head smashed against a concrete sidewalk multiple times. He cried for help. Only one neighbor came out at all, and he didn’t intervene. George Zimmerman was under a continuous assault from a much younger, stronger, and relentless opponent. In terrible physical shape — as testified to by his fitness trainer — he was physically unable to fight back, and what little strength he had was ebbing.
 
Feeling he was about to potentially lose consciousness with the next strike of his head against concrete, and with neighbors around him refusing to offer any assistance at all, George Zimmerman must have felt something like Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death over a period of time in Queens, New York, in 1964 as her neighbors ignored her cries for help.
 
As use-of-force expert Dennis Root testified that George Zimmerman had “no choice” but to match Trayvon Martin’s lethal force attack to save his own life.
 
Fortunately for him, George Zimmerman had one advantage over Kitty Genovese. He had a Kel-Tec PF9 pistol tucked into a black nylon holster inside the waistband of his pants, just behind his right hip. He either twisted to his left a small amount or raised his hips in a maneuver known as a “bridge” just long enough to slip his hand into his holster and to draw his pistol. Forensic pathologist Vincent Di Maio — who wrote the book Gunshot Wounds used by pathologists and medical examiners — says the evidence shows Trayvon Martin was still in an attacking position when George Zimmerman tucked his elbow against his body and fired his gun one time as it touched Trayvon Martin’s shirt.
 
The expanding gasses from the fired cartridge pushed past the bullet, and it was actually these gasses which ripped a hole through Trayvon Martin’s clothes and stippled his chest four inches away. An instant later, the bullet followed and penetrated Trayvon Martin’s chest, ending his life minutes later.
 
It was a horrible turn of events, and an avoidable turn of events. It could not have happened if either man had acted even slightly differently that night. From a self-defense law perspective, however, the shooting of Trayvon Martin was not ambiguous.
 
Angela Corey, Bernie de la Rionda, John Guy, and Richard Mantei knew, as did two previous potential prosecutors, that there was no valid criminal case to bring against George Zimmerman. It was a textbook self-defense shooting. That is why they brought the slanderous, deceptive, and circumstantial case that they did.
 
Trayvon Martin was the first and only person who committed crimes that rainy February night. As Mark O’Mara noted during his closing: if Trayvon Martin had survived his shooting, George Zimmerman would have never faced charges, and Trayvon would have faced a long prison sentence, tried as an adult for two counts of aggravated battery.
 
There are no “winners” in a case such as this, but the jury’s reliance on the laws of self-defense and use of deadly force assured that a corrupt prosecution did not, as defense attorney Don West stated, “turn a tragedy into a travesty.”
Title: 20 years for a warning shot?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2013, 03:41:11 PM


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/

Amazing the details that got left out of other reports on this one:

a) She had a RO on him, but went to his house
b) She went back out to the car to get the gun after knowing that he was there
c) He testified she pointed the gun AT him but missed
d) She was charged with domestic battery on him in a separate incident 4 months later
Title: Re: 20 years for a warning shot?
Post by: G M on July 16, 2013, 05:49:38 PM
The left/MSM/racial industrial complex will never let facts get in the way of their narrative.




http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/

Amazing the details that got left out of other reports on this one:

a) She had a RO on him, but went to his house
b) She went back out to the car to get the gun after knowing that he was there
c) He testified she pointed the gun AT him but missed
d) She was charged with domestic battery on him in a separate incident 4 months later
Title: The Biden Defense
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 17, 2013, 05:45:44 PM
http://freebeacon.com/man-accused-of-illegally-firing-shotgun-cites-joe-bidens-advice/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Gap1TPWuI&feature=player_embedded
Title: SYG cases in FL
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 21, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
As we have seen recently, there is a movement to repeal SYG laws.  Here is an article supporting such a notion.

As we have seen recently, descriptions of cases can be quite incomplete-- indeed to the point of being dishonest-- (e.g. the case being bandied wherein a woman is said to be sentenced to 20 years for a warning shot) but in the interest of fairness and so that we see what the other side is saying/reading, I post this here:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

a) Are there any points with which we can agree?

b) This passage in particular caught my attention:

"Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

"The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?  Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails.

"If prosecutors press charges, any defendant claiming self-defense is now entitled to a hearing before a judge. At the immunity hearing, a judge must decide based on the "preponderance of the evidence" whether to grant immunity. That's a far lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt," the threshold prosecutors must meet at trial.

""It's a very low standard to prove preponderance," said Weaver, the West Palm Beach lawyer. "If 51 percent of the evidence supports your claim, you get off.""

Ummm , , , it has been over 30 years since I took Criminal Law in law school, but I'm thinking that the article's thinking here is completely spurious.  SD is an affirmative defense.  Is not "preponderance of the evidence" the correct standard for SD defenses?  Why should it be any different when the SD claim includes SYG?

Am I missing something here, or do I have it right?

"Unequal treatment: The outcome of a " stand your ground" case can turn on many factors: the location of blood spatters, the credibility of witnesses, the relative size and age of the parties involved."

Well, DUH! Just like any other SD defense case!

As I read the exceedingly brief and incomplete description of "the facts" of these cases many of the descriptions of different results that the article finds incongruous seem to me readily open to other interpretations.

Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: G M on July 21, 2013, 07:41:23 AM
"Journalists" are good at stringing words together and crafting a narrative. As far as coming up with actual facts, not so much.
Title: Stand Your Ground: The “New” Self-Defense Doctrine That’s 136 Years Young
Post by: G M on July 23, 2013, 12:53:35 PM
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/stand-your-ground-the-new-self-defense-doctrine-thats-136-years-young/

Stand Your Ground: The “New” Self-Defense Doctrine That’s 136 Years Young

 



Posted by Andrew Branca   Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 8:00am

 

Much has been made lately of the self-defense legal doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground, mostly for political purposes unrelated to any actual legal application of the doctrine (for more on this, see here: Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community).
 

Reverend Al Sharpton protests the Stand-Your-Ground laws that exist in 33 states.
 
Stand Your Ground Does Not Make it Legal to Just Kill on a Whim
 

Those denouncing Stand-Your-Ground characterize it as something “new,” a misguided initiative adopted in recent years by state legislatures that has now been clearly demonstrated to have profoundly negative unexpected consequences. “Why, under Stand-Your-Ground you can shoot and kill someone just because! And it’s totally legal!”
 
This has  become the common refrain of the pro-thug crowd who now begrudgingly concedes that Zimmerman had to be acquitted based on the facts and the law of the case–but the problem, they say, is not the thug, but the law. (For a discussion on why the Zimmerman case was never a Stand-Your-Ground case, look here: The Marissa Alexander Case Wasn’t About “Stand-Your-Ground” Either.)
 
Justifiable Killings Spiked in Florida After SYG Adopted – Self-Defense is Good
 
But are the consequences of Stand-Your-Ground either negative or unexpected? FBI data shows that there was an increase in justifiable homicides in the aftermath of Stand-Your-Ground, from an annual average of 13.2 during the period 2001-2005, to an average of 42 during 2006-2012. But isn’t that a positive and expected consequence of Stand-Your-Ground?
 
After all, a homicide that has been ruled justifiable is, by definition, one in which the person who killed was justified in doing so. Under American law, that means (with very rare exception) that the person they killed was reasonably perceived to be representing an imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. That aggressor was subsequently killed by the use of defensive force.
 
What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?
 
Highly aggressive acts of violence carry an inherent threat of death occurring to one of the participants, but the two participants are not operating on the same moral plane. The innocent defender is right in his use of defensive force, the aggressor is not. The innocent defender did not choose the initiation of violence, the aggressor did. If death must strike one of them, it is infinitely better that it strike down the thug than the law-abiding citizen.
 
To put it another way, it’s hard to get too worked up about an increase in the number of justifiable homicides occurring if the right people–the aggressors who initiated the deadly fight on an innocent–are doing the dying. When that’s the case, Stand-Your-Ground is working just fine, and the justified homicides will stop when criminal aggressors stop committing acts of aggravated violence on lawfully armed citizens. It’s the criminals’ call.  (To hear this notion propounded by yours truly to a rather shocked NPR radio show, click here:  Attorney Andrew Branca Participates on NPR Zimmerman Panel.)
 


The Venerable “New” Doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground
 
What about this concept that the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine is somehow “new.” It’s certainly true that a number of states in the last couple of decades have adopted explicit Stand-Your-Ground statutes. Florida’s was adopted in 2005, and my neighboring state of New Hampshire just adopted their version in 2011, overriding the veto of the Democratic governor, and many other states have adopted similar legislation in the intervening years.
 


In fact, however, Stand-Your-Ground is far older than today’s mainstream media and racial activists–but I repeat myself–would have you believe. A quick review of my own notes shows the earliest reference to the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine dates back to when the United States numbered a mere 38 states, the Indiana case of Runyon v. State, 57 Ind. 80 (1877). In that case the court noted:
 

The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.
 
(As quoted in: Of the Enemy Within, The Castle Doctrine, and Self-Defense.)
 
Other venerable cases supporting are found strewn widely around the closing of the 19th century: People v. Lewis (a California case from 1897), Boykin v. People (a Colorado case from 1896), Ragland v. State (a Georgia case from 1900), State v. Hatch (a Kansas case from 1896), and State v. Partlow (a Missouri case from 1887).
 
So, it’s pretty clear that Stand-Your-Ground has been around a very long time. Indeed, it has always been the majority doctrine in the United States, with only a minority of states adopting a generalized duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Even today, only 17 states apply such a duty.
 
Why the Pendulum from SYG to Duty to Retreat, and Back to SYG ?
 
But what about the states that have more recently gone Stand-Your-Ground, and were previously “duty to retreat” states by either statute or court decision? Why the change? After all, the moral imperatives that argue for Stand-Your-Ground have existed in America for at least 136 years, yet these states had moved away from the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine despite these imperatives. What drove the change from Stand-Your-Ground to “duty to retreat”? And what drove the change back again?
 
The shift away from Stand-Your-Ground and towards the generalized duty to retreat was predicated on the notion that all life is precious, and before a defender can take the life of an attacker he must first exhaust every other option. And sometimes they really mean every other option. You hear that sentiment expressed by the anti-Stand-Your-Ground folks today. Listen to the pro-thug faction talking about the Zimmerman case and you’ll soon hear someone lament that poor George should have exhausted his brains on the sidewalk before being justified to use deadly force to stop Martin’s vicious attack. After all, it was just an “ass-whuppin.” Indeed, much of the State’s prosecution of Zimmerman was based on the (legally ludicrous notion) that Zimmerman’s injuries were too minor to justify his use of deadly force in self defense. (To see why this notion is ludicrous, click here: Zimmerman Update — How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?)
 
So, what happened? Why the shift back?
 
“An Unarmed Society is an Impolite Society”
 
First, as is typical of liberal policies, even (especially?) when well intended, they had massive and genuinely negative unexpected consequences. A criminal who knows he can seize physical control of his immediate surroundings with no fear of death or grave bodily harm being visited upon him is emboldened to do exactly that. You get more violent aggression from the criminal element of society, not less, when you force law-abiding citizens to cede control to violent criminals.  It’s Heinleins’, “An armed society is a polite society,” turned topsy-turvy.
 
Duty to Retreat Greatly Facilitates the Destruction of Otherwise Solid Claims of Self-Defense
 
Second, the imposition of a generalized duty to retreat made defeating almost any claim of self-defense child’s play for hyper-aggressive prosecutors. In a fight for your life your attention is focused sharply on staying alive–at least, if you survived we can assume that was the case. After allocating the cognitive bandwidth to staying alive, there’s often not a whole lot left to allocate to identifying and carefully assessing the prospects for safely retreating down that particular path, or through that particular door, or behind that particular obstacle.
 
But in the cool, safe environs of a court room, the Prosecutor will point to ALL of these avenues of escape and demand the jury ask why not one of them were pursued–why they were not even attempted? And if he can convince them that a reasonably safe avenue of retreat existed and you failed to take advantage of it, failed to meet your generalized duty to retreat, before using deadly force, your use of that force is not justifiable under the law. Your entire claim of self-defense collapses out from under you, and instead your conduct has become an unlawful killing.
 
(Note: There are some duty-to-retreat states that do not entirely strip you of your right to claim self-defense if you failed to take advantage of a reasonably safe avenue of retreat. Under the doctrine of “imperfect self-defense” they allow you to mitigate what would have been a murder conviction to manslaughter. Recall that in the Zimmerman trial George was actually facing more jail time if convicted of the “lesser included charge” of manslaughter than if he was convicted of murder.)
 
States Became Fed-Up With Negative Consequences of Duty to Retreat, Switched Back to SYG
 
As prosecutors increasingly began to leverage this avenue of attacking self-defense claims, and society observed ever more miscarriages of justice with law-abiding defenders receiving lengthy, sometimes life-long, prison sentences because of the generalized duty to retreat, pressure gradually grew to return to the always more popular doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground.
 
And now you know the rest of the story.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: “Law of Self Defense” Seminars are now being scheduled for the fall.
 
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” now available at www.lawofselfdefense.com and also at Amazon.com as either a hardcopy or in Kindle version, and at Barnes & Noble as hardcopy or (soon!) in Nook version.
 
You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.
Title: More Larry Correia awesomeness!
Post by: G M on July 23, 2013, 02:54:31 PM
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/#comment-48806

On Profiling and Stand Your Ground

 Posted on July 22, 2013 by correia45


This post isn’t really about the Zimmerman case, though I’ll touch on how use of force laws actually work relating to that case, but it is a result of the ignoramuses who know jack about how self-defense laws work who are currently talking about it and pissing me off. Included in that list is the President of the United States.
 
On Friday, Barack Obama said the following during a press conference. Our illustrious leader is in italics. My response is in bold.
 
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son.

Yes. We appreciate the leader of the free world chiming in on local crime issues, especially before any facts are known.

Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.

Where you in the habit of committing battery against people 35 years ago?

And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.
 
And your preconceived notions, feelings, and emotions should be totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Justice should be blind, and a case should be decided based upon the evidence and whether the prosecution can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed or not.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

Me too. And despite my dad being of darker skin tone than Al Sharpton, according to these Home Depot paint chips I’m only Warm Beige. Also totally irrelevant. I’ve got a family member who takes after my mom’s super lily white side of the family, way the hell whiter than my swarthy self, who always got tailed through stores because he managed to look suspicious, and oddly enough got arrested for shop lifting on his 18th birthday. 
 
There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.
 
Don’t flatter yourself. Nobody has ever been physically intimidated by somebody wearing mom jeans. Now Vlad Putin on the other hand, he shows up, hide your wife, hide your kids.

 There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
 
And this happens to black men, white men, Asians, Latinos, you name it, and I think that’s awesome. That means that woman is paying attention to her surroundings and knows that simple physics gives a huge advantage to the male in case he decides to do something. Aren’t you from the same side that is constantly complaining that America has a “rape culture”?

I happen to look like a scary 6’5” Tony Soprano. I’m actually physically intimidating, and that is at 37 years old and years of desk job. When I was in my 20s I could bench press 365 pounds and was 270 pounds, 16% body fat, of Big Ugly. I usually had a shaved head and a goatee and I looked like my favorite hobby was punching things, which it was. I was a hundred times more physically intimidating that President Lady Parts on his best day. So I’ve been profiled tons, and I’ve had lots of women obviously assess me like I was a threat.

And I don’t think it is a bad thing at all.

#
 
First off, way to bring America together there, champ, sending the DoJ after a guy who got acquitted with your civil rights violations witch hunt. People get shot every single day, and some of them in cases way more complicated and questionable than this one, but none of those happened in the lead up to a national election where you needed to try and scare the electorate that America is still Mississippi circa 1957.
 
Second off, that is an incredibly vapid and naïve sentiment, not to mention hypocritical coming from a dude whose family will have armed security profiling potential threats for the rest of their lives.
 
Over the last couple of days I’ve grown tired listening to people who know jack about use of force laws bloviating on and on about how it is awful to profile people, and how the mere act of being suspicious of another person makes you evil. So today I’m going to talk about profiling, and how come it isn’t a bad thing at all. Notice that I didn’t say racial profiling, because race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
Back when I was teaching concealed carry classes I used to spend a bunch of time going over use of force issues. This can be basically broken into two main categories:  Legal, as in when you are legally justified in shooting somebody (a Reasonable Man would believe there is Ability, Opportunity, and an Immediate Threat of Serious Bodily Harm to themselves or a 3rd person from an aggressor), and Tactical, as in the decisions you make in order to maximize your chances of not getting hurt or killed. The two aren’t always the same, as you can be legally justified in getting involved, but it is tactically stupid, or vice versa.
 
Profiling falls under the tactical end of things.
 
The single best weapon you’ve got to defend yourself isn’t your gun, but rather your brain. You need to be smart, and try not to put yourself into situations where you would need to use your gun. The best way to do this is by paying attention, and when you notice something which could be construed as a potential threat, you do what you need to do in order to avoid it.
 
And at this point, somebody is going to read that and shriek about how according to my advice Zimmerman shouldn’t have followed Trayvon… Uh huh, legally that doesn’t matter, because as I noted above law and tactics aren’t the same, and you can be 100% legally justified even if you didn’t make the best decisions in the world leading up to the event. I had somebody get all belligerent on Facebook and demand “would you have done what Zimmerman did?!” And my answer was No, but the jury is going to ask “did you act as a reasonable man?” not “did you act like a guy who has gone through hundreds of hours of training?” And you’d better pray to God they never change it from Reasonable Man to “did you act as Larry Correia would have acted?” because then you’re all screwed.
 
So getting back on topic, the best way to avoid a violent encounter is to watch out for potential threats so you can hopefully avoid them, or be ready to react appropriately should things go south. That means paying attention to your surroundings. (This also keeps you from getting hit by cars, falling in holes, or being devoured by wild animals, so yay! Happy bonus!) That means paying attention to people who could–but more than likely won’t–want to hurt you.
 
I used to tell my students to pay attention to their instincts. If you get a bad vibe off of somebody, for whatever reason, pay attention to it. That doesn’t make you rude, or a jerk, that is just you paying attention to survival instincts that have been built into the human species over millennia for a reason. If the person that made you nervous happens to be a different color than you, who cares? That doesn’t make you racist, and it doesn’t make you a bad person. It just means that they’ve made your survival instincts tingle. So pay attention.
 
I had somebody on Twitter today tell me that according to that reasoning, Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, because Zimmerman made him nervous… That’s just freaking stupid. I said pay more attention, I didn’t say go over and commit a forcible felony against them. Duh.
 
So if you see somebody coming up to your car, where is the harm in locking the door? I know this may offend the president’s tender feelings, but he’ll get over it. You’re out nothing and 99.99% of the time it doesn’t matter, but that .01% of the time you just told a potential predator that he’s better off picking a different victim. (this part is highly ironic, as the people I’ve been debating with keep saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, but apparently he shouldn’t have locked the door!)
 
There’s a saying from firearms instructor Clint Smith, “If you look like food, you’re going to get eaten.” I used to explain to my classes that criminals were as good at their chosen career as the students were at theirs. Criminals are experts at picking out victims, and they prefer the suckers who aren’t paying attention. If you look like work, they’re probably going to pick somebody else to victimize. If you’re paying attention you’ve gone from “food” to “work” and if they wanted to work for a living they’d get a real job.
 
I think one reason permit holders don’t get into as many violent encounters as the regular population isn’t because the gun is some magic talisman that wards off evil, but rather because once you’ve made the decision to carry a firearm, you tend to pay more attention to the world around you.
 
So pay attention! Watch people. Watch for those visual, non-verbal clues that set off your survival instincts. If somebody makes you nervous, be prepared for something to happen, or try to move yourself out of the way. I call this common sense. Barack Obama calls it profiling, except for when DHS does it to veterans, because that’s just groovy.
 
But good people have been trained that judging others is bad! Violent criminals, especially those that specialize in preying on women, are aware of this, and they absolutely love it. The creepers and the stalkers and the would-be rapists take advantage of regular folk’s inclination to be polite. I’ve taught hundreds of female students, and many of them could personally cite some jackass taking advantage of their attempts to be polite, or if the woman stood up for herself (or clutched nervously at her purse and held her breath) they’d get some variation of “how come you gotta be such a bitch?”
 
Thieves and jerks who want to physically assault you love this too. If somebody is getting into your personal space, the natural human inclination is to move away, but too many people have been trained by liberals to be good little serfs, and they try to avoid giving offense, so they let the bad guy close on them, and once they are too close, it is too late. I’ve seen normal people let scary, aggressive, obviously messed up people close way into their personal space, and they sit there and take it, because they’ve been programmed that “profiling is bad” or he could actually be bug nuts crazy and you let the dude with the rusty box cutter get into bad breath distance. At least after he opens your jugular, at your funeral they’ll be able to say you never judged anyone.
 
I don’t give a crap if race comes into this or not. I’m the same color as Cheech Marin. During the summer I’m best described as “swarthy” but my olive skin tone and ability to tan well isn’t why I think it is awesome when I see some woman in a parking lot take note of my approach. It is because for all she knows I’m a potential threat, capable of easily physically overwhelming her, and she can stand there like a sucker and bank on fortune and karma that I’m not, or she could notice me and pay attention. Maybe even not stick her head inside the car and obliviously load groceries until I walk past. In fact, I’m so big that I’m used to going around people in places like that, simply to avoid making them nervous.
 
I’m so big and ugly that if I got into an elevator with Barack Obama he’d hold his breath and clutch his purse. Except I’d never be allowed into an elevator with Barack Obama because his highly trained Secret Service detail would profile me first.
 
I’m going to teach this to my daughters. Pay freaking attention. I’d much rather they hurt Barack Obama’s delicate lilac scented feelings, than they end up as victims. But then again, I’m also expecting my children to all carry firearms, because a firearm is the ultimate equalizer.
 
Now, for the people who are getting offended because people are profiling you… Yep. No big deal. Grow up. Some of us are scary looking.  Don’t let it hurt your feelings. You just need to come to terms with the fact that humans routinely victimize other humans, and some of us look more like predators than others. Does it sting when somebody reacts like that, even though you’re the nicest, most genuinely friendly person around? Sure does. Now imagine it was your wife, or your daughter, or your mom, or your grandma, and they were dealing with some scary son of a bitch that looks like you… Yeah, that changes your perspective, doesn’t it?
 
A fact of life is that people are going to look at you and make a snap judgment. If I see a group of young men dressed all Thug Life, you’re damn right I’m going to pay more attention. If you dress and act in a manner that equates with a culture well known for its violent tendencies, well yeah, people are going to be suspicious of you. Duh. If that offends you, pull up your pants. You look like an idiot with your underwear hanging out anyway. I also don’t trust white guys with swastikas tattooed on their faces. I obviously must be racist toward white people.
 
When I was 17 I got my jaw dislocated and a concussion from a beating I took from four members of an “inner city youth organization”. They came up and sucker punched me because I wasn’t paying attention and dog piled me (though I did actually win in the end, like I said, big dude). Would I notice them now? More than likely, because I’m older, wiser, and I’ve had the experience of getting my ass kicked enough to reinforce the need to pay attention in public places to groups of young men acting like they’re looking to give somebody the “whoop ass”. Knowing what I know now I might have picked up on the indicators, the way they got charged up, the target selection process, whatever, and I might have been able to move myself out of the way, or at least been more prepared for the confrontation. And in this case, all four of them were within two shades of Home Depot paint chips worth of skin color off of me. Race was irrelevant. I’d notice the same thing if they were Nigerian or Norwegian. Because once they are stomping on your head, race is fairly irrelevant.
 
#
 
Stand Your Ground Laws
 
In related idiocy, the other thing that I’m hearing a lot of bleating about is how evil Stand Your Ground laws are. I keep seeing people saying that Stand Your Ground should be repealed, and then they cite a bunch of crap that actually doesn’t have anything to do with SYG type laws. Of course, Attorney General Eric Holder, who is best known for illegally smuggling thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, is totally trust worthy on this topic.
 
I saw a blog post from another sci-fi author talking about how SYG laws basically make it legal for white people to kill black people if the black people make them nervous… Wow… That’s like saying we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima because Americans weren’t fond of origami or haiku. No, dumbass, that’s not how the law works. Just because MSNBC told you SYG laws are racist doesn’t make it true.
 
The thing is, SYG laws protect everybody, and everybody includes minorities. It protects anybody who acts in self-defense from the state and from over-zealous prosecutors. I keep seeing all these liberals talking about the racist injustice inherent in the system and how blacks are more likely to be sent to prison, and in the next sentence they are saying that we need to give the state MORE prosecutorial power and get rid of things like Reasonable Doubt and SYG laws.
 
There are two differing sets of law that govern how state’s self-defense laws work, Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat.  Basically all Stand Your Ground means is that you don’t have a Duty to Retreat, and most states have been this way since George Washington chased out the British, so this isn’t anything new.
 
Duty to Retreat means that you MUST flee from your attacker if possible. If you don’t retreat, and you shoot, then you can be prosecuted for that. Some states even require you to try and retreat from inside your own home. Stand Your Ground means you have no Duty to Retreat (but it doesn’t mean you can just shoot whoever you want whenever you want like people are trying to spin it).
 
But why wouldn’t you want to avoid shooting somebody? I always taught my students to avoid shooting if possible. That sounds great! Except here’s the problem. You get into a violent encounter. You’ve got a couple of seconds, tops, of gut wrenching terror in which to decide a course of action, commit, and see it through. So somebody attacks you, you are in fear for your life, and you shoot them. Except now when you go to court the prosecution can go after you because in those two seconds, when you didn’t see a way out, the prosecutor thought of one! And nowthey are going to pontificate on what you should have did differently, and how you should have tried harder to get away… Only they are going to do it in an air conditioned court room for ten thousand times longer than you had to decide, and when they get hungry they are going to order pizza.
 
With Stand Your Ground, that’s not going to come up, because you’re not required to try and run away. That’s it. That’s really all it comes down to. You’re not required to try and flee.
 
It doesn’t mean you can just shoot brown people who make you nervous. That’s propaganda bullshit. Even in the most lenient use of force law states (one of which I live in and taught this stuff for a decade) that’s not how it works at all. Let me condense down a couple of hours of legal lecture into a few points to see if any given shoot is justified or not. Most states operate on the following criteria:
 
Would a Reasonable Person (like a jury) make the following assumptions in your circumstances?

Were you in fear of receiving Serious Bodily Harm from an attacker? (some states use the term Grievous Bodily Harm instead, but either way it means were you in fear for your life, or of getting a bad life threatening or potentially life altering injury? Also, in some states it is you, or a third person, meaning that you can get involved not just to save your life, but someone else’s life as well)
 
If so, would a Reasonable Person come to the conclusion that your assailant(s) met the following three criteria:
 1.Did they have the Ability to cause you Serious Bodily Harm? (basically meaning can they actually hurt you?)
 2.Did they have the Opportunity to cause you Serious Bodily Harm? (basically meaning can they reach you with their ability?)
 3.Were they acting in a manner that suggested they were an Immediate Threat? (basically meaning are they actually acting like they’re going to do all this stuff to you now? Some states refer to this as Jeopardy)
 
Check. Check. Check… Bang. That’s fundamentally how the law works. Keep in mind in a class I would spend an hour going over examples of shoot and no shoot situations based on those things, but that’s basically all there is to it.
 
So let’s look at Trayvon Martin getting shot by George Zimmerman. Go through the criteria. The stuff leading up to it is basically irrelevant for this portion. Serious Bodily Harm? In most cases there aren’t even any physical injuries to show, and you’re still justified just by the reasonable belief of potential threat, but in this case there are actual injuries. Slamming your head into pavement meets the legal threshold. In fact, any blow to the head sufficient to render you unconscious is sufficient to kill you, and also if somebody renders you unconscious a reasonable man can say that you can assume they’re not going to stop there. So good to go.
 
Ability? Yep. Physically Martin was dominating Zimmerman. Opportunity. Yep, it’s happening right now. Jeopardy? Already in play.
 
Right there, within a couple of days of the shooting most of the self-defense instructors in the nation looked at this case and said, yep, he’s getting off. Not because of race, because for us you could flip the races and it was the 1/8th black Peruvian that got shot after committing battery against a black guy, and the answer remains the same, because that’s how the law is structured.
 
I say this and I’ve got people saying that I’m rejoicing in the death of a black kid… Sigh… Yeah, don’t tell all the black people I taught to shoot and certified to carry concealed weapons…  No, you freaking idiots, my FEELINGS are irrelevant, because law isn’t supposed to operate on feelings. It is supposed to operate on evidence.
 
So up next comes the legal question of whether the individual did anything which escalated, contributed to, or caused the violent encounter. Now the Reasonable People of the jury are deciding if this was Mutual Combat (when two people mutually decide to fight) that turned deadly. This is actually what most of the Zimmerman trial was about, and this is the point of the phone calls, and the timelines, and the witnesses, and everything else. It was to see if Zimmerman was partially legally at fault for the events, and if so, how much.
 
In this case, the jury looked at the events in question leading up to the shooting, and they couldn’t say Zimmerman was responsible beyond a Reasonable Doubt. (see, there’s that word Reasonable again).
 
Remember earlier when I mentioned law and tactics? They’re not the same. Could Zimmerman have done things differently? Certainly. But making bad tactical decisions isn’t necessarily illegal. The jury figured that regardless of what Zimmerman did, ultimately it was Martin that circled back around and committed the Forcible Felony. At that point it went up to the checklist above. Part of being a Reasonable Man is not being able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Everybody makes assumptions, and sometimes they are incorrect, that doesn’t make it illegal. Jumping on somebody and braining them on the sidewalk is illegal.
 
I’ve had people demand how come Stand Your Ground didn’t protect Trayvon! (seriously, I’ve seen this like 50 times on Twitter. It is like everybody works off the same narrative talking points). SYG doesn’t apply in this case because apply the checklist of Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to Zimmerman. Somebody following you through a neighborhood doesn’t mean that you can go and beat the hell out of them. And if you attack somebody before they reasonably present a threat of Serious Bodily Harm, then it isn’t lawful self-defense, so SYG doesn’t apply.
 
Prosecution’s witness, Rachel Janteel, (Trayvon’s girlfriend) was on Piers Morgan and said that the reason Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman was because he thought Zimmerman was a “gay rapist”. And also that Martin didn’t mean to kill Zimmerman, that was just a misunderstanding on Zimmerman’s part, and really Travyon just wanted to give him the “whoop ass” (her words, not mine) which was a cultural thing and how they took care of people like that… Despite MSNBC’s narrative to the contrary SYG doesn’t allow you to give the “whoop ass” to somebody just because you think they’re gay.
 
(On that note, gay rights community… Seriously?  I taught and certified a lot of gays and lesbians to carry guns, and the reason they usually gave me was so they could protect themselves from somebody giving them the “whoop ass” because of how they looked, and now I’m hearing crickets. Where’s the condemnation against this reasoning? Where’s the outrage?)
 
I’ve had people yell at me that there was only one side alive to tell their story… (again, another common talking point) Oh my gosh… That’s so incredibly dumb. That’s not how it works at all. If that was the case then there would never be any murder trials because obviously one side couldn’t testify! There’s ALWAYS more than one side. There’s evidence, there’s witnesses, there’s experts who reconstruct the details, and the prosecution had all of that to present, and the jury still had Reasonable Doubt.
 
Then I’ve got people crying about how “unjust” Reasonable Doubt is… You fools. You stupid, stupid fools. Put your emotion in check. What Reasonable Doubt really is the final check and balance against the state’s ability to throw your ass in prison forever with a flimsy case. You’re going to bitch and whine about the injustice, and how it is racist that more blacks are prosecuted and incarcerated, and your answer is to make it EASIER for the state to throw people in prison? Holy moly. You have no idea what you are wishing for.
 
That’s it. That’s how the self-defense laws work. Wrap your heads around the actual laws and calm the hell down.  Instead you’re begging stalwart defenders of civil rights like President Drone Strike and the AG who is cool with killing Mexicans to get rid of laws that protect YOU from the STATE. That’s way scarier than any one neighborhood watch guy with a gun.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Dog Robertlk808 on July 23, 2013, 03:30:54 PM
That was \ is awesome.
Title: SYG laws help blacks, elderly
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/US/crime-expert-stand-ground/2013/07/23/id/516624?s=al&promo_code=1444E-1
Title: Re: SYG laws help blacks, elderly
Post by: G M on July 24, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/US/crime-expert-stand-ground/2013/07/23/id/516624?s=al&promo_code=1444E-1

Then Sharpton and the others from the Racial Industrial Complex really hate it. That would utterly undercut their victimhood pitch.
Title: Eric Holder’s Stand Your Ground Squirrel
Post by: G M on July 24, 2013, 09:35:23 AM
Eric Holder’s Stand Your Ground Squirrel








By Michelle Malkin  •  July 17, 2013 09:34 AM


(http://michellemalkinblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cray-cray-democratic-squirrel.jpg?w=292&h=300)
 
Welcome to the Obama administration’s cringe-inducing non sequitur of the week. On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder continued stoking the fires of racial resentment over a Florida jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman. In an address to NAACP leaders, who are demanding federal intervention, Holder attacked Stand Your Ground self-defense laws.
 
All together now: Squirrel!
 
“Separate and apart from the (Trayvon Martin) case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” Holder opined. He then baselessly claimed that such laws are creating “more violence than they prevent” and used his platform to promote citizens’ “duty to retreat.”
 
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a “duty to retreat” rests on the ability to retreat. And “duty to retreat” was irrelevant in Zimmerman’s case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat.
 
This didn’t stop the NAACP crowd from cheering their heads off when Holder tossed out his red meat. Holder’s racial-grievance-mongering agenda has also been bolstered by media propaganda outlets, who’ve been dutifully bashing Stand Your Ground regardless of the facts.
 
The New York Times, for example, falsely claimed in an editorial preceding Holder’s speech that the jury “reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the now-notorious Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law.” Rolling Stone made a similarly inflammatory claim, calling Martin a “victim of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.”
 
All nonsense. The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision. Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures.
 
And as National Review’s Sterling Beard points out, “The only time Stand Your Ground came up during the trial proper was when a prosecution witness stated that he’d taught a class Zimmerman had attended that covered Stand Your Ground.”
 
Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin’s death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn’t have made it clearer during the trial: “This case is not about standing your ground.” During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground “affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law.”
 
Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: “You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we’ve dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We’ve tried a lot of self-defense cases; I’ve personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They’re tough cases, but we accept it so … the law really hasn’t changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn’t changed. We have a right to bear arms and a right to self defense.”
 
In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don’t have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: “You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman’s actual defense, critics of ‘stand your ground’ laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.”
 
Nope, it inspires exasperation and contempt. Once again, Eric Holder’s Department of Selective and Social Justice is grasping for straws. Holder now vows to “continue to fight for removal of Stand Your Ground laws” that had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. He promises to ban “racial profiling” in the aftermath of a local crime incident that — according to Holder’s own FBI employees — had nothing to do with race.
 
This is all a transparent pretext, of course, for undermining a plethora of state laws enacted by pro-Second Amendment legislatures. (Never mind that eight of 15 states that adopted Stand Your Ground legislation were helmed by Democratic governors at the time of passage.) Even more insidiously, left-wing groups have exploited the Martin case to launch broader attacks on the political speech and activities of limited-government groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which supported Stand Your Ground.
 
The Obama administration’s cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn’t public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground. Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion.
Title: Massad Ayoob speaks
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2013, 04:21:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=irnD34P2l1w
Title: Juror: Zimmerman got away with murder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659
Title: Re: Juror: Zimmerman got away with murder
Post by: Dog Robertlk808 on July 25, 2013, 04:04:51 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

Every time I read something from the Pro-Trayvon crowd it seems their opinion on everything is based on feeling rather than facts that were presented.  
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2013, 08:14:48 PM
Exactly so.

The Breyer Miggs (?) personality tests are based upon Carl Jung's notion that people have one of four basic principal modalities: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition.  IIRC by far the largest % of the population has feeling as its principal modality.  At least this juror was able to put that aside and act upon the facts.
Title: How the Cooper Color Code Explains 'Stand Your Ground,' and Prevents Crime
Post by: G M on July 30, 2013, 06:06:23 PM
July 27, 2013
How the Cooper Color Code Explains 'Stand Your Ground,' and Prevents Crime
By William A. Levinson
 



Colonel Jeff Cooper provided a color code of mental awareness, which has been adopted by Front Sight in Pahrump, Nevada.  None of the following constitutes legal advice, but it is easy to see how this color code goes well beyond debunking the myth that "stand your ground" laws turn streets into free-fire zones.  Its diligent application also prevents much, if not most, violent street crime even without the display or possession of a weapon.
 


Condition White means a person is daydreaming, talking on a cell phone, or is otherwise unaware of what is going on around him or her.  Criminals love to catch victims in Condition White because the usual result of a surprise attack is total paralysis.  Many carjacking victims are shot not because they resist, but because they freeze so thoroughly that they cannot even obey the robber's order to surrender the vehicle.
 


It is noteworthy, by the way, that the Nazis were able to murder upward of 10 million people at a relatively low cost to their own lives (the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was one of the few exceptions) by keeping them collectively in Condition White.  Jews and other victims were not told they were being taken to extermination camps; they were told they were being "relocated."
 


Meat-packing factories may similarly use an animal known as a Judas goat -- a trained member of the same species that is to be slaughtered.  Its presence keeps the victims in Condition White until it is too late for them to realize what is happening to them.
 


Humans, and possibly domestic livestock, are the only animals that live even part of their lives in Condition White.  All wild animals live their entire lives in Condition Yellow, and law enforcement experts suggest that law-abiding people should do so as well.
 


Condition Yellow is a prudent level of vigilance, and this vigilance stops many potentially deadly confrontations before they even begin.  This is because there is not much difference between the decision processes that criminals and predatory animals use.  If a carnivore wins a fight, he gets a meal.  If a criminal wins a fight, he gets the victim's property, or the enjoyment of a sexual assault.  In either case, however, the attacker cannot risk anything but the most trivial injuries. If the predatory animal is hurt badly in a fight, the meal it just killed will be its last, because it will be unable to catch another.  No rational criminal wants to get hurt, either, and even a non-fatal gunshot wound will almost certainly lead to an arrest.  No rational criminal will therefore attack somebody who is in Condition Yellow; he does not know for sure that even a smaller and physically weaker victim won't do him some damage.
 


Pearl Harbor was obviously not caught in Condition White on December 7, 1941.  A military base is always at no less than Condition Yellow because there are always sentries and lookouts, and Pearl Harbor also had a rudimentary radar system.  The Japanese attack succeeded because the base did not go to Condition Orange when the radar operators saw things of whose identity they were uncertain.
 


Condition Orange means the identification of a potential threat -- a situation that "makes you uncomfortable."  There is probably a good reason for this; our instincts, like those of all other animals, evolved to prevent us from becoming meals.  Condition Orange is what police instructor Massaad Ayoob calls "bare fear," as opposed to "reasonable fear."  You are justified in taking countermeasures to avoid the situation in question.  You areemphatically not justified in even drawing a gun, much less aiming it at somebody, in Condition Orange.
 


I personally encountered an excellent Condition Orange simulation at Luzerne County Community College's Public Safety Institute.  I confronted, while holding a handgun simulator at the ready position (drawn but not aimed), a Caucasian version of Trayvon Martin who was acting suspiciously in the wrong neighborhood.  He suddenly reached behind his back, drew a knife, and lunged at me.  The computer determined that he reached me before I could aim and fire, which I did the instant he began his attack.  (In practice, he had not done anything previously to even justify drawing a gun on him, which meant I had an advantage that a police officer or armed citizen would not have had in reality.)  The lesson is, therefore, to put as much distance as you can between yourself and a suspicious individual even if you are armed.  He can otherwise bring a knife to a gunfight, and win.
 


If Condition Orange is the rustling in the woods that tells you a wolf might nearby, Condition Red means you can see the wolf.  This is the condition that the law calls reasonable fear, and under which you may be justified in drawing a firearm.  It is at this point that you decide, "If he does so-and-so [which is a direct threat to your life or that of another person], I will have to use a weapon, or a potentially lethal martial arts technique."
 


Condition Black, as used by Front Sight, means the assailant has just done so-and-so.
 


To recap:
 

•Condition Yellow keeps you, and the would-be criminal, out of trouble by deterring all but the most vicious or deranged assailants.  In the latter case, Condition Yellow gives you time to react.
 •Condition Orange is "bare fear," or, to use the words of Barack Obama and other critics of stand your ground laws, "you feel threatened."
 •Condition Red means that the law's ideal "reasonable person" knows that his or her life is in danger.  Only at this point does "stand your ground" become operational.
 


The Cooper Color Code applies comprehensively only to situations in which you are outside your house: a place in which it is reasonable, and necessary for eight or so hours per day, to be in Condition White.  We are helpless when we sleep, and horror/slasher movie producers include victim-in-the-shower scenes because we are equally helpless while we bathe.  Most real people do not carry guns into the bathtub or shower, unless they are Tuco Ramirez or Big Jake.  Even carrying a gun in your home, which few people really want to do, won't help if you are asleep.
 


This underscores the need for ample reaction time in the event of a violent home invasion, and the truth is that burglars can kick in a door with even a deadbolt lock if the strike plate is not anchored into the wall stud.  You can buy, and for less than ten dollars, strike plates (e.g. Gatehouse) with long screws that do go all the way into the stud.  Other off-the-shelf security solutions, such as Nightlock, are available.
 


William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.  (Nothing in this opinion piece constitutes engineering advice, or professional security advice.)


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/how_the_cooper_color_code_explains_stand_your_ground_and_prevents_crime.html
Title: Detroit man says SYG kept him out of prison
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2013, 08:29:46 AM
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/23035397/detroit-man-says-stand-your-ground-kept-him-out-of-prison
Title: Need to play media game in SD cases
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2013, 04:24:39 PM
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/merritt-landry-allies-developing-narrative-of-innocence/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
Title: Re: Need to play media game in SD cases
Post by: G M on August 07, 2013, 07:17:35 PM
Quote from: Crafty_Dog link=topic=23.msg74658#msg74658 date=137591

7879
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/merritt-landry-allies-developing-narrative-of-innocence/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

Nice to see honest, ethical people stand against the forces of hatred.
Title: Mitch Vilos comments
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2013, 09:26:15 PM
MV is the co-author of the "SD Law of the 50 States" book that we sell here on the website.  His comments on this case:

Marc,

This is a sad case.  This is where the "curtilage" statutes come in handy.  Utah calls the "curtilage" the perimeter of your real property!  But that statute has not been tested but at least it's on the books just in case needed.  Louisiana's statutes dance around the concept of presumptions for home defense, but it appears the statute requires entry to the building (home or work).  It's forcible felony statutes kind of address the issue, but still require an imminent threat of death or serious injury.  So this case, without an in depth legal analysis on my part, seems to fall short of a clear-cut defense of self or home defense , not to mention all the thumbs down factors we mention in Chapter 7 such as armed defender/unarmed "victim," young victim, possible race issues.  Hence, this gives prosecutors license to attempt to fry the shooter like a chicken gizzard on a hot, sticky Sunday night in the Deep South!  But on the other hand again, it's time for society to send a message to these budding criminals and their parents that there are places you just shouldn't go or you could be killed.  Hence Pancho's commentary under the home-defense section of our Chapter encouraging adoption of the Mother of All Self-Defense Laws:

Pancho’s Wisdom: If Willie Nelson were asked to sing a logical response to the Harvard argument, he would probably pen the words, “Mamas don’t let you babies grow up to “wander” into other people’s homes in Bama or Florida.” There are countless places that exist in our modern world that could prove fatal for children. Parents and teens in New York understand that if the kids play hide-n-seek in an active subway tunnel, they could be crushed. San Diego families don’t let their kids play laser tag on Interstate 5 at 3am. Moms and dads all over this land teach their kids not to trespass into power sub-stations surrounded by high chain-link fences topped with barbed wire, surrounded by signs warning “Danger: High Voltage.” Con- cerned career-criminal parents nurturing, burgeoning burglars-in-embryo need only remind their offspring to add someone-else’s home [and arguably the curtilege) to the list of places where they know that uninvited intrusion could lead to sudden death. What’s so hard about that?

It's not hard, but legislators don't apparently have the backbone to make the home and curtilage a "certain-death zone" if you are an uninvited intruder. 
Title: Self-Defense Law roundtable discussion
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2013, 10:55:55 AM
I know Rory Miller.  He's a sharp guy.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/self-defense-and-the-law
Title: FL keeps SYG
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2013, 05:26:32 AM
http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/08/florida-lawmakers-reject-repeal-of-stand-your-ground/
Title: TX dad kills5 year old daughter's rapist
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 27, 2013, 03:01:20 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071
Title: Re: TX dad kills5 year old daughter's rapist
Post by: G M on August 28, 2013, 12:49:56 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071

God bless Texas! At least there are a few sane places left.
Title: Carjackers shot in Texas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 19, 2013, 02:26:56 PM
http://eaglerising.com/1823/man-faces-prison-shooting-carjackers/#EATYhWQI6MppR2R3.01
Title: OTOH, here's this:
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 20, 2013, 01:07:01 PM


http://www.change.org/petitions/commute-the-25-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-michael-giles
Title: Help right an injustice.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 21, 2013, 08:56:29 AM
I signed this petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/commute-the-25-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-michael-giles
Title: Charged with murder after running over pistol whipping attacker
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 03, 2014, 10:19:05 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/02/man-attacked-by-robber-fights-back-is-charged-with-murder/
Title: former Marine charged for intervening against armed robbery
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/09/remember-the-former-marine-who-opened-fire-after-an-arizona-couple-pulled-a-gun-on-a-sears-employee-police-will-be-submitting-charges-against-him/
Title: No bail for texter killer
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 15, 2014, 10:51:47 AM
Despite the apparent stupidity of the kill, I am surprised at no bail

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/14/22303633-retired-tampa-cop-denied-bail-in-movie-theater-slaying?fb_action_ids=10203164638023337&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=AddThis_Blogs&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[1395614907358309]&action_type_map=[%22og.recommends%22]&action_ref_map=[%22AddThis_Blogs%22
Title: Re: No bail for texter killer
Post by: G M on January 16, 2014, 09:04:35 AM
Despite the apparent stupidity of the kill, I am surprised at no bail

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/14/22303633-retired-tampa-cop-denied-bail-in-movie-theater-slaying?fb_action_ids=10203164638023337&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=AddThis_Blogs&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[1395614907358309]&action_type_map=[%22og.recommends%22]&action_ref_map=[%22AddThis_Blogs%22

Usually bond schedules are set by state statute.often it will go down at the discretion of the judge.
Title: Michael Dunn found guilty on several charges
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2014, 02:56:07 PM
From what I can tell, this man, despite CCW for 20 years, acted quite wrongly here.

Mistrial on First-Degree Murder Charge as Jury Reaches Partial Verdict in Florida Killing
 
After four days of deliberation, the jury in the trial of Michael Dunn, a Florida man who shot a teenager to death in a parking lot during a dispute over loud music, said it could not agree on whether Mr. Dunn had acted in self-defense or was guilty of murder.
The jurors did find Mr. Dunn guilty of three counts of attempted murder for getting out of his car, and firing several times at the Durango sport utility vehicle in which Jordan Davis, 17, was killed but three other teenagers survived. Mr. Dunn continued to fire at the car even as it pulled away. For that crime, Mr. Dunn he could be sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison.
The judge declared a mistrial on the count of first-degree murder. The jury also failed to reach agreement on lesser charges that are automatically included in jury instructions.Those were second- and third-degree murder and manslaughter. Prosecutors are free to move ahead with a new trial on the murder charge, if they wish.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/florida-killing-over-loud-music.html?emc=edit_na_20140215

Title: Re: Michael Dunn found guilty on several charges
Post by: G M on February 16, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
If one is ever in a self defense shooting, you should be calling 911 asap.

From what I can tell, this man, despite CCW for 20 years, acted quite wrongly here.

Mistrial on First-Degree Murder Charge as Jury Reaches Partial Verdict in Florida Killing
 
After four days of deliberation, the jury in the trial of Michael Dunn, a Florida man who shot a teenager to death in a parking lot during a dispute over loud music, said it could not agree on whether Mr. Dunn had acted in self-defense or was guilty of murder.
The jurors did find Mr. Dunn guilty of three counts of attempted murder for getting out of his car, and firing several times at the Durango sport utility vehicle in which Jordan Davis, 17, was killed but three other teenagers survived. Mr. Dunn continued to fire at the car even as it pulled away. For that crime, Mr. Dunn he could be sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison.
The judge declared a mistrial on the count of first-degree murder. The jury also failed to reach agreement on lesser charges that are automatically included in jury instructions.Those were second- and third-degree murder and manslaughter. Prosecutors are free to move ahead with a new trial on the murder charge, if they wish.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/florida-killing-over-loud-music.html?emc=edit_na_20140215


Title: Mitch Vilos on the Michael Dunn verdict
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2014, 07:43:19 PM
This from Mitch Vilos, the author the of SD Law of the 50 States Book that we sell:

This is what happens when there are too many thumbs-down factors. The defendant claimed he saw a shotgun. After the shooting the SUV he shot into left the scene for 3 minutes and came back, just long enough to dispose of a weapon. Had he really believed he saw a shotgun, he should have immediately reported the assault and asked police to find and search the SUV. Instead, he left the scene, went to a hotel with his fiancé and had pizza for dinner. Thumbs down as I recall: Failure to avoid the conflict, defendant arguably the initial aggressor because no shotgun found, failure to de-escalate the conflict, victims had no weapon as far as we know, defendant drinking or drunk, defendant left scene without reporting the alleged attack upon him, defendant white, victims black, multiple shots fired apparently even as car was fleeing (see photos with dowels stuck in bullet holes), conflicting statements made by defendant outside presence of attorney (suggesting false information to police at least at some point, destroying defendant's credibility), victims are "youths." and last but not least (See Chapter 7) being an A__hole and allowing another A__hole rattle his chain. That's a LOT of thumbs down factors which make it difficult, if not impossible, for any defense attorney to overcome.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Title: FL bill would allow carry without permit during riots, disasters
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2014, 08:59:38 AM
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/florida-house-bill-would-allow-carrying-guns-without-a-permit-during-riots/2174397
Title: 65 year old kills two teen invaders in his home and is charged
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2014, 04:26:25 PM
http://brainerddispatch.com/news/crime/2014-01-23/byron-smith-pleads-not-guilty
Title: Re: 65 year old kills two teen invaders in his home and is charged
Post by: G M on April 15, 2014, 08:14:19 PM
http://brainerddispatch.com/news/crime/2014-01-23/byron-smith-pleads-not-guilty

Gotta love "make my day" type laws.
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2014, 10:37:34 PM
mmmm , , , some disconcerting additional details being reported here , , ,

http://brainerddispatch.com/news/crime/2014-01-23/byron-smith-pleads-not-guilty
Title: Re: Self-Defense and other law related to martial arts
Post by: Guard Dog on August 07, 2014, 08:21:53 AM
PA Self Defense Law:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM
Title: California wait period
Post by: prentice crawford on August 25, 2014, 04:55:45 PM
California wait period doesn't apply to gun owners
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has overturned part of a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, ruling that it does not apply to those who already own firearms.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled that "10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Californians buying their first firearm will still be subject to background checks and the 10-day waiting period under the ruling, dated Friday.

A spokesman for the state attorney general, Nick Pacilio, said Monday that officials are reviewing the ruling as they decide whether to appeal.

Two gun owners and two gun-owner rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, sued over the state waiting period in 2011.

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read/category/Top%20News/article/the_associated_press-california_wait_period_doesnt_apply_to_gun_owners-ap
Title: Court rules Tasers within Second Amendment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2019, 01:19:04 PM
https://www.scribd.com/document/402777713/Avitabile-Taser-Ruling?fbclid=IwAR2BVYWsOsES2ecP9vc3TZuMLzQs-x1VHWumRNJeVx2ft1KWemw2aJQp3IQ