Gun Control and self defense: Zimmerman and other examples

[joko104]

Actually the burden of proof is not always on the state..



in other words.. the defendant has the burden to prove to the jury that his actions were sufficiently justifiable..

Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

"Common law" is irrelevant in the face of actual statutory law nor does what you quotes mean what you falsely interpret it to mean.

 

[joko104]

WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE


When there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury to yourself or another innocent person!


Dissect and understand each and every word in that statement. Each word in that phrase has literal meaning to it. Learn it, know it, live it.

The two words, "otherwise unavoidable" are just as important as the rest. Live by that phrase and employ lethal force only when that situation presents itself and you'll generally be okay in all 50 states.

An "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death" is generally looked at in terms of the attacker possessing the following three components: Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy.

Ability: The attacker must possess the ability to kill or cripple you. This generally means that he has a weapon capable of inflicting lethal or crippling injury such as a gun, knife (or other edged weapon), a club of sufficient size and weight that is capable of killing or maiming.

Opportunity: The attacker must at least have the opportunity to use the weapon to kill or cripple you. For example, a gun can be used against you at considerable distance, whereas a man threatening you with a two foot piece of lead pipe, standing across the parking lot, 30 yards away does not have the opportunity to kill you with it (at least not until he closes the distance).

Jeopardy: Often the word is interchanged with intent, and means that the attacker must be actively threatening to harm you with deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats which are believable. A man casually standing there with a holstered weapon on his person certainly has the opportunity and ability to kill or cripple anyone in the immediate area, but unless he is actually placing you in jeopardy by deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats, you aren't warranted in responding with lethal force until said person actually places you in jeopardy by his actions and intent to hurt you.

All three of those components, (ability, opportunity and jeopardy) must be present all at the same time to be construed as placing a person in what is referred to as "Immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury". Only then would you be justified in using lethal force of your own to repel the attack.

You make false assertions such as asserting the other person must have a weapon. That is a false assertion you just make up. That appears nowhere in law.

 

[joko104]

Most states have the following requirements for a killing to be considered legal self-defense:

1. You must be without legal fault in causing the situation (ie can't have committed a crime in creating it)
2. You must be, or believe yourself to be, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
3. A reasonable person in the same situation would also believe #2.

Some states have a duty to retreat if possible under certain circumstances, others do not.


To be REASONABLY in fear of your life or grave bodily harm requires three elements:

Opportunity, Ability and Intent/or Jeopardy. These concepts are well defined in law and understood by most of us that carry guns. I've explained them many times.

Ability: The subject must have the ability to harm me. A man in a wheelchair threatening to whup my ass probably lacks the Ability to carry out his threats.
Opportunity: Someone threatening to shoot me over the phone lacks the opportunity to do so. Someone who says he is going to shoot me from 20 feet away while reaching into his jacket is credible.
Intent/Jeopardy: the subject's behavior must indicate that he has intent to harm me and intends to do so right now (imminent threat).

Another relevant standard is the abstract one of what would a "reasonable person" feel and do? Is the person's fear "reasonable?" Did the person use a level of force that a reasonable person would reasonably believe is necessary. Thus, in the are phrases such as "up to and including deadly force" as a self defense (or defense of others) option.

Where it gets interesting is "in defense of others." A person is allowed less error in defending others than in defending yourself. Generally, in defending yourself you only need a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Thus a reasonable belief the other person had a weapon and was going to harm me is sufficient. However, if defending another person you better be fairly certain that really was a gun and really was a danger.

Seeing on person with a gun and another person handing something over - you shooting the person with a gun believing this an armed robbery isn't going to be a good defense if they were 2 hunting buddies and one was handing the other another magazine. "Reasonable belief" and "reasonable action" are fact-finder (jury or judge) decisions as to what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[joko104]

The OPer is still the next person to claim it is impossible to kill someone without a weapon. :roll:

 

[Goshin]

Another relevant standard is the abstract one of what would a "reasonable person" feel and do? Is the person's fear "reasonable?" Did the person use a level of force that a reasonable person would reasonably believe is necessary. Thus, in the are phrases such as "up to and including deadly force" as a self defense (or defense of others) option.

Where it gets interesting is "in defense of others." A person is allowed less error in defending others than in defending yourself. Generally, in defending yourself you only need a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Thus a reasonable belief the other person had a weapon and was going to harm me is sufficient. However, if defending another person you better be fairly certain that really was a gun and really was a danger.

Seeing on person with a gun and another person handing something over - you shooting the person with a gun believing this an armed robbery isn't going to be a good defense if they were 2 hunting buddies and one was handing the other another magazine. "Reasonable belief" and "reasonable action" are fact-finder (jury or judge) decisions as to what is reasonable and what is not.

As I recently noted in another thread, most states follow one of two models for defending others:

1. Good Sam
2. In his Shoes

Good Sam means if you were acting on good intentions, then you are judged based on what you knew at the time, regardless of what the actual situation was or what you didn't know.

In his Shoes means you legally 'step into the shoes' of the person you're defending. If he was in the right, you are in the right; if he was in the wrong, you are in the wrong, regardless of what you did or didn't know about the situation.

Of the two, obviously #2 is the more restrictive and has a chilling effect on going to the defense of strangers.


My home state, mostly very lenient in self-defense issues, oddly has #2 as their standard for defending others.... so be sure you know what's what...

 

[TurtleDude]

Most states have the following requirements for a killing to be considered legal self-defense:

1. You must be without legal fault in causing the situation (ie can't have committed a crime in creating it)
2. You must be, or believe yourself to be, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
3. A reasonable person in the same situation would also believe #2.

Some states have a duty to retreat if possible under certain circumstances, others do not.


To be REASONABLY in fear of your life or grave bodily harm requires three elements:

Opportunity, Ability and Intent/or Jeopardy. These concepts are well defined in law and understood by most of us that carry guns. I've explained them many times.

Ability: The subject must have the ability to harm me. A man in a wheelchair threatening to whup my ass probably lacks the Ability to carry out his threats.
Opportunity: Someone threatening to shoot me over the phone lacks the opportunity to do so. Someone who says he is going to shoot me from 20 feet away while reaching into his jacket is credible.
Intent/Jeopardy: the subject's behavior must indicate that he has intent to harm me and intends to do so right now (imminent threat).

as someone who

1) shot someone in self defense and was exonerated by a preliminary hearing, the DA, and a Grand Jury, this is accurate advice

2) represented police officers and their insurance carriers in "wrongful shooting cases, this is accurate advice

3) represented federal agents in "Federal tort claim" cases, this advice is accurate

4) served as an instructor at two well known "tactical shooting academies" teaching police and non LEO civilians firearms self defense, this advice is accurate

Well down Goshin-an excellent summary of the law

 

[Cryptic]

Most states have the following requirements for a killing to be considered legal self-defense:

1. You must be without legal fault in causing the situation (ie can't have committed a crime in creating it)
2. You must be, or believe yourself to be, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
3. A reasonable person in the same situation would also believe #2.

Great summary.

In regards to point 1, what happens if the individual is with out a legal fault, but there are indications that he had a part in provoking, exacerbating, or inciting a situation that led to a self defense shooting?

Can a jury disregard his claim to self defense, even if all three elements are present? Also, can a jury still come to a hybrid conclusion and say: "After doing "X", you had more of an obligation to try to make a serious effort to leave. Therefore we reject your claim to say.... "pure" self defense"

 

[Goshin]

Great summary.

In regards to point 1, what happens if the individual is with out a legal fault, but there are indications that he had a part in provoking, exacerbating, or inciting a situation that led to a self defense shooting?

Can a jury disregard his claim to self defense, even if all three elements are present? Or in other words, does the presence of all three elements guarantee a finding of self defense, or can a jury still come to a hybrid conclusion and say: "After doing "X", you had more of an obligation to try to make a serious effort to leave. Therefore we reject your claim to pure self defense"

That's going to vary a bit from state to state, because it will depend on the exact wording of the law (almost all states use this template, but some word it a little differently), and also on legal precedents in the state as to what constitutes "without fault in creating the incident".

It is also somewhat dependent on circumstances. It is widely held that you can't commit a felony in creating the situation and be considered without fault. (ie You broke into someone's house). Whether a misdemeanor will constitute "fault" depends on the jurisdiction and circumstances (ie you were invited in, but then told to leave and you didn't immediately leave, usually misdemeanor trespassing).

Some states say if you're in another person's home, you have a duty to try to retreat before using lethal force.


It may also depend on the jury. Ok maybe you didn't do anything illegal per se, but maybe you provoked the guy verbally, pissed him off bad, all but dared him to do something... even if the State doesn't call that a disqualifying act (some would, some might not) the jury may decide that put you at fault unless instructed to disregard it.


Turtledude might be able to give you a better answer to this than me, actually.

 

[jaeger19]

No need to apologize. You proved my point for more. Regardless of the charge, it's the state's burden, and the state's burden alone, to prove their case.

Actually no.. you pointed out that Zimmerman has the duty to show that what he did was reasonable to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Goshin just gave a great summary of the law.

 

[Goshin]

Actually no.. you pointed out that Zimmerman has the duty to show that what he did was reasonable to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Goshin just gave a great summary of the law.

A jury found no credible evidence that Zimmerman was legally at fault in creating the incident, and that his injuries and the testimony of witnesses were indicative that he was under attack at the time, in a manner that a reasonable person could construe as threatening grave bodily harm (banging head on concrete, etc), and found him not guilty.

Legally speaking that is pretty much the end of it. I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to be debating here. (?)

 

[jaeger19]

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "burden of proof." Burden of proof applies ONLY in court.

yep... so? As already explained... there is burden of proof when it comes to an affirmative self defense claim. the defendant has to prove that his actions were reasonable as the law contends.

If that was not the law... then every criminal would cry "self defense".. It would be the greatest get out of jail free card. "sure I killed her... she came at me and I feared for my life... PROVE IT WASN"T SELF DEFENSE..."

But that's not how the self defense defense.. works.

Find me a lawyer worth his salt that agrees with you. No competent lawyer would ever give any of the advice you have given in this thread

Actually I was given that advice in our POST training by competent lawyers. And I have of course watched your video. The problem is.. I didn;t see it discussing self defense. Let me tell you... if you call the police.. and tell them.. : I just shot someone.. and they arrive at your door.. and there you are and refuse to state ANYTHING to the police.. they are going to right off the bat treat it as a murder.. and later when you get a lawyer.. and THEN claim it was self defense... the prosecution is going to have a field day with that one. That action will make you look guilty to a jury.. right off.

I know you won't think about it.. but I hope you will. The above lawyer is giving advice to EVERYONE that may have committed a CRIME.. even unknowingly. In that instance... yeah.. you better keep your mouth shut. But if you are going to use an affirmative defense like self defense... you don't want to act like a criminal.

I'd be real curious what Turtledude would say on this.

I'm still waiting for you to provide relevant case law that shows that there are any instances in which the state is relieved of its burden of proof in a murder trial simply because the defendant claimed self defense. Until you provide some, you're simply talking out your ass. I'm sorry, but your opinion means nothing to me on this matter. In fact, it means nothing to anyone who has ever had to sit before a jury while charged with any crime. So if you can't provide it, simply say so. It's OK, we all know.

I provided the law... not my opinion. Florida's law... listen if you can't refute it.. its okay... because well.. its the law.

.

 

[jet57]

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

The stand your ground law and mentality in Florida had a lot to do with that in my view. I'm sure he would have been convicted in another state of at least murder 2.

 

[LagerHead]

Actually no.. you pointed out that Zimmerman has the duty to show that what he did was reasonable to protect himself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Goshin just gave a great summary of the law.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. You haven't supported your position in the least. That's the only important thing here.

 

[US Conservative]

Everything you said up to this point is correct.



The state has the burden of proof always in a criminal case. The state was unable to meet that burden in the Zimmerman case because the evidence didn't support the charge even though the state withheld evidence they knew would exonerate Zimmerman.

Of course if you have case law that shows that I am incorrect I am open to reviewing what you have.

This is true, and in the Zimmerman case, state KNEW there wasn't any evidence to charge Z, but yielded due to political pressure. All that did was extend the fail.

 

[LagerHead]

This is true, and in the Zimmerman case, state KNEW there wasn't any evidence to charge Z, but yielded due to political pressure. All that did was extend the fail.

Perfectly and succinctly stated. You win the Internet for the day.

 

[jaeger19]

A jury found no credible evidence that Zimmerman was legally at fault in creating the incident, and that his injuries and the testimony of witnesses were indicative that he was under attack at the time, in a manner that a reasonable person could construe as threatening grave bodily harm (banging head on concrete, etc), and found him not guilty.

Legally speaking that is pretty much the end of it. I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to be debating here. (?)

Well.. My point using Zimmerman as an example is that the LAW requires Zimmerman to provide evidence that he acted in a reasonable manner.

Zimmerman did get away with one based on the law. According to the law.. in almost any other circumstance.. the jury could have found differently.

The Zimmerman case brings up a lot of issues.

For example...

Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin... Now.. does that violate the part of the self defense statute of not having "legal fault"..?

If you pursue a person who is not committing a crime down a dark alley, are you violating that?. How would you feel if you were the person being followed? Would you consider being followed in your own neighborhood in the dark.,. by an unknown person a threat?

The Zimmerman case brings up a lot of good questions as to what is considered "reasonable"....

Does reasonable mean that if you confront someone.. and then are losing a fight... can you shoot them?

I think this is worth discussion and Zimmerman is a real world case.

 

[Goshin]

Well.. My point using Zimmerman as an example is that the LAW requires Zimmerman to provide evidence that he acted in a reasonable manner.

Zimmerman did get away with one based on the law. According to the law.. in almost any other circumstance.. the jury could have found differently.

The Zimmerman case brings up a lot of issues.

For example...

Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin... Now.. does that violate the part of the self defense statute of not having "legal fault"..?

If you pursue a person who is not committing a crime down a dark alley, are you violating that?. How would you feel if you were the person being followed? Would you consider being followed in your own neighborhood in the dark.,. by an unknown person a threat?

The Zimmerman case brings up a lot of good questions as to what is considered "reasonable"....

Does reasonable mean that if you confront someone.. and then are losing a fight... can you shoot them?

I think this is worth discussion and Zimmerman is a real world case.

Ok.


My two bits...

Z had every legal right to get out of his car and walk down the sidewalk, even if he was following someone he deemed suspicious. He had every right to confront someone (verbally) he deemed suspicious.

Was it smart? No. Legal? apparently yes.

At some point this turned into a fight. Z says M jumped him. M is a bit too dead to say otherwise. There is no witness saying Z assaulted M first. There is no physical evidence Z assaulted M first.

There IS evidence that M inflicted injury on Z, and witnesses who saw him in an aggressive position on top of Z.

Thus the greater part of the evidence is indicative that M assaulted Z and was shot as a result of same. Self-defense.

Do we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that that is how it went down? No we do not. But we cannot prove otherwise, therefore the preponderance of evidence weights in favor of Z.



The only real question, legally speaking, is whether Z's "following behavior" constituted some kind of breach of the peace that put him at fault.

A jury decided no it didn't.


I'll grant you that was not a foregone conclusion... as I said back when the debate was raging, Z's actions put him in an unwise position where he was both vulnerable to assault and also where his actions could be questioned.



As someone who teaches defensive handgunning on the side, I would advise my students NOT to do like Z did, if it could be avoided. Too risky on several levels.


But not necessarily constituting legal fault, at least not in Florida. Other states might see it differently.

 

[jaeger19]

The stand your ground law and mentality in Florida had a lot to do with that in my view. I'm sure he would have been convicted in another state of at least murder 2.

Actually that is a good question... but here is the reality under that law.. The castle doctrine doesn't apply in Zimmermans case. Now here is the irony. The defense in the Zimmerman case made the case that Martin "could have fled"... they made great hay about the time that Martin could have fled from Zimmerman and could have avoided the situation. They offered this as proof that he intended to attack Zimmerman. And here is the rub... Stand Your Ground.. APPLIES TO MARTIN...

It was Martin that walked away.. it was martin what was being pursued.. down a dark alley, by a man.. that turned out to be armed with a firearm. HE is not under any duty to try and retreat and expose his back. There is much ado about Martin hitting Zimmerman. Well.. according to the law.. being pursued in a dark alley, by an armed man.. who is not identified as police? That's a threat. that's a real threat. and under the law.. Martin... would be justified in using deadly force.. in order to protect himself from an armed pursuer.

That's the irony of the Zimmerman case... if you applied the rationale that Goshin supplied to the situation that Martin faced? He was CLEARLY justified in trying to save his life by using deadly force. He clearly was under a threat. and ultimately.. he was killed by that person.. so its hard to argue that he was not in peril for his life.

 

[Goshin]

Actually that is a good question... but here is the reality under that law.. The castle doctrine doesn't apply in Zimmermans case. Now here is the irony. The defense in the Zimmerman case made the case that Martin "could have fled"... they made great hay about the time that Martin could have fled from Zimmerman and could have avoided the situation. They offered this as proof that he intended to attack Zimmerman. And here is the rub... Stand Your Ground.. APPLIES TO MARTIN...

It was Martin that walked away.. it was martin what was being pursued.. down a dark alley, by a man.. that turned out to be armed with a firearm. HE is not under any duty to try and retreat and expose his back. There is much ado about Martin hitting Zimmerman. Well.. according to the law.. being pursued in a dark alley, by an armed man.. who is not identified as police? That's a threat. that's a real threat. and under the law.. Martin... would be justified in using deadly force.. in order to protect himself from an armed pursuer.

That's the irony of the Zimmerman case... if you applied the rationale that Goshin supplied to the situation that Martin faced? He was CLEARLY justified in trying to save his life by using deadly force. He clearly was under a threat. and ultimately.. he was killed by that person.. so its hard to argue that he was not in peril for his life.

One flaw there: there is no evidence Martin knew his follower was armed. Of course, a wise person would assume it was so.

I will agree with you that if Martin had killed Zim and played his cards right, he could very likely have been found not guilty under much the same criteria. All he'd have to do is claim Z was the aggressor and reached for his gun, and if there were no witnesses or physical evidence showing otherwise, a jury would probably have to acquit him.


Addendum: JUST being followed, along a public walkway, is not typically gonna be seen as sufficient reason to attack someone. Confront yes; attack no. They would have to indicate ability and intent to do harm first. Following alone isn't usually going to be considered sufficient, unless they are following you on your own property (where they're not supposed to be- legal fault), or they suddenly try to run you down, or something similarly aggressive.



:shrug: You pays your money and you takes your chances. The system isn't perfect.

 

[jaeger19]

There IS evidence that M inflicted injury on Z, and witnesses who saw him in an aggressive position on top of Z.

Thus the greater part of the evidence is indicative that M assaulted Z and was shot as a result of same. Self-defense.

Do we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that that is how it went down? No we do not. But we cannot prove otherwise, therefore the preponderance of evidence weights in favor of Z.

And this is where the evidence breaks down. One has to believe that Zimmerman was REASONABLY in fear for his life.
nd
So lets look at the evidence. Martin was on top of Zimmerman according to witnesses. That would be reasonable if I was trying to defend myself against and armed attacker.

Zimmerman was trained in Mixed Martial Arts.. which would include fighting off his back. Being on his back is actually a good defensive position and its one that any MMA trained person would know. In fact.. the ability to defend and attack from that position is one of the first things you learn in Jiu Jitsu. A physicians assistant testified that he stated he was training 3 days a week.

What were his injuries.. a swollen nose.. and a scratch on the back of his head. Now.. does that sound like you are taking a beating that would end your life? Not if you were trained in MMA. That's something that Zimmerman problem faced every time he sparred.
Now.. it could be argued that Zimmerman had to use deadly force.. because he didn't know how long he could hold off martin.. except he KNEW that help was on the way? How did he know? Because he called them.

I think if we were to look at the evidence objectively.. it would be clear that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear for his life. His actions, his knowledge of MMA, his lack of injury and his knowledge that help was on the way.. preclude it being justified use of force.

 

[jaeger19]

One flaw there: there is no evidence Martin knew his follower was armed. Of course, a wise person would assume it was so.

I will agree with you that if Martin had killed Zim and played his cards right, he could very likely have been found not guilty under much the same criteria. All he'd have to do is claim Z was the aggressor and reached for his gun, and if there were no witnesses or physical evidence showing otherwise, a jury would probably have to acquit him.


Addendum: JUST being followed, along a public walkway, is not typically gonna be seen as sufficient reason to attack someone. Confront yes; attack no. They would have to indicate ability and intent to do harm first. Following alone isn't usually going to be considered sufficient, unless they are following you on your own property (where they're not supposed to be- legal fault), or they suddenly try to run you down, or something similarly aggressive.



:shrug: You pays your money and you takes your chances. The system isn't perfect.

Actually, Zimmerman testified that Martin and he struggled for the firearm.. So obviously Martin knew he was armed.

And being followed.. along a public walkway at night? that's a threat. Martin KNEW he was being pursued.. he was on the phone with his girlfriend about it. I think that this is an interesting point. So lets say Zimmerman pulls back his coat and exposes his gun.

I as a former reserve officer would see an armed person who is following me down a dark alley as a threat. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect me to wait until he drew his weapon and started firing on me before I reacted... would you.?

 

[Goshin]

Actually, Zimmerman testified that Martin and he struggled for the firearm.. So obviously Martin knew he was armed.

And being followed.. along a public walkway at night? that's a threat. Martin KNEW he was being pursued.. he was on the phone with his girlfriend about it. I think that this is an interesting point. So lets say Zimmerman pulls back his coat and exposes his gun.

I as a former reserve officer would see an armed person who is following me down a dark alley as a threat. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect me to wait until he drew his weapon and started firing on me before I reacted... would you.?

Nope, I wouldn't wait. I'd either unass the AO if I could, or find a spot to confront the guy if not.

That's one of the reasons I have, in the past when it was a hot topic, referred to the whole M/Z thing as a Comedy/Tragedy of Errors of Shakespearean proportions.

Two dumb asses both did dumb-ass things. One ended up dead. A lack of contrary evidence set the other free.


But I agree with the latter. If the bulk of available evidence looks like SD, you must let them go. Martin or Zim.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, I wouldn't wait. I'd either unass the AO if I could, or find a spot to confront the guy if not.

That's one of the reasons I have, in the past when it was a hot topic, referred to the whole M/Z thing as a Comedy/Tragedy of Errors of Shakespearean proportions.

Two dumb asses both did dumb-ass things. One ended up dead. A lack of contrary evidence set the other free.


But I agree with the latter. If the bulk of available evidence looks like SD, you must let them go. Martin or Zim.

Goshin.. I think you are quite right and objective...

But here is the thing...what dumb ass thing did MARTIN do?

 

[Jerry]

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

Zimmerman didn't claim self defence, and so the burdon of proof rested on the state to prove murder. If Zimmerman had claimed self defence it's highly likely he would be in prison now.

The world is a better place with T in the ground.

 

[Goshin]

Goshin.. I think you are quite right and objective...

But here is the thing...what dumb ass thing did MARTIN do?

Mainly, he apparently had an opportunity to go indoors and avoid the confrontation, and chose not to take it.


Second, overconfidence in attacking an armed man while unarmed.