The right of self defence

lots of threads have been started about travyon martin for days and to tell the truth ,i havent understood whether everybody can kill somebody by claiming that he is trying to protect himself or not ? İs it that easy to kill somebody by making assumptions about what he can do to you ?And Travyon wasnt carrying a gun when he was shot..is it a right to protect yourself by killing the others under every condition ?

Medusa said:

lots of threads have been started about travyon martin for days and to tell the truth ,i havent understood whether everybody can kill somebody by claiming that he is trying to protect himself or not ? İs it that easy to kill somebody by making assumptions about what he can do to you ?And Travyon wasnt carrying a gun when he was shot..is it a right to protect yourself by killing the others under every condition ?

Click to expand...

No, you can't just say someone's a threat and then kill them.

They have to actually be a threat.

Jerry said:

No, you can't just say someone's a threat and then kill them.

They have to actually be a threat.

Click to expand...

True, but I'm not sure how clear the line is.

Boo Radley said:

True, but I'm not sure how clear the line is.

Click to expand...

It's highly fact-dependent. Even the clearest legal definitions and standards require a good deal of judgement and consideration of circumstance.

i was shooting cans in the middle of the street and this crazy guy just jumped in the way of my bullets!

It is not right to kill others in every situation. It is not always wrong either.

Was it reasonable for the person to fear for his life?
This is the hard one as military and law enforcement have to deal with people trying to "Monday Night Quarterback" all the time.

It's easy for someone to claim " well I wouldn't have done that" if they have never been in that situation themselves.


*Warning speculation and hypothetical situation follows*

Let's say Martin approached Zimmerman and they exchange words.

If for whatever reason Martin punches Zimmerman. At this point Zimmerman might be thinking this is just a fist fight, I need to defend myself but shooting him isn't necessary.

Now when it escalates to the point where Zimmerman is on his back, Martin is beating his face and slamming his head into the ground, Zimmerman is screaming for help and neighbors are running into their houses and hiding/ closing their blinds or curtains, if/when he realizes no one is coming to assist him, then he could very well consider the possibility that he could be beat unconscious and or be killed, and feel that deadly force is justified to save his life.

I'm not saying this happened, I'm just using this as an example.

Now someone like Anderson Silva ( a UFC champion) might have a hard time convincing someone he feared for his life when he got punched by some drunkard at a bar but that is because he is a professional fighter.

Medusa said:

lots of threads have been started about travyon martin for days and to tell the truth ,i havent understood whether everybody can kill somebody by claiming that he is trying to protect himself or not ? İs it that easy to kill somebody by making assumptions about what he can do to you ?And Travyon wasnt carrying a gun when he was shot..is it a right to protect yourself by killing the others under every condition ?

Click to expand...

I am about as close as you get to an expert on self-defense law, short of a lawyer who specializes in it. What do you want to know?

Typically a self-defense claim, where someone was killed, requires the following:

1. You must not be at fault in provoking the incident, legally.

2. You must have been, or have reasonably believed yourself to have been, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

3. A "reasonable man" in the same situation would also believe #2.


Those are the fundamentals. Different jurisdications have different details also.


Typically you have much more leeway in your home or yard than out in a public street or place. That is, in many states, if someone breaks into your house at night you can shoot them on sight, whether they are armed or not, because there is an assumption that they're a danger to you. Some states have more strict requirements.


Now if you're asking about shooting an unarmed person, as in Treyvon Martin, I again refer you to #2. If you believe yourself reasonably to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm (grave bodily harm usually means something that might be life-threatening or put you in hospital), you may do what is necessary in most states. Many states take into account disparity of physical force (ie a small woman defending against an big unarmed man gets more leeway than vice-versa), as well.


Anyway, I'm around, just ask....

Goshin said:

I am about as close as you get to an expert on self-defense law, short of a lawyer who specializes in it. What do you want to know?

Typically a self-defense claim, where someone was killed, requires the following:

1. You must not be at fault in provoking the incident, legally.

2. You must have been, or have reasonably believed yourself to have been, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

3. A "reasonable man" in the same situation would also believe #2.


Those are the fundamentals. Different jurisdications have different details also.


Typically you have much more leeway in your home or yard than out in a public street or place. That is, in many states, if someone breaks into your house at night you can shoot them on sight, whether they are armed or not, because there is an assumption that they're a danger to you. Some states have more strict requirements.


Now if you're asking about shooting an unarmed person, as in Treyvon Martin, I again refer you to #2. If you believe yourself reasonably to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm (grave bodily harm usually means something that might be life-threatening or put you in hospital), you may do what is necessary in most states. Many states take into account disparity of physical force (ie a small woman defending against an big unarmed man gets more leeway than vice-versa), as well.


Anyway, I'm around, just ask....

Click to expand...

thanks for explaining its details ,but still i have difficulty in understanding how one decides that he faces a real threat against himself ,it is what makes me think that everybody may claim he is in danger to kill somebody

Medusa said:

thanks for explaining its details ,but still i have difficulty in understanding how one decides that he faces a real threat against himself ,it is what makes me think that everybody may claim he is in danger to kill somebody

Click to expand...

Lemme 'splain, Lucy.


This goes back to #3 above, the "reasonable man clause". The question is "Would a reasonable man (person), in the same situation, also believe he was in Imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm?"

This is to exclude lunatics who feel mortally threatened by anything the color orange from being able to legitimately claim SD against a man wearing a Clemson shirt.

Also notice the word Imminent, which means "right here right now". It precludes SD as a defense in cases where the presumed threat is some nebulous thing, as in "he said he was going to kill me one of these days."


To be considered a valid threat against which to claim SD, the attacking/threatening party must exhibit the following:

Opportunity
Ability
Intent or "Jeopardy".

Opportunity... A man threatening to stab you from fifty feet away while standing still does not have the OPPORTUNITY to carry out his threat at this time, until he moves closer, therefore he is not shootable.

Ability... a man whose hands are clearly empty, who threatens to stab you, is not a lethal threat until he shows a weapon or reaches for one while close enough to carry out his threat.


Intent or "Jeopardy".... basically this means the person is doing something that indicates an intent to commit harm on your person, right now. He is exhibiting "threat behaviors", such as reaching into a pocket after threatening to shoot you, or cocking back a fist while stepping towards you, or some other behavior that demonstrates a threat.


So, if you shoot someone and call it self-defense, the police and solicitor are going to look closely at any evidence, eyewitnesses or statements to see if your claim meets the parameters.

If you were not at fault in the incident; if you reasonably believed yourself to be in fear of your life; if the subject acted in a manner indicating the opportunity, ability and intent to commit serious violence on your person.... then they will probably let you go uncharged if there is no evidence that calls any of this into question.

Again, these things vary in details according to what State you are in.

So, no, you can't just go out and shoot someone and say "it was self-defense" and expect to walk, at least not without SOME sort of evidence supporting your story.


In the Zimmerman/Martin case, there is Z's alleged injuries, and the alleged eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of Z beating him before the gunshot, and the 911 calls explaining WHY Zimmerman was out there watching Martin. The evidence admittedly seems a bit thin and uncertain, but what there is of it seems to support Zim's story, which is why he hasn't yet been charged. They have to have at least SOME reason to believe his shoot was unlawful before there's any point in charging him and setting up a jury trial at taxpayer expense.

Goshin and others will give you pertanent, factual information about so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws, such as the one in Florida. I'm all for strong laws for defending ones home with lethal force when necessary; not so much for rescuing one's beloved property from misappropriation.

For me, John Stewart appropriately summarized Florida's poorly-written "Stand Your Ground" law, in which someone can kill anyone if they feel they are being threatened:

He said,
He dead.

Self defense isn't chasing someone down, starting a fight, losing, then pulling a gun.


You cannot be the instigator, in order to claim self defense. If you started it, it's NOT self defense.


The trouble with stand your ground, as it applies to the latest debacle, is the lack of witnesses. And everyone seems to think that a 150 pound high school kids can pose no real threat to a 240 pound dude, and those people are just saddly mistaken. I wrestled at 175 pounds in highschool....I'm 31, I now weight....gulp......230, lol.....and I can PROMISE you, my 17 year old, 175 pound self, would absolutely, royally....BRUTALLY beat my ass, in a fight. I was full of anger, keyed up, in perfect shape, wirey, and strong. I'm stronger now, but not angry, not keyed up, in not great shape, etc.

So people automatically assume that Martin is the victim...which is a bad idea.

Jerry said:

It's highly fact-dependent. Even the clearest legal definitions and standards require a good deal of judgement and consideration of circumstance.

Click to expand...

Regardless of facts, the interpretation of what is and isn't a threat will still be very subjective.

Jerry said:

It's highly fact-dependent. Even the clearest legal definitions and standards require a good deal of judgement and consideration of circumstance.

Click to expand...

Cases of self defense are always difficult ones, because there is so little room for error in making a decision. If you go too far wrong one way, you have people who weren't actually doing anything wrong being killed and their killers getting away with it, and if you go wrong too much the other way, you have people afraid to defend themselves in legitimately threatening situations because they fear they'll be punished for it even though it was legitimate self defense.

Goshin said:

I am about as close as you get to an expert on self-defense law, short of a lawyer who specializes in it. What do you want to know?

Typically a self-defense claim, where someone was killed, requires the following:

1. You must not be at fault in provoking the incident, legally.

Click to expand...

This is the part that really makes me question whether Zimmerman was innocent in all of this. He was following Martin around, and continued to follow him after told by the police not to. That seems like provoking to me.

molten_dragon said:

This is the part that really makes me question whether Zimmerman was innocent in all of this. He was following Martin around, and continued to follow him after told by the police not to. That seems like provoking to me.

Click to expand...

If Zimmerman hadn't lost sight of Trayvon then I believe that you would be correct. But from the 911 call it was obvious that Zimmerman had lost sight of him. As such it took away the provoking aspect because once Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon he started walking back to his truck.

Its like if someone breaks into your house in an area with the Castle Doctrine law in effect. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot that person if you feel threatened and they are facing you. But the moment that person turns their back on you, if you shoot them in the back, then you are the one at fault and will be charged and convicted accordingly.

Jerry said:

It's highly fact-dependent. Even the clearest legal definitions and standards require a good deal of judgement and consideration of circumstance.

Click to expand...

Judgement is more subjective than fact, so I'm not sure that is fact dependent. A law that says if you think or feel, as I understand the Florida law, seems particularly subjective and much less clear than what I would like, less clear than it could be.

Kal'Stang said:

If Zimmerman hadn't lost sight of Trayvon then I believe that you would be correct. But from the 911 call it was obvious that Zimmerman had lost sight of him. As such it took away the provoking aspect because once Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon he started walking back to his truck.

Its like if someone breaks into your house in an area with the Castle Doctrine law in effect. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot that person if you feel threatened and they are facing you. But the moment that person turns their back on you, if you shoot them in the back, then you are the one at fault and will be charged and convicted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Be careful here. A lot comes into play.

It seems the OP thinks its cut-and-dry, and very simple, when it comes to the use of deadly force in self defense. If you shoot them in the back IN YOUR HOUSE, that's still fine as you could easily make the case that they were a threat. (They could have been turning around to get a knife out of your kitchen drawer, for instance) If you shoot them in the back running down your driveway with your laptop in hand, then THAT is another story.

But to say that flat out shooting someone in the back means they weren't a threat and that you will be charged is absurd. It's even more absurd to say they'd be convicted accordingly, as if these cases are always cut and dry. Many cases like this have gone before a jury and been found not guilty.

poweRob said:

Regardless of facts, the interpretation of what is and isn't a threat will still be very subjective.

Click to expand...

Well..... yes and no.

The legal standard is about as objective as you can get. Ability + Opportunity + Jeopardy = realio trulio legal imminent THREAT.

If he lacks the Ability to harm you, he is not a threat, no matter what he says (ie Steven Hawking threatens to punch you). If he lacks the Opportunity to harm you, he is not an IMMINENT threat, no matter what he says. (ie a man running AWAY from you yelling he will stab you). If he is not engaging in an act of Jeopardy, an act that indicates an Intention to harm you right here right now, he isn't shootable.

That's pretty objective. They also throw in the Reasonable Man Standard to keep people from making ridiculous claims like "I got a threatening phone call, and I was afraid for my life, so when someone knocked on the door loudly I shot through the door even though I didn't know who was there" as SD.

This is important, see: The Reasonable Man Standard requires not only "I felt threatened" but also "A REASONABLE PERSON in that same situation would also feel threatened" as a standard.


Now, when we get into "he said she said" and physical evidence, the courts have standards and practices on what is acceptible evidence, and what is a credible eyewitness, and what is credible testimony, and what isn't. So we have another level of objectivity injected into the equation.

It would be a topic of Philosophical debate as to whether any human activity can be purged of all Subjective judgment, sure. But the SD standards are pretty objective by realistic measures.

The problem with the Zimmerman/Martin case is a lack of eyewitnesses to the initial confrontation, and then to the actual moment of the shooting, along with the fact that the subject was unarmed. These things make it controversial, because there is limited evidence. However, innocent until proven guilty remains a core principle of American jurisprudence, and the available evidence seems to support Zimmerman's SD assertion for the most part. Ultimately, the prosecuting authorities will decide if there is enough contradictory evidence to warrant a jury trial, and the trial itself will sort out what evidence is solid enough to present and so forth.

We can piss into the wind about what limited info we have, but that's all we're doing until a decision is made to go to trial or not.

Medusa said:

lots of threads have been started about travyon martin for days and to tell the truth ,i havent understood whether everybody can kill somebody by claiming that he is trying to protect himself or not ? İs it that easy to kill somebody by making assumptions about what he can do to you ?And Travyon wasnt carrying a gun when he was shot..is it a right to protect yourself by killing the others under every condition ?

Click to expand...

Here's my take on it....

There is always a right to self-defense. I have always been the sort of person smart enough to take a gun to a fist-fight. I'd rather be judged by 12 people than carried by six.

Here are the thoughts of former Secret Service Agent and defensive pistol trainer Walt Rauch:

1. All predators are always killers. When they attack, your options for self-defense are very limited.
2. The predator is smarter than you. Act and react accordingly.
3. Predators will use all the force necessary (and then some) to achieve their goals, without regard to the consequences.
4. Predators evaluate their targest before attacking. If you are attacked, the predator has determined that he will succed without a heavy cost to himself.
5. If you are about to become a victim, you have already made serious mistakes.
6. Believe what you see; don't go into denial. Your attacker wont.
7. In a lethal confrontation, you will only have time to choose one course of action - and your life depends on making the right choice.
8. Predators rarely act alone, although the ones that do are the most dangerous (If there's one, look for two; if there are two, look for three, etc...)
9. Fear is the predator's friend.... and your enemy.
10. Talk and negotiation rarely work.
11. Predators do not have a conscience. Don't waste time and effort appealing to any sense of mercy or kindness.
12. Some people cannot be frightened or intimidated. Displaying a weapon may well not solve - and, in some cases, may exacerbate - the problem. Be prepared for this.
13. "Bullets don't work"... Gene Zink, a federal law enforcement trainer. No hand-held firearm is a guaranteed "one shot stop" round. Anticipate needing follow-up shots.
14. "Stay plugged in. Stay in the fight"... Clint Smith, Director, Thunder Ranch
15. Firearms don't work all the time and may well not work when you need them most.
16. Don't be overly concerned about caliber. No one wants to "leak" or have holes put in him.
17. Carry on the biggest-caliber gun you can control.
18. Carry a reload.
19. Carry a second gun.
20. Be able to get to both handguns with either hand.
21. Don't asume you can prevail in the conflict due to your superior tactics and training. The predator only has to be lucky once. Avoiding him is still the best defense.
22. The honest citizen pitted against a predator is an unequal contest. The predator is a professional. Most honest citizens are amateurs.
23. No competition or training, no matter how well learned or practiced, cam equal hands-on experience.
24. Predators constantly validate their training with hands-on experience.
25. Getting hands-on experience can be fatal, but survivors learn their lessons well!
26. Expect to get shot!
27. When shot, don't expect to die.
28. If you are going to die, take him with you!

I may not be in total agreement with everything in Walt's list, but he has been there and done that multiple times. I also agree with a great comment I once heard directly from the mouth of Jim Cirillo (former NYPD Detective).... "If you're in a fair fight, your tactics SUCK!"

DiAnna said:

Goshin and others will give you pertanent, factual information about so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws, such as the one in Florida. I'm all for strong laws for defending ones home with lethal force when necessary; not so much for rescuing one's beloved property from misappropriation.

For me, John Stewart appropriately summarized Florida's poorly-written "Stand Your Ground" law, in which someone can kill anyone if they feel they are being threatened:

He said,
He dead.

Click to expand...

Their feeling of being threatened still has to pass the "reasonable man" test.


If you shoot in legitimate self-defense and there are no witnesses and the other guy dies, is it YOUR fault there are no other witnesses? If you were defending yourself? Would you want the courts to say "well, there is no witness other than you, so off to prison with you..." without evidence proving your wrongdoing?

Medusa said:

lots of threads have been started about travyon martin for days and to tell the truth ,i havent understood whether everybody can kill somebody by claiming that he is trying to protect himself or not ? İs it that easy to kill somebody by making assumptions about what he can do to you ?And Travyon wasnt carrying a gun when he was shot..is it a right to protect yourself by killing the others under every condition ?

Click to expand...

I personally define reasonable force as that required to feel safe, having identified a threat to your person. Of course I'm aware that the law may believe differently. And what constitutes a 'threat' is about as ambiguous an assessment as is possible, being circumstantial.

As for lethal force, I believe it's warranted where one perceives how failure to respond thus, would endanger one's own life, or that of others. Certainly, if it involves the killing of an armed individual.

As an aside, a cop once told me that if you confront a burglar, and beat seven shades out of him, simply place his unconscious body at the foot of the stairs, and claim he fell. Dunno if that would pass muster in a court of law, but he was a cop, so it rang true.

I appreciate being able to read your clear explanations about the general situations and your take on the facts (paltry) in this case, Goshin.

Perhaps there should be a law that allows for self-defense (that is, you won't be charged with murder), but which holds one accountable for creating and escalating a bad situation resulting in death.

I can't get around this: Ultimately, I would have felt threatened if I were Trayvon. Please do correct me if I am wrong, but, I think I read that Trayvon's girlfriend claims he told his her that he had lost his pursuer only to discover that he actually hadn't. This would have made me paranoid, and I think I might have confronted my pursuer in any of several different ways if I felt that I was being harassed or stalked, even if said pursuer was currently moving away from me. This is not necessarily wise, but it is well within the realm of understandable. You get angry and afraid and want to settle the matter, to feel like you've taken control of a situation which has made you feel vulnerable. So, let's suppose Trayvon did confront. I still feel Zimmerman is at fault, whereas Trayvon is merely unwise.

So, let's suppose Trayvon started the scuffle. I do feel Trayvon starts to be at fault here, but the fault is still not entirely his, nor even necessarily majority his. In such a context, I don't think either person should be allowed to kill the other without some consequence, as they are both at fault for creating/escalating the situation. I think if you behave in a threatening manner (in this case, behaving in a way that makes another person think you are stalking them), then you are partly at fault for any altercation that follows (not necessarily legally, but reasonably). I just can't get to the point where I think Zimmerman was in a pure self defense situation, even given his account of things.

To be clear, I want to reiterate that I am not saying what the law is. I am saying what I might think the law ought to be. I'd like to hear your objective thoughts, given your likely experience dealing with de-escalating tense situations.

molten_dragon said:

Cases of self defense are always difficult ones, because there is so little room for error in making a decision. If you go too far wrong one way, you have people who weren't actually doing anything wrong being killed and their killers getting away with it, and if you go wrong too much the other way, you have people afraid to defend themselves in legitimately threatening situations because they fear they'll be punished for it even though it was legitimate self defense.

Click to expand...

Yup.


I like to call that, the northeast.

Kal'Stang said:

If Zimmerman hadn't lost sight of Trayvon then I believe that you would be correct. But from the 911 call it was obvious that Zimmerman had lost sight of him. [...]

Click to expand...

That is not obvious to me, but perhaps I have not heard that segment of the call. If you'd like to quote that section of the call I'd be willing to read/listen.

Kal'Stang said:

As such it took away the provoking aspect because once Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon he started walking back to his truck.

Click to expand...

Someone being pursued, who knows they are being pursued (and clearly Martin knew), cannot reasonably conclude that their pursuer has abandonded their pursuit merely because they reverse direction or if they lose sight of their pursuer.

Kal'Stang said:

Its like if someone breaks into your house in an area with the Castle Doctrine law in effect. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot that person if you feel threatened and they are facing you. But the moment that person turns their back on you, if you shoot them in the back, then you are the one at fault and will be charged and convicted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Wrong (depends on the state). Your post seems to consist entirely of unsubstantiated opinion. May I suggest fact instead?

Goshin said:

Well..... yes and no.

The legal standard is about as objective as you can get. Ability + Opportunity + Jeopardy = realio trulio legal imminent THREAT.

If he lacks the Ability to harm you, he is not a threat, no matter what he says (ie Steven Hawking threatens to punch you). If he lacks the Opportunity to harm you, he is not an IMMINENT threat, no matter what he says. (ie a man running AWAY from you yelling he will stab you). If he is not engaging in an act of Jeopardy, an act that indicates an Intention to harm you right here right now, he isn't shootable.

That's pretty objective. They also throw in the Reasonable Man Standard to keep people from making ridiculous claims like "I got a threatening phone call, and I was afraid for my life, so when someone knocked on the door loudly I shot through the door even though I didn't know who was there" as SD.

This is important, see: The Reasonable Man Standard requires not only "I felt threatened" but also "A REASONABLE PERSON in that same situation would also feel threatened" as a standard.


Now, when we get into "he said she said" and physical evidence, the courts have standards and practices on what is acceptible evidence, and what is a credible eyewitness, and what is credible testimony, and what isn't. So we have another level of objectivity injected into the equation.

It would be a topic of Philosophical debate as to whether any human activity can be purged of all Subjective judgment, sure. But the SD standards are pretty objective by realistic measures.

The problem with the Zimmerman/Martin case is a lack of eyewitnesses to the initial confrontation, and then to the actual moment of the shooting, along with the fact that the subject was unarmed. These things make it controversial, because there is limited evidence. However, innocent until proven guilty remains a core principle of American jurisprudence, and the available evidence seems to support Zimmerman's SD assertion for the most part. Ultimately, the prosecuting authorities will decide if there is enough contradictory evidence to warrant a jury trial, and the trial itself will sort out what evidence is solid enough to present and so forth.

We can piss into the wind about what limited info we have, but that's all we're doing until a decision is made to go to trial or not.

Click to expand...

it is just the opposite in turkey ,quilty until proven innocent...if one is charged with a murder or crime or suspected of commiting a crime ,he first has to prove that he is innocent .yes it is so foolish but unfortunately the current procedure of our criminal law is like this.