The Trayvon Martin case has provided the opportunity for a sort of national reflection, for a time to reconsider what we’ve long held to be true and what we believe ourselves to be. Unfortunately, much of that reflection has turned out to be ignorant demagoguery on a wide range of subjects including worsening race relations, attacking rational and necessary self-defense laws and yet another attempt to resurrect the fast-deteriorating corpse of gun control.
Credit: http://www.adfs.alabama.gov
Another of the diversions stimulated by the case is the search for meaning, symbols and parallels. For some, a tragic 2012 Alabama case was touted as a parallel to the Martin case, but apart from someone getting shot in both cases, there is little similarity. Even a cursory look at the Alabama case should reveal little in common with the Martin case. There is, however, at least one worthwhile lesson.
In Alabama, three teenaged boys and a 17 year-old girl—Summer Moody—who finished high school in December and was referred to as a former high school “standout volleyball player,” were apparently burglarizing cabins on a remote island early one morning. Two men staying on the island, one of whom was a caretaker of a property the group was burglarizing, heard their burglary attempt, and knowing of recent burglaries in the area, took up a .22LR and a .17 caliber rifle and went to investigate.
At some point, they each fired one shot, according to some accounts “warning” shots, and Moody was struck in the head. Moody lay in a Mobile, Alabama hospital in critical condition for several days before dying. Her three companions were initially incarcerated in a juvenile detention center. Their names and ages were withheld because they were juveniles.
According to the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office, the three teenaged boys accompanying Moody burglarized at least three cabins and were carrying a rifle and knife and possibly a handgun when confronted by William Hearn and Larry Dean Duncan who fired two warning shots away from the two weapon-carrying burglars they confronted into nearby woods. Unfortunately, Moody and another teenager were hiding in those woods and Moody was mortally wounded by one of the warning shorts.
What, then, is the lesson? Warning shots—and shooting to wound—are really, really bad ideas.
To understand the issue it’s important to review the general rules for the use of deadly force. Deadly force may be lawfully employed to prevent the imminent infliction of serious bodily injury or death to oneself or another. “Imminent” means immediate, about to happen, and virtually certain to happen within seconds. If something might happen, or might happen in minutes, hours, or days, it’s not imminent.
“Serious bodily injury” is somewhat more difficult to define. Any injury that might reasonably result in an amputation of any part of the body or which might cause its functional loss would surely qualify. But the definition must be broader. Crippling or paralyzing injuries qualify, and perhaps seriously disfiguring injuries too.
The problem is: how can one predict the nature of injuries not yet
inflicted? The legal standard is one of reasonableness. What would a reasonable man or woman believe and do under the same circumstances?
The law is, thankfully, generally reasonable in later judging the actions of those under great stress forced to make life or death decisions in seconds. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife” (Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921). However, the criminal justice system may or may not assess desperate decisions correctly and may actually be biased against those compelled to use deadly force. In some parts of the nation, particularly Democrat-controlled cities and states, one can expect such bias. Even in places not so politically controlled, politics can have a disastrous effect. Note the politically inspired prosecution of George Zimmerman.
If the Trayvon Martin case teaches anything, it is the terrible and lasting consequences of shooting others, even if absolutely justified. If Zimmerman were convicted his long-term survival prospects in prison would have been very poor indeed. Even though acquitted, he will never again have a normal life and will spend it looking over his shoulder for a bounty seeker or for a racist killer hoping to get deranged “justice” for Trayvon Martin.
The best rule for the use of deadly force is to do everything possible to avoid ever having to use it. But when all attempts to avoid it have failed, how can one tell when deadly force is necessary and lawful? For a more in-depth treatment of this and related issues, you may wish to visit my seven-part series on the rationale for gun ownership (in the SMM Firearms archive), and specifically article 4 of that series.
What one must generally consider are means, opportunity and jeopardy. Others may use somewhat different terms, but these three are interchangeable with others.
* Means: Does the attacker have the means to inflict serious bodily injury or death?
* Opportunity: Do they have the opportunity to use that means?
* Jeopardy: Are they placing you in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death?
An attacker brandishing a knife, hatchet, hammer, gun or a variety of other potential weapons certainly has the means, but opportunity applies when range is taken into consideration. Anyone with a gun clearly has the opportunity at great distances. With a knife, an attacker must be considered deadly at a minimum of 21 feet and less, for even the average person can close that distance within mere seconds. Even a knife, hatchet, hammer, brick, rock or other implement thrown from some distance can be deadly.
Jeopardy speaks to the intent and actions of the attacker. A man holding a firearm may not represent the slightest threat while a man holding a screwdriver does. It is the demonstrated intention and actions of an attacker that put us in jeopardy.
A man wearing a holstered handgun standing 20 feet away clearly has the means and opportunity, but until he demonstrates the clear intent to do harm by word, deed or both there is no jeopardy. A woman holding a knife and screaming death threats from across a street has the means and is demonstrating her intention to place us in jeopardy, but until she closes the distance, until she is in range to use the knife, she doesn’t have the opportunity and we aren’t truly in jeopardy.
We must also consider disparity of force. A 5’2” 110 pound woman is at a deadly disadvantage when attacked by an unarmed 6’ 200 pound man. She could easily be seriously injured or killed despite the fact that he has no weapons other than his bare hands. Women are virtually always on the wrong side of this force equation, which is why being able to act on the right to keep and bear arms is of particular importance to women.
When means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, deadly force may be used, but for one purpose and to one end only: to stop the attacker from causing serious bodily injury or death. If stopping the attacker can be accomplished with a single bullet from a .22LR handgun, that’s great. If three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun are required, that’s also fine. But when the attack stops—at that very second—you stop. Continuing to pour fire into an incapacitated attacker turns you into an attacker. The three part test of means, opportunity and jeopardy can obviously be quite fluid.
With this background in mind, we turn to the ultimate point of this article: the danger of shooting to wound and “warning” shots.
To put it as simply as possible: don’t do either; ever. You are absolutely responsible for each and every round you fire. Once fired, a bullet cannot be called back or its flight aborted. There are no “do overs.”
Shooting to wound is dangerous for three primary reasons:
(1) Under great stress, accuracy is difficult at best. This is why competent firearm instruction revolves around firing for center mass, the venerable “X” ring in the center of the chest. If you miss a few inches in any direction you’re still likely to have a significant effect on the target. Accurately shooting an attacker in a small, moving portion of the body is highly unlikely.
(2) A wounded attacker is not a stopped attacker. Shooting in the leg or the shoulder someone actively trying to kill you produces a somewhat less mobile killer, enraged and in pain, but still able to kill. Shooting someone in the leg or shoulder may eventually lead to their death through bleeding, infection or other complications, but “eventually” does not stop them when you need them to stop, which is the only reason you shoot in the first place.
(3) Shooting to wound will absolutely and clearly suggest to a prosecutor—and to a jury—that you doubted you were truly in deadly danger. Unless you doubted your justification to shoot to stop, why were you doing less? You may think you’re being kind or sporting, but you don’t shoot people to be kind or sporting. You shoot them to stop them from doing what they were doing that gave you the legal justification to shoot in the first place. If they die as a result of being stopped, bad for them, good for you, but that outcome is incidental to your immediate and desperate need to stop them.
“But can’t I say I really didn’t want to kill anyone and was trying to avoid it?” Again, the problem of intent remains. No rational person wants to kill another, but you shoot only to stop the imminent application of force likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to you or another. Ignore TV cops and good guys. In the heat of battle, people often take multiple bullets and continue to fight–and kill–not realizing they were wounded until the adrenaline rush wears off later. Good intentions don’t save innocent lives in deadly force encounters.
Warning shots have similar problems. In the days when the primary sidearm of the warrior and gentleman was the sword, the mere act of drawing the sword notified everyone within range of your immediate intention to use it and put them on guard. The same rules apply today. Generally, one must not draw a handgun unless they are prepared to use it and its imminent use is justified. The mere act of drawing a deadly weapon must be presumed to signal the intent to immediately use it unless it is unmistakably otherwise (training, etc.). There must be no doubt whatever about such things; the consequences are too severe and permanent.
If one is justified in drawing their handgun and in using deadly force, this is so—again—because of the overwhelming and imminent need to stop an attacker. Warning shots don’t do that and directly suggest that you thought you had the time to waste on a warning shot rather than stopping the attack by the most rapid and effective means possible.
The prosecutor and the attorney representing the subhuman thug you had to shoot will surely be asking you why you were shooting the ground or sky if you really needed to immediately stop the dear, saintly departed from maiming or killing you. Again, perhaps you thought you were being kind or sporting, but when lives are seconds from being extinguished—particularly yours—being kind and sporting should be the thoughts furthest from your mind.
The other primary issue is illustrated by an almost certainly apocryphal story of a New York City cop, one hot summer night, chasing a criminal down an alley on foot. Unable to run down the fleet-footed thug, the officer drew his revolver (it’s a rather old but venerable story) and fired two warning shots, straight up. Rather than stopping, the panicked thug only ran faster, and twenty steps down the alley the hapless cop heard two sickening thumps behind him, and with an equally sickening feeling in the pit of his stomach, stopped and turned to see the crumpled bodies of two citizens who had been leaning out their windows, many stories up, watching the chase.
I doubt this much-told story is true, but it makes an important point: there is no way to know where un-aimed bullets will come to rest—or in whom. One of the basic rules of shooting is never to shoot unless you are absolutely certain of your target and backstop. Firing into the ground may be safe, unless the bullet strikes something, even something under the dirt, something invisible at the moment of firing, and ricochets. I’ve actually been hit by ricochets inside a police firing range. Fortunately, after hitting the steel backstop and nearly completely effective bullet trap, they had little velocity and were pancake thin, but they left bruises.
Firing into the air is never safe. In the Middle East and the rest of the third world, people routinely shoot into the air for little or no reason. I’m sure you’ve seen video of idiots emptying AK-47’s into the sky to celebrate a military victory, some religious occasion or even a wedding. What these videos never show is that bullets lack escape velocity. They are not going to make it into space, and when they return to Earth, they kill people.
Brandishing a handgun might be an effective means of deterring or stopping a deadly attack, and statistics indicate that violent criminals are stopped or deterred as often as two million times a year, usually without a shot being fired. But these statistics presume that you have the time to draw and present your weapon and time for the attacker to recognize and respond to the threat. They also presume that your attacker will not be so crazed or drugged out that they don’t realize they’re facing their death.
Low Ready
If, for instance, you draw your handgun on a knife-wielding attacker and go to low ready (photo above), if they continue the attack not only have they unmistakably demonstrated their deadly intent and clearly put you in jeopardy, you’re prepared to immediately stop them and can reasonably argue that you gave them the best and most effective possible warning, which they obviously ignored.
But again, you may not have time to provide a visual or verbal warning, and where means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, none are required. If that’s the case, why are you wasting precious fractions of a second, fractions of a second that will make the difference between life and death, with warning shots or shots to parts of the body not calculated to have the best possible chance to immediately stop the attacker?
In the Trayvon Martin case, self-defense was proved–ironically by the state–beyond a reasonable doubt. George Zimmerman reasonably employed it. In the Alabama case, self-defense was not obviously involved, and rounds that should not have been fired were fired.
Shooting another, even when morally and legally justified, is a life-altering event with permanent consequences. Making a mistake with a firearm may also fall into that category. Even though Summer Moody may have been involved in multiple burglaries—felonies—how can the shot that killed her be explained or justified? “I didn’t mean it?” “I wasn’t aiming at her?” And if Moody merely had the bad judgment to accompany the young men who were committing burglary, that would make her death, and its impact on the man who fired, even more tragic and disturbing.
The young men who fired the shots were not charged with a crime, but they will surely be sued. To avoid having the need to mouth such lame excuses, and to avoid having to live with an unintentional death, warning shots–and shooting to wound–must be removed from every shooter’s list of possible actions.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Reblogged this on Cave of the Ice People and commented:
Exceptional once again. Thank you for what you do, Mike. America needs more like you.
Hmm… sounds like a death caused by a culpably negligent act of another: i.e. involuntary manslaughter.
Firing a warning shot is an example of a culpably negligent act – as opposed to vehicular egress and sidewalk ambulation, which are not examples of such.
(Unfortunately, I still don’t think the distinction is going to sink in for those for whom it is desperately needed.)
You are correct, firing into the air is not safe. Just ask the Libyans who were in the square celebrating the death of Gadhafi. They were firing their guns into the air and some people died!! Yep, simply not a good idea.
Maybe this should be required or at least suggested reading for CC.
Mike,
What you write makes a lot of sense. It’s extremely clear and logical.
Once a gun is in question, it’s a matter of shoot to kill.
Quite apart from the (1) danger of an assailant just continuing despite a warning shot or a warning wound, (2) a shot hitting an unintended person, there is (3) that matter of …”shooting to wound will absolutely and clearly suggest to a prosecutor—and to a jury—that you doubted you were truly in deadly danger.
That one of the factors that counted against Marissa Alexander. So 20 mandatory years in the bold corner for you my girl! – even if the shot was clearly not intended to hit anyone. It’s a matter of law and not justice.
That last one is a bit disturbing. The meaning is that even if someone believes that a non-fatal shot would suffice in the circumstances, they are far better off making it fatal as this removes complications. Not alone do you indicate mortal fear by this, but you also eliminate someone who might cause a bunch of trouble by asserting a completely different story to yours.
That’s in addition to the dangerous possibility that your assessment about a non-fatal option might be faulty in the first place.
Shooting centre body mass makes all sorts of logical sense. Go for the kill.
.
What you write very logically about guns, also applies to other weapons – knives – hammers – pipes – lumps of concrete.
What might all this mean for society in general?
The same logic applies in ways that you might not expect. It’s like firing off some logic and the logic hitting something unintended.
.
You are walking home at night.
You notice a truck stopping and the driver eyeing you.
You continue as you were.
You notice the same truck again. It’s shadowing you.
The driver makes no attempt at communication with you – even if you walk right past.
You get off the street – away from the truck.
Then …. You come face to face with the guy. It’s very dark.
You ask him what he is at. (As in “You got a problem” or “Why are you following me”)
He doesn’t answer the question. He comes back with a smart-ass response. This can not be interpreted as friendly or reasonable.
Then…you see his hand go for his waistband.
Think about where exactly you are and how you both came to be face to face there.
“* Means: Does the attacker have the means to inflict serious bodily injury or death?”
Darn right he does – even if all he has is a knife, with which “an attacker must be considered deadly at a minimum of 21 feet and less”
“* Opportunity: Do they have the opportunity to use that means?”
Duh! You are face to face
“* Jeopardy: It is the demonstrated intention and actions of an attacker that put us in jeopardy.”
Trailed by truck, followed off the street, responded to a question with smart-ass, then went for his waistband.
“The mere act of drawing a deadly weapon must be presumed to signal the intent to immediately use it unless it is unmistakably otherwise (training, etc.). There must be no doubt whatever about such things; the consequences are too severe and permanent.”
Yes.
You might think to say “Excuse me. I notice that your hand is going for your waistband. Would you mind telling me why please?. The reason that I ask is that what with you following me for quite a distance and then in here and not explaining why, I am just a tiny bit worried that you might have a gun or knife there.”
“But again, you may not have time to provide a visual or verbal warning, and where means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, none are required. If that’s the case, why are you wasting precious fractions of a second, fractions of a second that will make the difference between life and death?”
Attack him immediately. It’s the only sane, reasonable and logical thing to do in the circumstances.
Let’s say that you seem to be getting the upper hand in the struggle.
You’ve punched him a few times and you eventually get him fairly well pinned.
Should you stand up, dust each other off, shake hands and go on your respective ways?
“A wounded attacker is not a stopped attacker.”
Fighting “to wound will absolutely and clearly suggest to a prosecutor—and to a jury—that you doubted you were truly in deadly danger.”
You have to keep going at him until at the very least he clearly has lost consciousness – and is unable to get to his feet and shoot you as you run away. Just ‘dazed’ is not enough. The guy had to be dead or very clearly deeply unconscious.
.
Mike, the meaning of your logic here is crystal clear.
When face to face in the dark with someone who had been following you, makes no attempt at any stage to give a reasonable explanation, responds to query with smart-ass, and then goes for their waistband – you go for the kill. Don’t lose precious fractions of a second. In those circumstances, kill immediately. It’s the logical thing to do.
.
I think there is one line in the piece that deserves to be put up on billboards all across the nation…
As in…..
“We don’t need you to do that”
As in….
MOM: Suggested …your intention to imbue or to invest on Mr X the opportunity or the requirement to perform investigative duties …. And I think you said ‘ Of course not’
You just told him to keep an eye on the guy?
SN: In case he approached him further and started an altercation, to immediately let me know so I could update the officers
OK. Did you intend by that also to keep an eye on him , just – to keep an eye on him?
SN: No
MOM: Why not?
SN: It’s best to avoid any kind of confrontation.. to just get away from the situation
Martin only came “face to face” with Zimmerman because Martin himself chose to approach Zimmerman, instead of simply walking back inside Brandi Green’s home.
For the millionth time: “going for the pocket”, under any circumstances, does not legally constitute reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force.
Martin was there, and came to be face-to-face with Zimmerman, because Martin himself chose to approach Zimmerman, instead of simply walking back inside Brandi Green’s home.
If Martin had done that, instead of approaching, confronting, and assaulting Zimmerman, the need for Zimmerman to use deadly force in self-defense would never have existed.
“For the millionth time” …….
HANNITY: Yes. You said he started from almost the beginning in that 911 call, you said he came towards you, and he seemed to reach for something in his waistband. Did you think that was a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: I thought he was just trying to intimidate me.
HANNITY: To make you think that there is a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: A weapon.
HANNITY: Of some kind?
ZIMMERMAN: Possibly.
Meanwhile on the Chip Channel…
HANNITY: Yes. You said he started from almost the beginning in that 911 call, you said he came towards you, and he seemed to reach for something in his waistband. Did you think that was a phone?
ZIMMERMAN: I thought he was just trying to put his hand in his waistband.
HANNITY: To make you think that there is a phone?
ZIMMERMAN: An electronic device.
HANNITY: Of some kind? Like an iPod?
ZIMMERMAN: Possibly.
.
Chip, you can bang on about vehicular egress, sidewalk ambulation and pockets – a million times even.
However, to people like Hannity and Zimmerman, hands going to waistbands in certain circumstances means weapons.
Look at Zimmerman in the videos. For any observer, even in daylight, his hand goes for his hip.
Yes.
You might think to say “Excuse me. I notice that your hand is going for your waistband. Would you mind telling me why please?. The reason that I ask is that what with you following me for quite a distance and then in here and not explaining why, I am just a tiny bit worried that you might have a gun or knife there.”
“I should also add that due to the darkness, I am unable to distinguish if you are going for something under your waistband, something in your pocket – or indeed are simply scratching yourself.
Even if you are indeed going for your pocket, it is still possible that you have a gun or other weapon in there. Perhaps the best thing to do would be for you to clarify your intention. I am sorry about all the questions, but it is kind of important to both of us.
It’s just that, according to an excellent post that I read in the Stately Manor, my most logical option at this stage would be to kill you immediately.
“But again, you may not have time to provide a visual or verbal warning, and where means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, none are required. If that’s the case, why are you wasting precious fractions of a second, fractions of a second that will make the difference between life and death?”
What you choose to believe about Martin’s and Zimmerman’s intentions and actions is simply what you choose to believe.
.
Forgetting about the Zimmerman/Martin thing, there is a far more general and important lesson to be learnt.
In a world where
– people commonly carry guns
– the known best advice is to shoot to kill if a gun is used
…………. Reaching towards your hip in a confrontational situation should be guaranteed to result in an attack intended to be fatal (presuming that the other party has any sense or logic)
That’s the logic. I think that Mike has clearly explained.
And guess what? At that point in time, Zimmerman would not have been justified in using force in self-defense, because Martin walking toward him with his hand in his waistband, while construing an intimidating act, did not reasonably construe imminent use of unlawful force.
So: what’s your point? Oh, this?
Not under the law, it doesn’t. Zimmerman would have been guilty of unlawful use of force against Martin if he had used force against Martin in response to Martin merely having his hand in his waistband.
And I think you’re being intentionally obtuse, when logic and reality are right in front of you. Just give it up. Martin was not legally justified in his use of force against Zimmerman. Zimmerman was legally justified in his use of force against Martin. Period. End of story.
I definitely believe that you are being intentionally obtuse.
The situations are not comparable. Give it up.
1) Zimmerman is sitting in his truck. Martin is walking towards him with hand in waistband.
2) Zimmerman and Martin are standing face to face. Zimmerman has followed Martin by truck and now he’s here on foot.
ZImmerman does not answer a question. His response by his own account is smart-ass and can only inflame a situation.
Then his hand moves quickly to his waistband. Look at Zimmerman re-enact what he says happened. It’s unmistakably a sudden “going for a weapon” motion in the particular circumstances.
You don’t know what exactly happened. You simply choose a narrative.
.
Hannity and Zimmerman accept that “hand in waistband” in the circumstances indicates gun/weapon. Any jury would agree with them.
By the logic of Mike’s post. Martin must at that stage in the particular circumstances surrounding the “hand moving to waistband” immediately try to kill Zimmerman. It is the only logical thing to do.
This is regardless of how they came to face or what their intentions were.
Period. End of story.
.
What if it ended with Zimmerman dead and Martin alive?
Martin was not in the community as a burglar. He was there for perfectly legal and innocent purposes.
He was simply headed for that house down there – where he was staying.
He says that this strange guy followed him by truck and then by foot.
He says that he asked the guy what he was at, but the guy wouldn’t say.
The guy went for his waistband. In the particular circumstances it was reasonable to assume a weapon. It was self defence.
And see? He *did* have a gun.
How was he meant to know that Zimmerman was NW?
He didn’t have a uniform. There were no markings on his truck.
The guy didn’t say anything when he first stopped to look or when Martin walked past him in Twin Trees.
All he had to to was roll down the window and ask.
He didn’t identify himself in the dog-walk.
Even when asked, he came back with smart-ass and inflammatory.
And look…there’s the NEN, with the dispatcher saying “We don’t need you to do that.”
It’s all been a dreadful misunderstanding, but if guys are going to behave like Zimmerman did, it’s not surprising that bad stuff will happen.
.
What if the uniformed cops had arrived?
They would have asked Martin what he was doing there. He would have explained. They would have said “Fine. Have a nice evening.”
.
What if Zimmerman had a uniform or his truck was clearly NW?
What if Zimmerman had identified himself at the beginning or in Twin Trees?
Same as for uniformed cops. That’s what..
.
.
Anyhoo. That trial is over. Done and dusted. It’s history.
What can we learn? (Not to do with Zimmerman/Martin – but for the future generally)
1) Don’t behave like Zimmerman did. Wait for the uniformed cops to their job. If you really can’t wait, ask the person what they are doing – from a safe location. Don’t go wandering “in the same direction” when you can’t see them.
Listen to NW Wendy Dorival. Observe from the safety of your home or vehicle. If you lose sight of a suspicious person and think they are headed somewhere, drive to that somewhere and observe.
Don’t do this at home kids. Doen’t even do it anywhere….
Whatever about the lead up, Zimmerman’s own account of his actions on the encounter describes monumentally stupid.
a) “No. I don’t have a problem” – Yeah sure. I just happen to be ‘ambulating’ on a dark, cold rainy sidewalk having ‘egressed my vehicle’ for no particular reason at all. I’m following……… Why?
b) Wants to make a call. Presumably the kid is going to be too polite to interrupt a phone call.
2) Don’t suddenly put your hand to your hip in a tense situation in a world where people carry guns. If the person facing you has read Mike’s excellently argued post – or has worked it out for themselves – then they will logically and understandably make an immediate and ultra-violent attack.
.
And I don’t think you exhibit any understanding of the definition of obtuse, or the self-awareness to recognize to whom it applies.
Then perhaps you should not have attempted to conflate the two situations in the first place?
Nevertheless, the legal standard of reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force does not change between the two situations.
“…and now he’s here on foot”: here is only a location that was previously vacated by Martin some four minutes prior – a location either to which Martin returned having previously vacated, or at which Martin waited, clearly absent any fear of the intentions of Zimmerman.
“Here” is a location created by Martin. “Here” is a location that involved hostility and escalated physicality through Martin’s decisions and actions alone.
The law disagrees, period. Reasonable fear of “going for the pocket” representing imminent use of unlawful force requires explicit knowledge of a weapon being retrieved. Martin had no such knowledge; therefore, any fear that “going for the pocket” represented imminent use of unlawful force was not reasonable, legally.
What Hannity and Zimmerman accept (something for which we only have your word) is not legally binding.
No, they wouldn’t. A jury would be presented with the legal standard for reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force, and would rightly conclude that “going for the pocket” or “hand in the waistband” does not meet that standard.
Faulty premises result in illogical conclusions. Your premises are faulty on several points:
1) Reaching for the pocket does not meet the legal standard for reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force.
2) Florida statutes differentiate between the justifiable use of force and the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense. A gun represents inherent deadly force, and therefore merely pulling it out represents use of deadly force. By contrast, use of one’s fists does not represent inherent deadly force. One can use force to incapacitate without assuming the heightened responsibilities that are attendant with using deadly force.
3) One uses deadly force in order to stop the threat. When one uses deadly force, one is responsible for all of the consequences of that use of deadly force. Thus, if one hits a bystander while using deadly force, one is legally responsible for that unjustifiable use of deadly force against that bystander. Thus, shooting to wound, such as shooting a knee or other appendage, being a shot far less-likely to hit its intended target and therefore far more likely to hit an unintended target, is recklessly risky. Shooting center-mass most-maximizes the effectiveness of stopping the threat that justifies the use of deadly force, while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood of causing collateral damage.
And keep in mind as well: the person responsible for the death of a person shot in self-defense is the person being shot, not the person acting in self-defense. That person put the defender in mortal fear, and in a position to need to use deadly force in self-defense; that the end result is the death of the aggressor is something that should have been considered by the aggressor before committing himself to the action he undertook.
you need to find a hobby. the case is over, you lost. you will never win your arguments because they are based on falsehoods, distortions and straw men. nothing you say matters. every point you try to make is refuted.
rspung,
I’m not sure what part of my writing…
….. is causing you to think that I am arguing that trial here.
Additionally, I’m not sure where you get the idea than I ( or maybe even a notional ‘my side’ ) lost in that trial. I thought that I had been clear all along that I thought M2 was crazy. While watching the preparations and the trial itself, I found myself “cheering against” the prosecution, if you know what I mean.
My position all along has been that this was a death arising from Zimmerman’s reckless stupidity. It would be a level of manslaughter. This was not an argument that was put to the jury – and not one that they were permitted to consider of their own accord. It is just as well for Zimmerman that this was the case, as according to juror-B37, at least 4 of the 6 thought that he had a measure of culpability. This was despite the best/worst efforts of the prosecution to distract the jury from any reasonable review of the case.
.
In this thread, I am talking about what should be reasonable behavior.
Mike explained very clearly that once a gun comes out, shoot to kill is the only rational policy – both from consideration of immediate safety (self and bystanders) and from consideration of later legal difficulties.
I pointed out that for someone on the other side of the gun, the only matching rational policy is to kill the person who is producing the gun.
I pointed out that in a world where people commonly carry guns, then a hand suddenly going for a waistband could be reasonably interpreted as going for a gun *provided that* the situation is a confrontational one.
Mike introduced the Zimmerman/Martin affair by way of illustration. I then used it for illustration. We are not debating the case itself (or at least – I am not.)
Chip, I think, argues that if the person does not have “explicit knowledge of a weapon being retrieved” then it is not reasonable for the person to react as though a weapon is being retrieved.
To be precise, Chip is talking about “legally” reasonable – as defined by some statute formula that might apply totally regardless of circumstances.
This is different to the sort of ‘reasonable’ thought about by mere mortals – such as jury members.
Personally, I am slow to be swayed by the arguments of someone who can devote time to arguing (many times, albeit not millions of times) that walking on a sidewalk is not illegal. I think that any jury would also have WTF impressions of that sort of line.
Mere mortals would consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the action.
A hand suddenly going for a waistband is not in itself a threat. A hand doing that in a situation where a level of perceived threat is already clear and understandable becomes a clear threat.
Face it. In such a situation the alternative options for a hand suddenly doing that are limited-to-none. This is a clear “mortal fear” opportunity.
Add to that mix the thought raised by Mike: “But again, you may not have time to provide a visual or verbal warning, and where means, opportunity and jeopardy are present, none are required. If that’s the case, why are you wasting precious fractions of a second, fractions of a second that will make the difference between life and death?”
In such a confrontational situation, a delay to confirm a very reasonable suspicion that it is indeed a gun would mean death rather than life. If it is a gun, the norm for the gun-holder will be shoot to kill.
.
Mike wrote a reasoned argument for ‘shoot-to-kill’ to be the norm.
I contributed the entirely matching argument that ‘kill any potential shooter’ would logically then have to be the norm.
This was because (quoting Mike) “The mere act of drawing a deadly weapon must be presumed to signal the intent to immediately use it unless it is unmistakably otherwise (training, etc.)”
I went on to suggest ways of doing/not-doing things that would help to avoid misunderstanding and tragedies in the future. These happened to use the Zimmerman/Martin case purely for the purposes of illustration.
This echoes the good advices given to NW volunteers – which might be boiled down to
Once again: no, it would not be a “level of manslaughter”. Manslaughter requires either a deliberate act, or a culpably negligent act. There is not a shred of evidence that Zimmerman committed a culpably negligent act, no matter how stupid or reckless you believe his actions to have been.
No, juries base their deliberations and their eventual verdicts on the letter of the law – which is why, much to your chagrin, three jurors initially voted against a not-guilty verdict, but very shortly thereafter came around to the obvious conclusion that the law only allowed one verdict: not guilty.
Those same jurors, presented with a charge of manslaughter by a culpably negligent act, would return the same verdict: not guilty – both because Zimmerman still acted lawfully in self-defense, and because the evidence fails to prove manslaughter by negligence.
Utterly and completely wrong – and something that has also been previously pointed out to you.
The obvious, reasonable alternative is that Zimmerman was going for his cell phone. Zimmerman had just been talking on that phone for several minutes. Martin saw him talking on that phone. Martin told Rachel Jeantel that he saw Zimmerman talking on his phone. At the time that Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no cell phone in his hand, which means that he obviously put it in a pocket.
So, we know that Martin had explicit knowledge that Zimmerman possessed a cell phone, and we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Martin knew that Zimmerman possessed a concealed firearm.
And yet, you continue to miss the most obvious way – and the only one that is relevant to the Zimmerman-Martin case: don’t assault someone and put them in mortal fear.
Confrontational situation.
Person’s actions over time indicate a threat.
Face to face, you see their hand suddenly go for their waistband.
In the partiiclular circumstances, there can only be one possible explanation for this action.
They are going to make a phone call. What else could it be? Of course it’s a phone. It must be. Everybody has a phone. Who doesn’t have a phone for gawdsakes?
Oh! It’s a gun. Amazing. Who would have possibly imagined?
What’s the norm when a gun is produced?
Shoot to kill.
Mike, not sure if you’re familiar with the website: http://www.forcescience.org ?
I found their times for drawing/firing/reacting to a draw to be very informative. (not subjects were students unfamiliar with firearms/ police were actual LEOs only reacting to light signals. http://www.forcescience.org/demos.html
I do know at least one major metro police force cites their research in analyzing officer involved shootings.
Their articles are quite good, from a non-LEO perspective, in showing how folks can shoot someone in the back in a legitimate shooting based on OODA loop. Time to observe a subject has stopped firing and for the LEO to get to the action of ceasing fire. (I.E. time it takes to detect the threat has ceased and actually physically react to it). Action beats reaction.
Dear styrgwillidar:
Thanks! I am indeed aware of that site and much of the research in that area over the last three decades. It’s interesting data, but one must always keep in mind the human factor in use of force equations. It rarely boils down to nothing more than action/reaction, and you’re correct: for the most part, action beats reaction. There are notable exceptions to this however.
Agreed, and as they point out- the LEO actions are artificial in that they are only responding to a light signal. A very simple go/no go assessment. Very unlike a street encounter with much more to consider, hence the LEO times they measured a really best case.
It did dissuade me of the notion that one can wait to see, assess and correctly judge the motions of an individual in time to shoot. That is, just because you have the drop on someone doesn’t ensure you can react in time. Hence, the 21 foot rule.
I wonder if the attention given to 21 foot rule leads cops to be so fast to shoot that innocent unarmed people get shot.
Police forces appear to rely on the Graham v. Connor Supreme Court decision as a ”reasonableness standard” for use of force.
This is used to defend officers involved in shootings of innocents.
The defence is that the officers thought that the unarmed victim was armed, and that they had some objectively reasonable basis for the opinion.
Cliff notes of the ruling might be:
.
How then does this stand up against Chip’s assertion above….
In a recent Florida incident, a 60-year-old Roy Middleton was shot by police in the car port of his own home. Luckily(?) for him they only got him in the leg while firing 15 rounds at him. The cops were responding to ta report of a possible car theft and claimed that he had something metallic in his hand when getting out of the car and that he made a lunging motion at them. What he had was the car keys, and he appears to have been somewhat impaired in movement.
Sheriff David Morgan asserts that his guys did nothing wrong and calls on Graham v. Connor.
In a noted NY incident in 2000, an unarmed Amadou Diallo was hit by 19 of the 41 rounds fired at him by 4 plain-clothes cops. He was standing at the doorway of his apartment building. He had apparently pulled out his wallet for ID and the cops thought it was a gun.
The cops were actually charged for that one. It was just a tad OTT after all – and there was a high-profile racially-related campaign. In the end, they got a ‘not guilty’ on all charges.
Check out the SWAT thread for some info on a few other incidents.
.
Going by the Graham v. Connor “objective reasonability” standard, anyone going for their waistband after having already acted in a way that raised a threat in the mind of an observer, would be interpreted as a legitimate shooting target by a cop.
How many ’21-foot-rule’, ‘Graham v. Connor’-trained cops would wait to see if the hand came out holding something?
How many would strain to see in the dark if the object that came out was only a phone or wallet or whatever non-weapon?
How many would wait for “explicit knowledge of a weapon being retrieved”?
Mike,
And you thought you had laid the Z/M case to rest.in ‘Update 38’. Now ‘Warning Shots’ has sent Sling off on another illogical rant with fantasy scenarios and that signature spin of facts that only Sling can imagine
Yooooo Sling,
There-in lies your problem…”My position all along has been that this was a death arising from Zimmerman’s reckless stupidity.” It was Martin’s ‘reckless stupidy’ that resulted in his death, not Zimmerman’s. Once you come to terms with your misconception all will become clear to you and you will be able to move on at peace with yourself .
I have two comments.
First, for Mike: The only time I could see a warning shot being useful is in a long-distance defense of others scenario or a security checkpoint scenario. In the first case, a guy with a rifle sees a commotion that could be imminently dangerous, but is insufficiently visible to be certain thanks to the distance. A warning shot might be advisable as preferred to doing nothing, if a good backstop is available. Also, in areas where lethal force is authorized against trespassers, a warning shot will convince all but the real threats to retreat. In the self defense realm, it definitely makes sense to avoid them. Yelling clearly STOP OR I’LL SHOOT makes a pretty imposing warning.
Now for Sling: There is such a thing as non-lethal force. Martin could have tackled and disarmed Zimmerman as opposed to escalating violence to ground and pound. He also beat Zimmerman without trying to restrain him or taking the least action to stop the threat. If Zimmerman had continued firing after Martin stopped attacking, it would have been much worse for him.
omegapaladin,
Your/Our problem is that we don’t actually know the exact details.
Lauer and parner heard sounds of a struggle that appeared to start near the T and progress on foot Southwards. They appear to have got nearly 50 feet South – as that was where Martin’s phone was found on the grass near the path.
The struggle seems to have lasted 30 seconds (up to the 911 connecting) and the 42 seconds (up to the shot).
John good saw them for about 10 seconds near the end of it.
When Good first saw them, they were both horizontal – described as “wrestling” – with Martin on top.. As he left them, Martin had raised his torso. The best that Good could describe was some “downward arm movements” that began as he left them. It was O’Mara who chose to repeatedly describe this as “full ground and pound”.
Zimmerman was walking around and lucid immediately following.
This sounds like a very non-lethal 1 minute 10 seconds or so of fighting ( disregarding the shot of course). I should have thought that lethal force would have achieved lethality is a fraction of the time.
I don’t see how what we know can be described as Martin making no attempt to restrain Zimmerman or to stop the threat.
I should have thought that that what we know is consistent with him trying to to exactly that.
Can you describe what exactly Martin should have done?
… For the sake of argument, this would suppose that he had sensed that Zimmerman was going for a weapon.
omegapaladin,
Just to clarify.
Although a grounding/pounding *could* have happened before Good saw them, we don’t know.
We do know that when Good first saw them – which was near the end of it all – that they certainly were not in ground/pound. They were horizontal wrestling.
They also seem to have covered most of the 50 feet on their feet. Otherwise the clothing would have suffered under their combined weights and on the wet ground.
It sounds like a disorganised mess of a fight. I imagine that neither of them were thinking at all clearly. Both would have been desperate.
If Martin thought Zimmerman was going for a gun:
If this was starting in a neutral situation, he should have tried to disable the reaching hand. He might even know a trick from his fighting experience to loosen the grip. Quickly find out if the drawn object is a gun, then either stop if it isn’t a gun, or try and restrain the gunman until you knock the gun away. The gun is the threat – separate the guy and the gun, then keep the gun away from him.
You and your advocacy for guns and violence share responsibility for the death of a fine young Australian. Your country is sick and your culture degenerate.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-baseballer-christopher-lane-shot-dead-in-us-20130818-2s5bn.html
May he rest in peace…..
Dear 1735099a:
And my writing an article speaking to the proper, safe use of firearms makes me responsible for the death of an Australian? How might that be?
You’re an ignorant troll.
You’re a troll, because you barge in here, talking about something completely off-topic, and accusing Mike of being responsible for something completely unrelated to him.
You’re ignorant, because you ignore actual facts regarding gun control and violent crime. Here in the US, gun ownership increases while violent crime – including murder – continues to decrease. In the Commonwealth, violent crimes skyrocketed after the enactment of gun bans.
(There are plenty more statistics where those come from. Lawful gun ownership reduces violent crime. CCW permit holders commit a fraction of a percent of gun crime. Most gun crime in the US, by far, is committed by gangs – thugs killing each other, usually in areas with the strictest gun-control laws.)
Our country and our culture recognize such a heinous crime for what it is: sick, depraved, and unfit for our society.
The three teens have already been charged with first-degree murder.They will be tried, convicted by a jury of their peers, and punished. In Oklahoma, that punishment would have been death, except for an absurd Supreme Court ruling in 2005.
Also: as is the case with the vast majority of gun crime, the perpetrators were in possession of those firearms illegally. Gun control FTW?
Where has Mike ever advocated for violence?
The only ones responsible for that young man’s death are the three teens who chose to shoot him in the back.
So I suppose you’re fine with violent crime and death, so long as they are not perpetrated via firearms?
Would you feel any better if that young man had been bludgeoned via baseball bat to the back of the head? He’d be no less dead, but at least no firearm would have been involved, right?
Utterly absurd logic.
There are almost 90 guns for every 100 American citizens. Around 100 million Americans own guns legally. If firearm ownership inherently caused violent crime, our country would look like a post-apocalyptic war zone. And yet, violent crime has been on a decades-long decline.
Mike speaks to those 100 million responsible, law-abiding gun owners. Those who commit such heinous crimes as the murder of that young man would have nothing to do with Mike, or with anything Mike advocates.
Will thousands die via firearms in the US this year? Yes. And the vast majority of those deaths will be gang- and drug-related crime, and suicide. I agree that we need to deal with both of those issues; but gun control has nothing to do with either one.
Nonsense. See above. Your violent crime rate is higher than that of the US.
He was killed by murderers bent on murderous rage. The handgun was but a tool, the absence of which would not have prevented his death.
What would be the Australian way of saying this…?
Get stuffed, wanker.
Name calling is all that is left for you, when logic, common sense and reason are absent from your response.
And to point out that the crime rate in the USA is declining, when gun fatalities are eight times the rate in Australia, a comparable society, is laughable.
The only comparable idiocy is the gun cult (the NRA) desperately clinging to the dregs of an irrelevant amemdment which might have made sense over 200 years ago.
The NRA and the Taliban are very similar – both dangerous anachronisms surviving from a violent tribal era.
The violent crime rate in your country is higher the violent crime rate in the US. Also: you don’t get to claim the moral high ground when you imply that deaths are okay, so long as they don’t come as a result of firearm use.
I really couldn’t care less that someone not a citizen of this country doesn’t like our Constitution. Enjoy your own country. You can have it; we’ll keep ours.
What is the crime rate of NRA members? What is the rate of violation of civil rights of NRA members?
The Taliban was formed to encroach freedom; the NRA was founded, in part, to help freed blacks to arm themselves against those who were trying to lynch them.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t let facts like that get in the way of your arrogance and condescension.
“The violent crime rate in your country is higher (sic) the violent crime rate in the U.S.”
Wrong.
The list of countries compiled by UNODC shows a rate of homicides (irrespective of weapon or method) in the USA 4.8 per 100000. In Australia it is 1 per 100000.
So not only is your gun homicide rate eight time ours, your rate of general homicide is four times ours.
You and the dingbats in the NRA are those displaying arrogance. You can’t afford to lecture Australians on gun control. It simply makes you look silly – about as silly as your countrymen looked in Vietnam where I served 40 years ago.
Back then your army believed firepower was the answer.
They were wrong then – you are wrong now.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?
I said violent crime, not homicide.
Again, enjoy your country. Butt out of ours, mmkay?
You consistently advocate for the proliferation of dangerous firearms in American society, ignoring the obvious and clear correlation between the number of firearms present in a society and the fatality rate – eight times the rate in my country.
You are therefore partly responsible for his death and the thousands who will die from gun violence in your country this year.
We are a more civilised society, and as a consequence, Australia is a much safer place to live.
Violence is as American as apple pie, and it has cost one of my countrymen his life.
You should be ashamed of your country and its culture of violence.
“Violent crime – not homicide”
Since when has homicide not been a crime of violence?
“Butt out of ours”
You have no concept of irony.
You have the hide to tell me to butt out when the USA is renowned for violently interfering in the affairs of other countries (always to their bloody detriment) during the last fifty years. Vietnam….Iraq……Afghanistan…..
And now an innocent Australian pays the price of your nation’s bizarre obsession with firearms.
Your insufferable arrogance and callous disregard for others beggars belief.
Chris Lane’s death is the result of our nation’s “bizarre obsession with firearms.” Because it has to be blamed on something, and that something cannot possibly be the individuals who committed the crime. Blaming individuals for their actions would be admitting that there is such a thing as personal responsibility. Whether the excuse is poverty, racism, violence on TV (or in movies or video games), or the availability of weapons, I’m tired of hearing crime blamed on everything except criminals.