1. If stupidity was a crime they would have a case. As it isn’t the best we can hope for is to learn from, and not repeat, his mistakes.
   1. Don’t leave the safety of your vehicle to approach a suspect.
   2. Situational awareness. The suspect should never have gotten within 25 feet.
   3. Self defense isn’t having a sidearm. It is only one tool in the toolbox. Less lethal options like an impact weapon or pepper spray need to be carried along with a flashlight. Some hand to hand combat training never hurts.
   This guy broke just about every rule of self defense. It pisses me off because it makes all of us look bad.

2. I see your buddy Rick critically linked. You should have prefixed the post “News that makes the Little Al Sharptons sad”
   Just last week Rick was all puffed up on the fantasy of blowing an unarmed attacker away in a convenience store, and insisting he’s the type of man who stands his ground. So where is Rick now that the medieval lynch mob has formed?
   It is all flat out sickening.

   1. Everybody is butch till reality barks in their faces. The sad part is that he will not get the irony of his positions.

   2. Hey, Counselor, glad to see you are a reader of SFDB. A dedicated and learned one at that!

      So you’re the 2nd GFZ’er to draw false equivalencies between the gas station beat down and the Martin shooting. Your fellow zombie, Sean, beat you to it. Sean vacated the scene quickly after I pointed out to him that there is no evidence at all at this point to indicate that Zimmerman was being kicked and repeatedly punched in a confined area that restricted his ability to leave without suffering further attack…like the gas station beating. And although I’ve already said it a couple times, apparently some people need multiple reminders, I never advocated blowing the gas station bully away. Instead I supported using the firearm to back the guy off and advise him that I was in fear of my life and further injury and would give him the opportunity to make the choice as to what he wanted to do next. Protecting myself with my firearm instead of leaving it holstered and raising my hands to surrender in that situation is apparently considered to be “butch” by Miguel. So be it. Miguel fails to address or doesn’t have the foresight to consider the question of what happens when the gas station bully gets lucky and delivers a solid punch that puts me to the ground with my firearm exposed. As the the bully fills by head with lead with my own weapon, I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that at least Miguel isn’t going to say I’m butch.

      All evidence thus far seems to point to a retreating Martin who was pursued by Zimmerman, a man with a violent past and who had problems with African-Americans. It seems, in fact, that Martin was, ironically, employing the exact tactics that GFZ’er’s advocate, that is, avoid conflict and leave, when he was gunned down by Zimmerman.

      Hopefully, a thorough investigation that includes thorough ballistics and forensics analysis will take place now that FDLE and DOJ are involved. Nothing is guaranteed especially with evidence that is so old but to pin the blame for a botched investigation on anyone but the Sanford Police Department is misguided and just plain wrong.

      ………………………………………………..
      GFZ EDIT:
      Do Not Feed The Troll.

      1. I pointed out to him that there is no evidence at all at this point to indicate that Zimmerman was being kicked and repeatedly punched in a confined area that restricted his ability to leave without suffering further attack

         False.

         (Sorry, Miguel, but even pathetic trolls should not get a free pass for spreading falsehoods.)

      2. Hm. Apparently the embed code broke.

         Link here.

         1. Hmmm… I checked on the post and worked. We will leave both.

            (Sorry, Miguel, but even pathetic trolls should not get a free pass for spreading falsehoods.)
            But that is what pathetic trolls do!

            1. I think the problem is I used the new “iframem” embed code, and WordPress does not like that, especially not in comments. My fault, but the hyperlink works just fine.

               Anywise, falsehoods left unchallenged eventually become accepted as truth – for instance, Rick is still spreading falsehoods when he says “police” instructed Zimmerman to stop pursuing Martin. In truth, 911 operators told him to stop, and 911 operators are not sworn law enforcement officers. In fact, in Florida, they appear to be part of the “Department of Management Services”, whatever the hell that is. It is sad that I now apparently know more about FL’s 911 system than a supposed FL resident.

               So, yeah, do not feed the trolls, but letting them get away with spreading misinformation pollutes the potentially useful information being spread by your site.

3. Stop feeding me, guys!

   Linoge, good grab. I wasn’t aware of that bit of news even though it looks like it’s been out there some time. Even Glenn Beck’s The Blaze just picked it up this AM.

   Okay, great…so we’re getting closer to the gas station bully case. Let’s just ignore the supposed fact that the 250 lb. Zimmy chased this kid down despite instructions from the police and now finds himself getting wailed on by this 150 pound teenager. According to what GFZ’ers have said in the gas station bully case, Zimmerman is being “butch” by pulling out his firearm, right? I mean, here’s a 150 pound using only his hands and the 250 pound guy lights him up instead of trying to run away or “surrender.”

   So when does the serious criticism of George Zimmerman for his excessive use of force and the wrongful shooting of Trayvon Martin start up here at GFZ? He did everything wrong by your standards.

   When does he get a post?

   Well, he won’t. And we all know why.

   ………………………………………………..
   GFZ EDIT:
   Do Not Feed The Troll.

   Linoge, See what happens when you feed him?
   M.

   .

   1. You still do not get it, do you? This is not about Zimmerman being guilty or not but:

      1) Do you really think Al Sharpton and the rest of the pundits actually give two shits about Trayvon? No, they are desperate seeking publicity.
      2) The politics of anti gunners who also do not give two shits about Trayvon but are after the elimination of a law that would protect your sorry ass if you were attacked in the street. In case you haven’t read the law, it protects not only people using firearms but any other device up an including fists & feet.
      3) The Media has exacerbated the case to a frenzy publishing half truths and outright lies. But their intention is to do news (sell) not finding the truth.
      4) When all three of the above set of assholes sink their teeth on you as the “Bad Person” are you ready to stand the pressure of it all? Zimmerman has not been tried or even charged, but there is already a bounty on his head. Do you think he can safely walk the streets of Sandford or Miami gardens without being killed?
      4) I have gone through a crapload of gun blogs and read the experts and we are all in agreement that Zimmerman might have done things wrong. We are also in agreement that it is not murder no matter what the blood lust demands. I do find sadly hilarious that the exalted/elevated/intellectual crowd that keep calling our side neanderthals is the one behaving like beasts.
      5) The final point is: One wrong decision and two lives have taken a trip to nowhere. One has no more suffering to face, the other has barely started a road of pain.

      Your quote for the day.

      Det. Pembleton: “Son….you are ignorance personified”

      And when you are done being a prissy bitch, go read the case of Lineten Belizaire and tell me that there are cops that would not like to nail this fucker to a wall. But they can’t because, same as with Zimmerman, there is no evidence to send him to prison and give him a nice ride on a short needle.

      1. 1) I don’t know what’s in other people’s minds….apparently you do. It might be a little a both, it might be exactly as you say or exactly opposite of what you. You love to put words in people’s mouths so it doesn’t surprise me that you’re also inserting thoughts into their minds.

         2) See #1, although I find it curious that you go this route considering how you lectured me on the gas station beating and made every excuse why I shouldn’t stand my ground.

         3) As usual, as has been the case since the beginning of history. You have high expectations if you think that’s going to change for George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.

         4) George Zimmerman, and any gun toter including a police officer doing his job, assumes that responsibility when he loads up and holsters and wanders out into the public domain. I’m surprised a self-described “expert” like yourself doesn’t understand it. If you don’t want your actions questions, if you don’t want the publicity, if you don’t want the hassles, leave your firearm at home and make sure you have a good pair of running shoes on.

         5) Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve what he got no matter how you view this situation. As far as Zimmerman goes, see #4.

         Finally, I’m a “prissy bitch” or “butch.” Make up your effing mind, Miguel. I can’t be both. And if you’re going to take the time to alter my posts in order to keep your readers from responding, how about you having the same fortitude to bite your tongue and just STFU, Mr. Expert.

         .

         1. OK, simple words so you can finally get it.

            If Zimmerman would just de-escalated and left the area, he wouldn’t be in the position he is right now. Same as the moron at the gas station whose ego got him a beatdown just several thousand orders of magnitude.

            There is a small difference between stupid and trolling and you are missing it.

            1. Newsflash, Miguel….in case you haven’t heard, Zimmerman, like the bully at the gas station, was THE AGGRESSOR. He pursued Martin, Martin did not pursue him. You’re mixing apples and oranges and drawing parallels where there aren’t any.

               You’re right, however, that if Zimmy had just left the area, he wouldn’t be in the situation that he finds himself in today. You could also add, although you would never, ever would, that if Zimmy weren’t armed, he wouldn’t be in the situation he finds himself in today. Here’s another hypothetical: if there was no “Stand Your Ground” law, Zimmy wouldn’t find himself in the situation he is in today. And one final “if:” if Trayvon Martin hadn’t been black and wearing a hoodie, Zimmerman wouldn’t find himself in the situation he finds himself in today.

               .

               1. Here’s another hypothetical: if there was no “Stand Your Ground” law, Zimmy wouldn’t find himself in the situation he is in today

                  Newsflash Rick: If you are the aggressor/initiator, Stand Your Ground does not apply. It has been that way since the law got in the books. You have been drinking the Media Koolaid without verifying expiration date.

                  And you are about to enter Troll Limbo.

                  1. I’ll slow down, Miguel. If there was not a “stand your ground” law in FL perhaps Zimmy would have been arrested right there on the spot since under the law, they are prohibited from making an arrest once self-defense is declared and there is insufficient evidence to the contrary.

                     I so tire of having to spoon feed you everything.

                     “Troll limbo?” That sounds kinda like what your opponents do at their blogs. You know, the ones you make so much fun of here all the time.

                     You don’t even know how much you are like them.

                     .

                     1. I’ll slow down, Miguel. If there was not a “stand your ground” law in FL perhaps Zimmy would have been arrested right there on the spot since under the law, they are prohibited from making an arrest once self-defense is declared and there is insufficient evidence to the contrary.

                        Apparently arresting somebody with no or insufficient evidence is OK by you…which is precisely the reason there are certain legal restrictions to avoid such obvious violations of people’s rights even over the objections of the enraged mob.
                        I presented you the case of Lineten Belizaire. Murdered 3 people, one of them an 11 month baby. No claim of self-defense. Grand Jury brought back No Bill because of insufficient evidence. Now according to what you been saying about the Martin Case, he should be arrested anyway just because. That if taken to trial, Belizaire would probably get a verdict of Non-Guilty and walk away a fee man apparently does not faze you. But at least people would get the instant gratification of having him arrested, law be damned and justice be damned.

                        Now about the Troll Limbo, you keep ignoring, picking and choosing what you want to discuss. Fine with that, it only reveals the weakness of your case. But when you made the mistake to tell me to STFU in my own blog, you crossed the line. You got one warning.

                        1. I give what I get, Miguel. Usually guys who give can take it, too. Had I known you were were just a big talker and so thin-skinned I might have said something else. So sorry I hurt your feelings, Tough Guy.

                           .

                           1. Not even an apology…Oh well.

                  2. Oh, and Miguel, expert this for me….

                     “The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida’s stand-your-ground law applies. “

                     1. And what else is gonna say “My client is guilty?”
                        [facepalm]

4. Miguel-Do you know of any holster manufacturers for bathroom scales?

   1. I would have to say…no [head scratch]

      1. The troll seems to believe that a 100 lb. weight differential between an unarmed attacker and armed victim precludes the victim’s use of deadly force in all circumstances. Or maybe the troll means that unless the attacker weighs more than 150lb., it is illegal to shoot him if he is unarmed. So it would seem concealed carriers need to carry a bathroom scale as well, to weigh both themselves and an unarmed attacker prior to the use of deadly force.

         Does anybody know how much Wayne Treacy weighed relative to Josie Ratley? If Ratley had been armed, would the troll support her shooting Treacy? When? After the first kick to the head? The third kick? The twentieth?

         1. When you gotta explain it, counselor, it really loses its punch, doncha think? *sad face*

            .

5. Troll does raise an interesting question, was Zimmerman stalking, and if so, would that eliminate the stand your ground defense?

   784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
   (1) As used in this section, the term:
   (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
   (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
   (c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
   (d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
   (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
   (3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

   As a reminder, “stand your ground”:

   776.013(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

   This would suggest that a stalker would have to fall back on the common law duty to retreat. I am not familiar enough with the stalking cases to say whether what we’ve heard so far constitutes stalking by Zimmerman.

   1. The statutes require a pattern of conduct and repetition over a subject.

      784.048

      “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.

      1. Agreed. However, it does say “series of acts over a period of time, however short,”–so does that mean if you slowly creep along in your car behind a pedestrian through a gated community, following him turn for turn, such that it becomes obvious to him that the car has no destination but is intentionally following along…is that stalking? Is stalking something that requires days to ripen, or can it occur within minutes under the some circumstances? According to the alleged phone call with Martin’s girlfriend, he perceived he was being followed or “stalked.”

         Is the stalking law so vague as to what constitutes stalking, that it is unconstitutional?

         Let me ask you this Miguel. Replace Martin with a young attractive female. Presume a car is obviously following her through this neighborhood at night, she is alone. The driver, Zimmerman gets out and approaches into her personal space. She decides this is no good, pulls out her pepper spray and uses it against him (force). Thumbs up or thumbs down? Would you tell your daughter she did the wrong thing?

         My point is that even if the daughter’s use of force was wrong and an illegal battery, it was not entirely unprovoked, and perhaps the initiator of the situation should be forced to retreat before using force in defense, having created a nuisance situation in the first place.

         1. However, it does say “series of acts over a period of time, however short,”

            The Martin case would be considered as one incident.

            The NIJ has it as:

            Stalking is conservatively defined as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear”

            This is the prevalent guideline from what I have seen also in other states.

            “Would you tell your daughter she did the wrong thing? “

            My daughter would not have used pepper spray 😉

            My point is that even if the daughter’s use of force was wrong and an illegal battery, it was not entirely unprovoked, and perhaps the initiator of the situation should be forced to retreat before using force in defense, having created a nuisance situation in the first place.

            There are very few facts (and truly maybe none) clear in the Martin case. Did Zimmerman initiated the contact? Apparently so. Did he shoot Martin? Yes. Was it self defense? At this point and by what the police initially stated and then we find out that they liked him for Manslaughter, the answer would be no. Now, basically we have no hard evidence available of what happened from the moment Zimmerman got out of the car and the tussle with Martin began. It seems the evidence is so weak that neither the police nor the DA wanted to press charges. Case was still open and with chance of being solved. Now with all the media intervention, the case might have gotten so polluted that we might never find out what really happened. We can almost bet Zimmerman (if indeed guilty) will not make mistakes or open his mouth to say some incriminating statement as if he thought he was not being investigated.

            Troublesome details: Zimmerman’s wound to the back of his head. A good defense lawyer might use it to suggest that he had broken contact and was retreating (initial contact is over) when Martin attacked him (New Contact). That would probably create enough doubt in the jury to hurt the prosecution’s case. Now apparently we have an eye witness (so fa the only one) that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman before the shot and saw him screaming for help. Sandford Police released the info that they had played the 911 tapes to Martin’s Father and he stated that it was not his voice. You start adding small details like these and Reasonable Doubt starts to get stronger.
            Again, it is what can be proved in court, not what anybody thinks it happened.

            And again IANAL.

            1. Agreed. Except I am not sure what NIJ stands for, all that matters is the Florida stalking statute and how Florida courts have interpreted that statute. Again, I don’t know the answer to the latter.

               I also agree with you that if, as according to an eye witness account I read over the weekend, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him, then obviously retreat was not possible for Zimmerman, and the stalking discussion becomes moot, under those facts.

               I am just asking in a general sense whether either the stalking or stand your ground statute should be tweaked to add back the necessity of retreat where one has noticeably followed someone around in the dark of night and then approaches them–a scenario in which we seem to agree justifies someone going into high alert mode, and although perhaps not legal, we would be perfectly fine with our wives or daughters being charged with a crime if they whip out the pepper spray (or brandish a firearm as you seem to imply).

               I am just asking whether it may be a little naive to say well, Zimmerman can drive wherever he wants, and he can try to talk to whoever he wants, whenever he wants. I am not suggesting we decriminalize the use of force in response to a perceived stalking, but perhaps keep the retreat requirement for the person reacting to that force, as perhaps in a moral sense he should expect he might get pepper sprayed, shoved, or even punched for behaving that way. Just a theory I leave open for discussion as to whether the statutes we have are perfect, or could be tweaked.

               1. National Institute of Justice.

                  I am just asking in a general sense whether either the stalking or stand your ground statute should be tweaked to add back the necessity of retreat

                  No and here is the reasoning: It places the burden of proof on the Prosecution instead of the Defense (as it should be.) Killing, hurting or maiming in self defense is what’s called Affirmative Defense: “Yes I did it but here are the reasons why I did it and I should not be prosecuted/punished for it.”
                  Duty to Retreat places all the burden on the defendant plus leaves the interpretation of what is “retreating” to the prosecution as in a very nasty case of hindsight. Prosecution can go back at any time in the timeline of events to say “Well, if you had not done this, you would not had to shoot Mr. X. and therefore you should go to prison.” Even if the jury later finds the defendant innocent, the damage is done as in the case of Harold Fish or Jay Rodney Lewis. Duty to Retreat is not applied evenly and more than one prosecutor has used it for political grandstanding or just simply sheer political stupidity.
                  We always try to enhance the Rights of the Individual, not the power of the State.

6. […] Miguel This entry was posted in Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink. ← A Little […]

Comments are closed.