May 10 2012
Concealed Weapons Are Not License To Play Cop
A lot of my readers do not understand why I have such confidence in the fact George Zimmerman was rightly charged in the death of Trayvon Martin. Most of their angst is due to the fact they let politics enter into their thinking and – whether they admit it or not – they don’t want Al Sharpton to be even partially right on this. So they defend the indefensible.
Personally I could care less about Sharpton. Whether he is right or wrong has no bearing on this. What does matter is how the incident played out and what are the laws when it comes to concealed weapons and the right to stand your ground.
Some background is in order, because I am not naive to these kinds of situations. I have had a gun pulled on me, and one threatened to be pulled on me. A passenger in my car pulled a knife on some guys harassing us late at night, and I hung out on the wrong side of the tracks at times. Sadly these kinds of incidents are not unknown to me.
There are two kinds of gun owners: (1) the quiet and serious type and (2) the show-offs covering up for their insecurity. Zimmerman strikes me as the latter. Zimmerman has a history of using excessive force in his role as bouncer – on a woman yet. That is not the act of a confident and in control person.
The guy who pulled the gun on me was a classic gun-toting idiot with delusions of grandeur.
The picture above is a loose representation of my encounter with the insecure, show-off types. I was in my car and – get this – merging onto a highway (Rt 66 in Northern Virginia). There was one other vehicle on the highway within site. It was a pickup truck and he was in the right lane – the lane I needed to merge into. My timing was perfect. I came down the ramp a little ahead of him and started to accelerate.
Then the idiot in the truck started to accelerate, too. I was driving a Pontiac Trans Am – so I accelerated even more and got onto the empty highway in front of this upstanding citizen.
Apparently, my getting in front was too much for this guy. Like Zimmerman when he ‘snapped as a bouncer and threw a woman against the wall, this guy felt the empty two lane highway was not big enough for the two of us (as I recall it was a Sunday morning when this happened). So “Joe Good Citizen” comes right up on my bumper. I tapped the brakes to warn him off with the lights – not slowing down at all.
And the fool was caught off guard! He hits his breaks way too hard and starts to lose control of the car (he already had lost control of his temper). He does recover, but now he is really pissed. I moved to the left lane and the guy pulled up on my right – now with his gun out and pointed at me.
I was not really panicked but more amused, so I simply hit my breaks, swung in behind him and took down his license plate. I then turned him into the police who went to visit our foolish gunslinger. He claimed the gun fell off the seat and he simply picked it up – never brandishing it. The cops did not buy it and he was charged.
I tried to make the court hearing, but did not make it. I have no idea what happened, but this fool went from full on arrogant to blabbering apologist in 2 seconds when the real law showed up. And he was making up all sorts of BS the entire time.
Today in Florida he would have committed what is called Assault with a Deadly Weapon. If the gun had fired and I died, it would be manslaughter – or worse.
Here is one of thousands of like incidents that occur all over the country all year:
Jeffrey Craig Hatcher also was charged with two counts each of felony aggravated assault and terroristic threats in connection with the incident shortly before 4:30 p.m.
…
The 48-year-old Hatcher told the deputy he is a security guard who carries a firearm as part of his job, and that the gun was in the center console of the Tahoe. The deputy retrieved a .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver and a guard’s badge.
The two men in the Chevy accused Hatcher of pointing a chrome revolver at them, but Hatcher denied displaying a gun, the incident report said. Hatcher told deputies that he had tried to pass the other car, but it would not let him pass. He was placed under arrest.
This guy has some legal reason to have a gun on him outside the home, and he was correctly arrested for misusing it. These incidents involved just the threat of a gun, and the punishment is harsh. Use it and things get much worse. Kill someone and you are in deep trouble. So you better have a bullet-proof excuse – or else.
I grew up around guns. I like using them and have been trained since a wee lad on what to do and not do. I proudly live in a state that allows concealed weapons, one that also has severe punishments for misuse of those weapons by civilians. I believe in both the right and responsibility. I have low tolerance for fools with guns – they play right into the gun control zealots hands.
Also, my family has its shares of law enforcement members. From police chief, mayor, state and federal prosecutor, judge and US congressman we have a deep understanding of where those lines of legal behavior are. More than most.
Here is a very, very important statement from the government of Florida regarding concealed weapons and why Zimmerman is in the trouble he is in:
To carry a concealed firearm is to take on an immense responsibility. It is very important to understand that a license to carry a concealed weapon does not give the license holder discretionary authority to use that weapon. It is my sincere hope that you will never find it necessary to use your weapon in self-defense; however, if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law.
Emphasis mine. Zimmerman has no right to use the weapon – even in self defense. Yes, he can try the self defense angle, but it is not a given it will work. And most likely it will not work in this case.
First off, Zimmerman was not in a defensive position through most of the event. He was not being attacked by Martin, who was walking through the neighborhood eating candy and talking on the phone. This fact cannot be dismissed or ignored. When the incident began Zimmerman was not in danger. He put himself into the situation against the wishes of Martin.
Zimmerman was not in a self defense situation when he got out of his car – armed – and tried to chase down Martin. At this point in the sequence of events, it is Martin who is in the self defense position because he is the one being chased by an armed man. Zimmerman has no authority to go after someone armed. None.
The threat is real in Martin’s mind and backed up apparently by testimony of the girlfriend on the phone. Zimmerman has no “right to stand” from here on – but Martin does.
Martin tries to flee, Zimmerman continues to chase for many minutes and against police direction. Zimmerman is also angry at Martin without any hard evidence – it is all a state of mind for Zimmerman.
This is the law as applied equally to Zimmerman and Martin. When the physical conflict finally occurs, Zimmerman has been chasing and Martin has been fleeing. The encounter could have been avoided if Zimmerman stayed in his truck, waited for police and followed their directions. Remember the warning above:
if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law.
Zimmerman’s actions up to the confrontation are not consistent with self defense. You cannot create a conflict and then claim the conflict threatened you.
I now want to point to this part of the Florida statutes:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
This is also a very key statute. Zimmerman cannot use the fact he is armed to detain or question Martin. He cannot use the threat of a gun to detain Martin. There must be some evidence that has pushed the prosecutor to go from manslaughter to 2nd degree murder. And my hunch is that extra evidence is the fact Zimmerman brandished the gun to try and alpha-male Martin.
I also have serious doubts that the gun was in Zimmerman’s waist band when he pulled it – being on his back and pinned down by Martin. Take that for what it is worth, but to pull a gun under such conditions is really hard.
The gun could have been pulled, which then created the physical altercation as Martin used his right to stand. It would explain a scenario where Martin is screaming for help, even though he is winning the physical battle. It would also explain why Martin was being so hard on Zimmerman. The presence of a gun would make bashing Zimmerman unconscious a smart and prudent plan of defense.
What we don’t know is if the presence of the gun was made known prior to the physical altercation. And this is where the testimony of Trayvon’s girlfriend is probably the key. If Zimmerman let it be known he was armed, then the self defense claim goes all the way to Martin and Zimmerman is in serious trouble.
He cannot use self defense when he makes the threat of harm.
I will end this with some sage advice from someone on Free Republic:
* YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON IS FOR PROTECTION OF LIFE ONLY.
Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and criminal activities of another.
* KNOW EXACTLY WHEN YOU CAN USE YOUR WEAPON.
A criminal adversary must have or reasonably appear to have:
A. The ABILITY to inflict serious bodily injury. He is armed or reasonably appears to be armed.
B. The OPPORTUNITY to inflict serious bodily harm. He is positioned to harm you with his weapon, and,
C. His INTENT (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy – to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
You cannot be wrong on these matters when the weapon discharges. There has to be a real threat, not one in your head. It will be impossible for Zimmerman (who was armed) to claim Martin was a threat at any time before the final, physical altercation – which Zimmerman instigated by following Martin.
One last item. People don’t understand how Zimmerman and Martin finally connected up after Zimmerman lost Martin (who was between the buildings) as Zimmerman walked over to the far parking lot. Minutes went by and they should have not re-engaged.
Except Martin probably hung out outside his house, and when the coast appeared to be clear, went back to walking and talking to his girlfriend. Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck after losing Martin. That is how they fatefully met the last time. But that will not save Zimmerman from his responsibilities as the armed person, nor his many opportunities to avoid conflict.
If he only stayed in or with his truck – as directed by police. And that is the essence of this case.
Time for Perry Mason class again. of why Martin has the right to stand and defend himself against Zimmerman:
A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if: (1) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault and (2) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, and (3) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and (4) Force used was not excessive-greater than reasonable needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.
Deadly force may not be used (1) to stop a Simple Assault (2) because of the use of Violent Language (3) because you are a victim of past violence and fear future violence (4) because a trespasser refuses to leave (5) to arrest a criminal or prevent a criminal’s escape (6) solely to protect property, or to prevent theft, or to regain stolen property.
Why am I not surprised law and logic is not penetrating the Birther crowd ….
“If there was something culpable…”
And yet after a two week investigation the SPD found there was no cause for arrest. Moreover, the police chief said, ‘“The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”’
During the bail hearing the prosecution admitted they had NOTHING that contradicted Zimmerman’s story that TM began the fight. Nor did they have anything that contradicted Zimmerman’s story that he stopped following TM and was headed back to for his truck.
Sooooo, if TM threw the first punch, the only question left to ask is whether the attack was severe enough to reasonably cause a person to fear serious bodily injury or death.
The state never even suggested that Zimmerman had an opportunity to get away from TM.
So, if he feared for his life and could not retreat…he absolutely had the right to defend himself. I don’t see how the state can possibly win this.
And there is a very good chance that this will be thrown out at the SYG hearing.
“Time for Perry Mason class again. of why Martin has the right to stand and defend himself against Zimmerman:
I’m sorry, but no one is legally permitted to punch another person b/c they were asked a question.
TM could have stood his ground and dropped the F bomb all day long to Zimmerman for his having watched/followed and than asked the horrifying question, “What are you doing?”. But, he did not have the right to punch Zimmerman in the face.
“Why am I not surprised law and logic is not penetrating the Birther crowd”
A better question is, why would you insult your audience/readers this way?
It’s incomprehensible to me.
Why would you quote from and link to a NC State Law and not from the Florida JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE Statute?
The Texas penal code is similar in regards to handling of guns. If you use your gun, you may be subject to a grand jury to determine whether you had the grounds for using your gun…as you use the gun as the last resort if your life or family member or friends within your vicinity are at threat.
I also read that 911 told Zimmerman to back off, which later we learned that he did indeed back off to go back to his truck. Only Martin went after him in his way back to his truck to beat him to the ground. Martin kept striking his head against the curb and Zimmerman was at that point about to lose his life and had to use his gun to stop Martin from beating him any further.
Now, this doesn’t mean that what I heard was right or wrong. It’s just that I have no idea which side is correct. I am not convinced that Martin has the winning side.
Aside from the confusion in this case, I do have a personal goal in this. Because of Obama’s comment about Martin and all the bias with hoodies spewing by the blacks without looking at the facts, I actually hope Zimmerman will win this case. Which will put a stop on this racism thing.
That’s just two opinions that I maintain: 1) No clear winner. 2) Personally hope Zimmerman wins this one.
The title of this thread is very telling: ““Concealed Weapons Are Not License To Play Cop”. If Zimmerman were trying to play cop then he wouldn’t have called a non-emergerncy police line to report someone acting strange. If he were trying to just show off, or assume a role of vigilante, he would have gone it alone, not wanting to notify the police of anything until he had taken care of the situation himself.
I find this as disturbing if not more regarding Sheriff Arpaio being sued AGAIN by the United States Department of Justice:
from thegatewaypundit.com
“The Justice Department wants to place a monitor at the sheriff’s office, basically watching everything he does. But Arpaio says he won’t allow that.
This is criminal.”
I am praying for you, Sheriff. And Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin’s family, too.
Talk about losing credibility points.
AJ Strata: “Why am I not surprised law and logic is not penetrating the Birther crowd…”
Find yourself on the lsoing side of an argument so throw out the old ad-hominem attack. Very surprising Mr. Strata.
“>Deadly force may not be used (1) to stop a Simple Assault ”
and as Perry Mason would say: we all know that someone sitting on top of you bashing your head onto a concrete sidewalk is only ‘simple assault’.
Birther crowd? were they involved in this discussion? I didn’t read anything about Obama’s birth place even once in this discussion.
From that North Carolina law this quote:”You do not have a duty to retreat if the instigator of the Simple Assault lays his hands on you. ”
Would a punch to the nose constitute ‘lays his hands on you’?
but that’s in North Carolina and the law may not be the same in Florida.
In Texas, the instigator does not have to lay hands on victim.
Self defense where the aggressor is on the receiving end happens more often than reported. The Zimmerman case appears to be more politically directed than an actual legal one. Zimmerman is on trial, but unless the prosecutor has a lot more cards to put on the table, her case is very weak.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
http://www.wsfa.com/story/17997141/13-year-old-suspect-killed-during-robbery
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Trayvon-Martin-fire/2012/05/04/id/438098
“The special prosecutor in charge of trying Trayvon Martin’s killer should be fired from the case because she has made it clear that her priority is to “get” George Zimmerman, says leading appeals case lawyer Alan Dershowitz in an exclusive Newsmax TV interview.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott should never have appointed Angela Corey to the racially sensitive case in the first place, added the Harvard law professor.
“She has a terrible reputation in Florida for over-charging and being political and holding her finger to the wind and seeing which way the wind is blowing,” said Dershowitz, who has been an outspoken critic of the handling of the case…”
JWB,
Actually the case is strong because so much of what Zimmerman did and admitted to doing undermines his self defense argument.
And – I have to repeat – Martin has self defense and stand his ground right as well.
And of course the prosecutor has more or else it would be manslaughter. Duh.
Zimmerman’s excuses always undermine his case.
(1) He was frightened in his truck – so he armed himself and went behind buildings looking for Martin? Fail.
(2) Martin looked suspicious – so he armed himself and went looking for Martin?
By FL law Zimmerman is NOT allowed to bring his gun out of his truck with safety off, etc. He is NOT in mortal danger and neither is a 3rd party. Therefore he is NOT allowed to be armed. Let me say this again – while acting in a capacity of neighborhood watch he is NOT legally allowed to use the gun. He should not even have it. He is NOT a security guard. Apparently he was not even a sanctioned watch guy (self proclaimed and all).
He has a concealed weapons permit, but there are rules and boundaries. And this is one of them. You cannot go armed into a situation willy nilly.
As soon as you get past Sharpton and the politics, the evidence is clear. Instigators do NOT get a self defense claim to use deadly force once the situation they instigated turns against them.
This is so established in law it is nearly impossible for a confusing new law to undo. That is why you cannot start a brawl, begin to lose and then shoot the person. Simply cannot bait someone into being murdered.
All these excuses trotted out by Zimmerman backers are applicable to other situations – and only those other situations. Zimmerman is going to lose if he goes to trial because no one wants to let anyone pop a kid because they ‘looked suspicious’. Moreover, it will be hammered home Zimmerman had plenty of options to back off (and was directed to as well). His decision to NOT makes him the instigator up until the time he was losing the fight. He pushed this to the point one person would die. And being the armed one, he felt (or knew) he would be the one likely to live.
By the time the physical altercation broke out, Zimmerman had been instigator too long. Even while losing the fight he could have ‘backed off’ by simply going limp, covering up and begging for mercy.
The reason he could do this likely was because the gun was out. The reason his head was being bashed was because he was armed and Martin (rightfully) knew he had to beat him unconscious if he had a prayer of living.
This is not going to be a hard case, because I am betting the girlfriend testified the gun was out before the physical altercation started. Because that is the only way to go from 2nd Degree from what should be a manslaughter (accidental shooting). Something the prosecutor has is clear and destroys Zimmerman’s defense. We don’t know what evidence exists, but Zimmerman and the prosecutor all show signs it ain’t good for the vigilante.
You keep repeating the same false things. The state has NO evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s statements that he stopped following TM after the dispatcher said she didn’t need him to do that.
The state has NO evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s statement that TM not only threw the first punch, but continued to be the aggressor throughout.
“Even while losing the fight he could have ‘backed off’ by simply going limp, covering up and begging for mercy.”
By simply going limp??? covering up??? or begging for mercy??? You mean like screaming for help???
That statement may be the most ridiculous statement you’ve made so far about this case.
The law is quite clear, if Zimmerman felt his life was threatened and if he had no way to RETREAT, then he was justified to use deadly force.
Case closed.
A little ‘cut and paste’ here:
“He was frightened in his truck – so he armed himself ”
I’m confused, wasn’t he already armed, didn’t he carry the gun with him when he left home. I never heard him, while sitting in the truck, state that he ‘was frightened’
“By FL law Zimmerman is NOT allowed to bring his gun out of his truck with safety off, etc. ”
wish there was a link to this. I couldn’t find any mention of position of ‘safety’
“Let me say this again – while acting in a capacity of neighborhood watch he is NOT legally allowed to use the gun.”
Zimmerman’s statement was that he had left home to go to a store and happened to see this person wandering around in the rain in his neighborhood, so he called the police and reported him. It has not been stated or alleged, that I have seen, that he was acting in a capacity of neighborhood watch.
“Apparently he was not even a sanctioned watch guy (self proclaimed and all).”
It was stated that his neighborhood association had appointed him as head of their neighborhood watch, but he didn’t claim to be wearing that hat when this episode occurred.
“but there are rules and boundaries. And this is one of them. You cannot go armed into a situation willy nilly.”
I couldn’t find that in the law.
“Zimmerman had plenty of options to back off (and was directed to as well). ”
Actually, he was told that ‘we don’t need you to do that’. That could be interpreted as a directive, I suppose.
“By the time the physical altercation broke out, Zimmerman had been instigator too long. ” and what was the time limit? After so many minutes, Zimmerman gave up his right to self defense?
“Even while losing the fight he could have ‘backed off’ by simply going limp, covering up and begging for mercy. ” and if he did and Martin then continued to bash his head, he then regains the right to shoot him. which he did.
“The reason he could do this likely was because the gun was out.”
I’m gonna guess that you’re guessing here.
“because I am betting the girlfriend testified the gun was out before the physical altercation started”
I’m gonna guess here that the girlfriend was too far away to see this clearly. And there was no cell phone belonging to Martin found at the scene, so I’m not sure how they were communicating.
I’m applying my Perry Mason experience with my extensive training in ‘silliness logic’ to reach some of these conclusions.
This is not meant to pile on, but I find those statements really off base.
First, how do you know what would have happend if Zimmerman had become passive? Maybe Martin would have considered Zimmerman to be a wuss, and left him alone on the ground. Or, maybe Martin would have have felt empowered by Zimmerman being a wuss, begging for mercy, and continued banging his head on the ground, either killing him or giving him serious head trauma.
The second statement, you are also assuming the gun to be out. How do you know that? Could it be that when Martin was toussling with Zimmerman, he tried to grab the gun himself, which then led to Zimmerman getting ahold of it and shooting Martin close range?
You see, I’m just bringing up other options, because I don’t know what happened. But, AJ, neither do you or anyone else. It could be you are right about everything. But, just saying you’re right, doesn’t make it so, until more is revealed about this altercation.
“And of course the prosecutor has more or else it would be manslaughter.”
That’s exactly the same logic as “well of COURSE the Climate Scientists have more, or else they wouldn’t believe in Global Warming so deeply!”
If this prosecution falls apart, you are going to look like a fool.
Redteam,
Were you able to find a link that says a person has a legal obligation to “play dead” if he believes his life is being threatened?
I haven’t been able to. 🙁