Zimmerman Self-Defense Trial off to Acceptable Start :)

[gunsmith]

Just last year there was a lady getting mugged at gunpoint in MPLS, the purse snatcher ran off and a PTC holder pursued him. The bad guy drew his gun but was shot dead by the permit holder. In this scenario, the permit holder initiated the contact and was still in the right to use deadly force. Different scenarios (and different states) for sure,

That guy was known as 'The Good Samaritan' Somehow (a good thing) NO INFORMATION WAS EVER RELEASED ABOUT THE GUY.

Request: Could some Certified Firearm Instructor post (side by side) the differences in MN Law and Florida Law (maybe even Texas Law)

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/th ... need/five-‘stand-your-ground’-cases-you-should-know-about/14039/

I try not to confuse myself w/ what's legal in other states but this could be helpful...The left was all butt-hurt about the Joe Horn 'Stand your Ground' case where he shot dead a guy who was robbing his neighbor...they had the 911 call where the 911 operator was telling him NOT to go outside...he did anyway, shot the guy, and wasn't even charged to the astonishment of the New York Media Elite.

I've heard on this forum that in MN we have 'Stand your Ground' but it's not in a statute....could some instructors clarify just what the on-the-street difference are between MN, Florida and Texas.

If Zimmy is convicted they're going to come after 'Stand Your Ground' The final days of the Osama administration could be an ugly conflict between the Executive Branch and Everybody Else.

[JeremiahMN]

I think by Zimmermans own admission, he was stalking this kid in the dark and rain.

If you tried creeping up on my in the dark, stalking me and then confront me with an attitude, it would be reasonable for me to be in fear of my safety, possibly my life. Even if Treyvon punched zimmerman, smashed his head in the sidewalk, Zimmerman still initiated the confrontation. Can't claim self defense if you started it. I'm all for the 2nd amendment. But I hope after Zimmerman is convicted it will send a strong message that if you are going to carry a gun around, you are taking on a great responsibility and this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

So, if you confront a stranger in your neighborhood as part of your neighborhood watch program, and they attack you in a way that you feel threatens your life, you can't defend yourself with deadly force? Can you cite a Florida statute to support that argument?

Just last year there was a lady getting mugged at gunpoint in MPLS, the purse snatcher ran off and a PTC holder pursued him. The bad guy drew his gun but was shot dead by the permit holder. In this scenario, the permit holder initiated the contact and was still in the right to use deadly force. Different scenarios (and different states) for sure, but I don't understand what you're basing your logic on. Truth is you have no idea what happened, and the only living person that really knows what happened seems to have a pretty good case for the shooting. Remember....."beyond a reasonable doubt". No way this guy gets convicted. It's just not plausible to erase a reasonable doubt without more witnesses or evidence.

That said, I think he was probably in the wrong to some degree....but he'll never be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my neighborhood watch program, we are not armed guards out to catch a punk. In fact rule 1 is to never confront, only to report. Probably a good reason for that.

In regards to that mugger that got shot in Minneapolis. I think that the shooter should have been charged with manslaughter. It's not like my opinion was way off base either, on this and other mn gun forums many gun owners thought he should be charged. He interjected himself into that scenario and someone died. He should have called the cops and stayed with the lady until they arrived. Also, this is a bit of a reach as an analogy. This guy actually saw him pistol whipping someone and stealing their stuff, Zimmerman saw someone wearing a hoody and over-reacted.

Reasonable doubt varies from person to person. What you think may be reasonable, others may not. The only people that really matter are the jurors. I think it's pretty clear from the evidence shown so far, that Zimmerman started the altercation by stalking and confronting Treyvon, the notion of self defense is out the window at that point for most sensible people. I guess we'll know soon. I doubt it will take them that long to deliberate and come to a guilty verdict. Just like after the elections, I'll stop back after for an "I told you so"

[Collector1337420]

I think by Zimmermans own admission, he was stalking this kid in the dark and rain.

If you tried creeping up on my in the dark, stalking me and then confront me with an attitude, it would be reasonable for me to be in fear of my safety, possibly my life. Even if Treyvon punched zimmerman, smashed his head in the sidewalk, Zimmerman still initiated the confrontation. Can't claim self defense if you started it. I'm all for the 2nd amendment. But I hope after Zimmerman is convicted it will send a strong message that if you are going to carry a gun around, you are taking on a great responsibility and this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

So, if you confront a stranger in your neighborhood as part of your neighborhood watch program, and they attack you in a way that you feel threatens your life, you can't defend yourself with deadly force? Can you cite a Florida statute to support that argument?

Just last year there was a lady getting mugged at gunpoint in MPLS, the purse snatcher ran off and a PTC holder pursued him. The bad guy drew his gun but was shot dead by the permit holder. In this scenario, the permit holder initiated the contact and was still in the right to use deadly force. Different scenarios (and different states) for sure, but I don't understand what you're basing your logic on. Truth is you have no idea what happened, and the only living person that really knows what happened seems to have a pretty good case for the shooting. Remember....."beyond a reasonable doubt". No way this guy gets convicted. It's just not plausible to erase a reasonable doubt without more witnesses or evidence.

That said, I think he was probably in the wrong to some degree....but he'll never be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my neighborhood watch program, we are not armed guards out to catch a punk. In fact rule 1 is to never confront, only to report. Probably a good reason for that.

In regards to that mugger that got shot in Minneapolis. I think that the shooter should have been charged with manslaughter. It's not like my opinion was way off base either, on this and other mn gun forums many gun owners thought he should be charged. He interjected himself into that scenario and someone died. He should have called the cops and stayed with the lady until they arrived. Also, this is a bit of a reach as an analogy. This guy actually saw him pistol whipping someone and stealing their stuff, Zimmerman saw someone wearing a hoody and over-reacted.

Reasonable doubt varies from person to person. What you think may be reasonable, others may not. The only people that really matter are the jurors. I think it's pretty clear from the evidence shown so far, that Zimmerman started the altercation by stalking and confronting Treyvon, the notion of self defense is out the window at that point for most sensible people. I guess we'll know soon. I doubt it will take them that long to deliberate and come to a guilty verdict. Just like after the elections, I'll stop back after for an "I told you so"

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

[grousemaster]

I think by Zimmermans own admission, he was stalking this kid in the dark and rain.

If you tried creeping up on my in the dark, stalking me and then confront me with an attitude, it would be reasonable for me to be in fear of my safety, possibly my life. Even if Treyvon punched zimmerman, smashed his head in the sidewalk, Zimmerman still initiated the confrontation. Can't claim self defense if you started it. I'm all for the 2nd amendment. But I hope after Zimmerman is convicted it will send a strong message that if you are going to carry a gun around, you are taking on a great responsibility and this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

So, if you confront a stranger in your neighborhood as part of your neighborhood watch program, and they attack you in a way that you feel threatens your life, you can't defend yourself with deadly force? Can you cite a Florida statute to support that argument?

Just last year there was a lady getting mugged at gunpoint in MPLS, the purse snatcher ran off and a PTC holder pursued him. The bad guy drew his gun but was shot dead by the permit holder. In this scenario, the permit holder initiated the contact and was still in the right to use deadly force. Different scenarios (and different states) for sure, but I don't understand what you're basing your logic on. Truth is you have no idea what happened, and the only living person that really knows what happened seems to have a pretty good case for the shooting. Remember....."beyond a reasonable doubt". No way this guy gets convicted. It's just not plausible to erase a reasonable doubt without more witnesses or evidence.

That said, I think he was probably in the wrong to some degree....but he'll never be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my neighborhood watch program, we are not armed guards out to catch a punk. In fact rule 1 is to never confront, only to report. Probably a good reason for that.

In regards to that mugger that got shot in Minneapolis. I think that the shooter should have been charged with manslaughter. It's not like my opinion was way off base either, on this and other mn gun forums many gun owners thought he should be charged. He interjected himself into that scenario and someone died. He should have called the cops and stayed with the lady until they arrived. Also, this is a bit of a reach as an analogy. This guy actually saw him pistol whipping someone and stealing their stuff, Zimmerman saw someone wearing a hoody and over-reacted.

Reasonable doubt varies from person to person. What you think may be reasonable, others may not. The only people that really matter are the jurors. I think it's pretty clear from the evidence shown so far, that Zimmerman started the altercation by stalking and confronting Treyvon, the notion of self defense is out the window at that point for most sensible people. I guess we'll know soon. I doubt it will take them that long to deliberate and come to a guilty verdict. Just like after the elections, I'll stop back after for an "I told you so"

You just don't seem to grasp how much evidence it takes to prove something beyond a "reasonable doubt". O.J. walks, and Casey Anthony walks in Florida...why? Not enough evidence to erase all doubt. Carrying a gun does not mean you cannot initiate contact with someone. If I'm walking out of Fleet Farm, see some punk looking in car windows, and approach then ask him what the heck he's doing....that doesn't mean I all of a sudden lose the right to self defense if he attacks me.

I guess my question is, what makes you think that initiating contact with someone who then tries to cause you serious bodily harm means you lose the right to self defense? Could you explain that or cite a law? Or are you just making **** up? The state's star witness just testified....and she didn't provide any real evidence. They shouldn't have pursued murder charges....I'll bet you a brick of .22 ammo on this one.

BTW, on the election thing....all I did was say that the election would be close, and I cited several polls to support my point. I never said Romney would win. You cited no sources and got lucky with a big victory for your guy. Even though no data supported your theory at the time. Like now, no data supports your theory.

[gunsmith]

In the Minneapolis 'Good Samaritan' case the Good Samaritan saw and heard the robbery go down. Darren Evanovich (career criminal) had taken a 60+ yr old Mexican cleaning womans purse at gun point and then struck her in the face with his (real but unloaded) gun.

The GS chased the punk down to get her purse back. The thug pointed his empty gun at GS and the GS returned fire with his real and loaded gun.

I think the cops on the scene had a lot to do with the filing or not filing of charges...And I'm still impressed that the identity of the permit holder was not released.

Here's the Google: http://www.google.com/#biw=1049&bih=532 ... b0094071d6

Good article by Ed Morrisey on Hot Air:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/29/h ... -shooting/

[Heffay]

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

Which criminal are you referring to? Trayvon or Zimmerman?

[grousemaster]

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

Which criminal are you referring to? Trayvon or Zimmerman?

Neither one of them are criminals as far as I know, yet anyway....

[JeremiahMN]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

How's that sticking up for a criminal? That's sticking up for a civilized society! I hate it when people that have carry permits think they are the cops and act recklessly. What if that guy would have missed the mugger and shot some innocent person? I'm even all for standing your ground, as long as that doesn't include chasing someone down and getting in an altercation with them, shooting them and claiming self defense. Once you voluntarily put yourself into that situation trying to be a cop, IMO you lose that self defense claim.

[Collector1337420]

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

Which criminal are you referring to? Trayvon or Zimmerman?

Neither.

I'm talking about the mugger who got shot by the good Samaritan someone was referencing.

[grousemaster]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

How's that sticking up for a criminal? That's sticking up for a civilized society! I hate it when people that have carry permits think they are the cops and act recklessly. What if that guy would have missed the mugger and shot some innocent person? I'm even all for standing your ground, as long as that doesn't include chasing someone down and getting in an altercation with them, shooting them and claiming self defense. Once you voluntarily put yourself into that situation trying to be a cop, IMO you lose that self defense claim.

Does that happen often? I don't know anyone with a permit that does that. I do know that carrying a firearm doesn't prohibit a person from trying to confront a criminal, stop a crime, or prevent someone else from losing life or property.

[Collector1337420]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

How's that sticking up for a criminal? That's sticking up for a civilized society! I hate it when people that have carry permits think they are the cops and act recklessly. What if that guy would have missed the mugger and shot some innocent person? I'm even all for standing your ground, as long as that doesn't include chasing someone down and getting in an altercation with them, shooting them and claiming self defense. Once you voluntarily put yourself into that situation trying to be a cop, IMO you lose that self defense claim.

"Civilized society?!"

ROFL!

That's what people who I know from the UK, Australia, etc. say when they talk about how guns should be banned and confiscated. They say the US is wildly "uncivilized" because we are allowed to own guns.

It's a terribly crappy argument and just plain absurd.

[grousemaster]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

How's that sticking up for a criminal? That's sticking up for a civilized society! I hate it when people that have carry permits think they are the cops and act recklessly. What if that guy would have missed the mugger and shot some innocent person? I'm even all for standing your ground, as long as that doesn't include chasing someone down and getting in an altercation with them, shooting them and claiming self defense. Once you voluntarily put yourself into that situation trying to be a cop, IMO you lose that self defense claim.

"Civilized society?!"

ROFL!

That's what people who I know from the UK, Australia, etc. say when they talk about how guns should be banned and confiscated.

It's a terribly crappy argument.

lol, read some of the threads and posts he's made in the past. Par for the course.

[JeremiahMN]

BTW, on the election thing....all I did was say that the election would be close, and I cited several polls to support my point. I never said Romney would win. You cited no sources and got lucky with a big victory for your guy. Even though no data supported your theory at the time. Like now, no data supports your theory.

332 to 206 is close now? You can't go by popular vote as it doesn't matter, if it did Obama would have played that game instead and trounced him that way instead of with electoral votes. You did site several polls indicating that it was going to be so close, I told you those polls were wrong, which they were. I didn't site any polls, because that was my point, they were wrong and it was going to be a big win for Obama. Anyway, I'll be back with another "I told you so" on this case soon. I think the reason, like many people on this forum, you're wrong so much is that you surround yourself with like minded people and live in this non-reality bubble and don't even know how regular people in the real world think.

[Collector1337420]

BTW, on the election thing....all I did was say that the election would be close, and I cited several polls to support my point. I never said Romney would win. You cited no sources and got lucky with a big victory for your guy. Even though no data supported your theory at the time. Like now, no data supports your theory.

332 to 206 is close now? You can't go by popular vote as it doesn't matter, if it did Obama would have played that game instead and trounced him that way instead of with electoral votes. You did site several polls indicating that it was going to be so close, I told you those polls were wrong, which they were. I didn't site any polls, because that was my point, they were wrong and it was going to be a big win for Obama. Anyway, I'll be back with another "I told you so" on this case soon. I think the reason, like many people on this forum, you're wrong so much is that you surround yourself with like minded people and live in this non-reality bubble and don't even know how regular people in the real world think.

And you are the expert on "regular people" and how "regular people in the real world think?"

Please tell me, where did you obtain your graduate degrees in psychology and sociology?

[JeremiahMN]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Charge that guy with manslaughter? Really?

I can't stand it when people stick up for criminals.

How's that sticking up for a criminal? That's sticking up for a civilized society! I hate it when people that have carry permits think they are the cops and act recklessly. What if that guy would have missed the mugger and shot some innocent person? I'm even all for standing your ground, as long as that doesn't include chasing someone down and getting in an altercation with them, shooting them and claiming self defense. Once you voluntarily put yourself into that situation trying to be a cop, IMO you lose that self defense claim.

Does that happen often? I don't know anyone with a permit that does that. I do know that carrying a firearm doesn't prohibit a person from trying to confront a criminal, stop a crime, or prevent someone else from losing life or property.

Thankfully, most gun owners are sane individuals like myself and not like the wackadoos you find around here. So no it doesn't happen often, which is a good thing. I agree with your point about you are not prohibited from from confronting criminals, stopping crimes, etc.. just because you have a permit and are carrying. However when someone is running away from you the other direction, and you chase them down, it escalates and you shoot them, I don't feel like that's self defense. Like I said, I'm even in favor or stand your ground laws. As long as it doesn't include chasing someone down, starting an altercation and then standing your ground.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree like always.