Zimmerman 2.0?

[Heffay]

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoe ... perty.html

According to police, the owner told the younger man to leave. He then noticed feces close to where the man was sleeping and demanded that the man remove it. A police report says the man ignored the owner’s demands and walked away.

Investigators say that’s when the owner chased the man down, and the pair got into a fight near some railroad tracks. The property owner said the younger man swung a chain with a padlock at him during the fight.

“The older man fell to the ground at one point and was in fear for his safety,” Thompson said.

Police said the owner then shot the younger man in the chest.

Owner wasn't doing anything wrong now, was he? Just legally following a guy demanding he pick up his ****. Started getting his ass kicked and shot his way out of the situation.

[rugersol]

Owner wasn't doing anything wrong now, was he?

... definitely a clean shoot!

[goett047]

Agreed

[jshuberg]

It depends on the details. Following someone, or willingly engaging them in argument doesn't nullify a persons reluctant participant status for the purpose of self defense.

I don't think this is Zimmerman 2.0. In that case Martin was unarmed, and was played up in the media as an innocent child, even to the point of using 9 year old photos of him to make him look angelic. There was also Sharpton, Jackson, etc. beating the racism drum to get people all worked up emotionally.

This guy was armed, and I doubt any civil rights leaders are going to come to the defense of a homeless defacator armed with a chain and padlock.

If you escalate an encounter to violence, specifically a level of violence that a reasonable person believes presents an immanent threat of great bodily harm or death, you risk being shot. Any lawful activity that may or may not have happened before the escalation to violence doesn't matter. As long as the legal requirements for the use of lethal force have been satisfied, it's a good shoot.

[MasonK]

Agreed with Mr. Shuberg.

If a store owner observes a customer shoplift and follows that person into the street demanding the item be returned he does not forfeit his right to defend himself if said person escalates the situation by swinging a weapon at him.

As for the reporting, I like the first paragraph-

PHOENIX — A property owner shot a 26-year-old man after the owner found the man sleeping on his Phoenix property and the man refused to clean up his feces, police said Saturday.

This is fantastic reportage! Let's write a completely volatile and inflammatory leadoff sentence which paints the event in a manner which didn't really happen. Let's wait until the 4th paragraph to say that the homeless man swung a makeshift flail at the property owner!

I'm worried about what the Zimmerman trial is going to potentially do to the notions of 'life-threatening', and 'fear for my life' because of the testimony that Zimmerman's head wounds were not life-threatening. That assertion seems to lead us down a path that you can't engage in deadly force to defend yourself until after such an injury has been sustained. If you have a life-threatening injury, you have probably lost much of the ability to defend yourself.

[harryset]

I keep seeing the terms "chased down", and "following", used interchangeably. I find that irksome.

[jgalt]

<snip>...the pair got into a fight near some railroad tracks...</snip>

This is the relevant portion, and the story as presented doesn't give anyone enough info to answer your question:

Owner wasn't doing anything wrong now, was he?

But you already "know" the answer so you don't really care what the rest of us think, do you...

[Heffay]

Owner wasn't doing anything wrong now, was he?

But you already "know" the answer so you don't really care what the rest of us think, do you...

Yup, you can chase someone down and harass them without fear of consequences, because if they take a swing at you you can always shoot your way out of the situation.

Tell me, what crime was the homeless guy guilty of? Was it even a felony?

[BigDog58]

Owner wasn't doing anything wrong now, was he?

But you already "know" the answer so you don't really care what the rest of us think, do you...

Yup, you can chase someone down and harass them without fear of consequences, because if they take a swing at you you can always shoot your way out of the situation.

Tell me, what crime was the homeless guy guilty of? Was it even a felony?

Lets see, I'll come over, sleep in your yard, take a crap and then leave while you demand I clean up after myself. Then, when you follow me away from your yard (mad because I left a pile in your yard) I'll pull out a length of chain with a lock on the end and try to beat you with it! You, being you, will stand there and thank me for trespassing on your property, deface your property, and then try to bash in your skull for confronting me.

Sounds like I am within my rights to do whatever I choose, to whomever I choose to do it too, and you just have to take your beating and enjoy it!

Works for Me! How about the rest of you?

[MasonK]

Tell me, what crime was the homeless guy guilty of? Was it even a felony?

Swinging a lock and chain at a man will probably qualify as felon assault.

[Heffay]

Tell me, what crime was the homeless guy guilty of? Was it even a felony?

Swinging a lock and chain at a man will probably qualify as felon assault.

Like I said, you can shoot your way out of any situation, once you are worried about serious bodily harm. Doesn't matter how you got there at all.

[rugersol]

Tell me, what crime was the homeless guy guilty of? Was it even a felony?

Swinging a lock and chain at a man will probably qualify as felon assault.

Like I said, you can shoot your way out of any situation, once you are worried about serious bodily harm. Doesn't matter how you got there at all.

... that's all ya got?!

[Evad]

... that's all ya got?!

He sure talks big when it's too far of a drive to poop in his yard

[jshuberg]

Like I said, you can shoot your way out of any situation, once you are worried about serious bodily harm. Doesn't matter how you got there at all.

Once again, you need a legal refresher, very badly. I believe I suggested this to you several months ago. Perhaps you should also stop commenting on legal issues until you are properly versed in the subject.

A person is never legally authorized to use deadly force in self defense of serious bodily harm. Not in MN anyway. The requirement is great bodily harm or death. Great bodily harm is defined in MN 609.02 Subd. 8:

"Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

Also, a persons "worry" isn't justification for the use of lethal force, there are 4 requirements necessary for the use of lethal force in self defense. "Worrying" is not one of them. You should know this. The fact you don't is scary.

As to "Doesn't matter how you got there at all." - it depends. Even if a person created the circumstances where the use of lethal force in self defense was necessary, as long as he was acting was acting within the law, he is legally blameless for the resulting violence, and does not relinquish his legal right to self defense. However, if a person initiated the violence, or otherwise was acting unlawfully he has relinquished his legal right to a claim of self defense. The other thread details the conditions and circumstances of when and how a person who has relinquished the right to self defense can regain that right by withdrawing prior to the escalation to lethal force.

Every single part of your statement is factually incorrect. Please, take a class, listen to your instructor, and believe what he tells you is the truth. Your current understanding of the law is scary in how wrong it is. If you carry a firearm I suggest you cease doing so until you can competently speak to the laws governing use of force and self defense. If you were to ever find yourself a victim of a violent crime, and you were forced to use lethal force in self defense, the fact that you've continually demonstrated a total lack of understanding of firearms and self defense law may be used against you in court as evidence of recklessness and a willful desire to be ignorant as to how and when you are legally allowed to use your firearm.

[Heffay]

So, would Travyon been in fear of great bodily harm or death when Zimmerman held his gun up to his chest?