Use of force

[kritikalcat]

Upfront, this question comes out of the Zimmerman / Martin case.

Reading and participating in other forums discussing this case, I've seen several people express that use of force is justified if someone is following you just because they make you feel uncomfortable, absent any other indication of a threat. i.e. if someone is following you in a public place you are justified in (assaulting) them even without additional provocation, or if you challenge them and they don't give an 'acceptable' explanation it's justified to strike them.

Any legal justification to this (again, absent additional indication of a threat. Just "he was creepy so I punched him in the face") ??

[Darrell KSR]

Standard is pretty clear, but applying it is not.

You can use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself if you are in reasonable fear of receiving serious bodily harm or death.

Note... That is not whether you THINK you are in danger of receiving that kind of harm, it is whether it is REASONABLE to believe you are.

Some version of that standard is probably the law in every state, and I sorta simplified it, but it generally is pretty straightforward as a standard.

[CitizenBBN]

Good topic for discussion.

Both legally in Kentucky and IMO it is not. OK someone walking 2 feet from you maybe is itself an indication of a threat, but I think here you're talking about just being "followed", i.e. they'd have to advance a distance to get a hand on you or strike you with a hand weapon. Sans some indication of a threat just being followed doesn't justify using force or deadly force.

I'm not saying I wouldn't confront someone I saw following me verbally, but there is no legal justification for using force based on nothing more than thinking someone is following you.

The concealed carry class spends a lot of time on the basic principle Darrell outlines. In Ky you are only justified in using deadly force when your safety is physically threatened, and they even hit on the fact that being called names and such is no justification. Neither is just being followed though they don't mention it specifically. The only specific exemptions are based in the Castle Doctrine, which in Kentucky means you are presumed to be threatened by anyone trying to break into your home or in your home or trying to burn your property. That varies by state, but in Kentucky if someone breaks into your home you are presumed to be in fear of receiving bodily harm by definition. If you're standing in your yard you are not given that presumption by default.

In Ky you are allowed to defend yourself, you do not have an obligation to retreat, but you will be judged based on the facts as you perceive them and that means a jury will potentially get to decide if you were acting out of fear for your life or if you just didn't like someone. The latter will lend you an all expense paid vacation at state expense.

Personally having looked at the carry and self defense laws of about a dozen states I like Kentucky's a lot. They have left the basic principles that Darrell described and haven't added layer after layer of law to it, keeping it simple and even I dare say intuitive. Ohio has a retreat statute, Florida apparently did have one overridden by the "Stand Your Ground" law, but in Kentucky we have no need for one b/c the basic principle that you can defend yourself when threatened with harm was never tinkered with, so it doesn't have to be explicitly reinstated by yet another law. It's left us with a pretty short list of statutes to understand, and a standard a layman can use. Don't use force unless you are being threatened with force and bodily harm, and you are presumed to be under that threat by someone who has broken into your home. Both are pretty reasonable concepts IMO.

[badrose]

I had a situation about 35 years ago where a guy and his friends would come to my place of employment and threaten me because he couldn't handle his ex-girlfriend leaving him for me. Not much he or I could do there and I wasn't stupid enough to take them all on anywhere so, initially, I carried a gun. Not really liking the outcomes that could come from that, I asked a friend of mine who was a deputy sheriff for some advice. He recommended mace but I ended up getting an aerosol can of tear gas. Sure enough the guy and his friends came at me at a park in Ashland. He was in front and I got a good shot of spray in at his face. He turned around and I kicked him to the ground and pummeled his face a bit, got up and warned him against further attempts. I later got a notice I was being sued for assault and battery, I got a lawyer and countered with terroristic threatening, and they dropped the charges. My buddies used to kid me saying, Let's go rumble, Rose will bring the tear gas! LOL!

I've never sought out trouble in my life but I don't play around with self-preservation.

[CitizenBBN]

They don't call you "bad" Rose for nothing. :)

That's a good example b/c in that case you could make a case for fearing threat of bodily harm. They weren't random people but people who had already threatened you and had a motive to do you harm and were now physically confronting you again. Sitting on that jury I'd say you had a reason to feel threatened.

As Darrell said it's a tough standard to apply, like most legal precepts, but a good one. People need to be able to defend themselves but have an incentive to instigate situations either.

[badrose]

Wouldn't it be prudent to alter the direction or speed of your walk and, if they continued to pursue in kind, stop and threaten to shoot?

[CitizenBBN]

Wouldn't it be prudent to alter the direction or speed of your walk and, if they continued to pursue in kind, stop and threaten to shoot?

I'd say so. You have no obligation to flee, but there are a lot of steps between "being followed" and firing a gun at them.

I'm downright proud I help get people the right to carry a gun, and encourage them to carry early and often, but that doesn't mean the first thing you do when you feel threatened is to shoot someone. I've actually been followed once in a very uncertain situation, and I was nervous as heck, so I've been there, but you still have to have restraint. I might even have my hand on my weapon in that situation, but the OP's question was whether being followed makes it OK to just start shooting, and it most definitely does not.

[suncat05]

Law Enforcement Officers must adhere to what is called the "Use of Force Matrix"(used to be called continuum), and it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the U.S.
A real, clear, demonstrable threat must be present to either your person, another person, or to real property. You must be in fear of your life, and it has to be clear that the threat did indeed exist if you resort to using deadly force against another human being.
That is the standard here in the United States, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Just my take on the Zimmerman trial. He SHOULD NOT have gotten out of the car. Period. But the dispatcher he was speaking with on the telephone was not a law enforcement officer, and therefore whatever he/she told Zimmerman had no legal authority behind it, only the idea of suggestion. Whether Martin felt threatened or not, we'll never know because he's dead. All we have is Zimmerman's word, and his account of what happened is pretty clear, at least in my mind. Once the situation escalated into a physical confrontation, the "Use of Force Matrix" applied, regardless of whether either individual involved had any legal/law enforcement/security/military training at all. That standard exists for a reason, it is the law. Once Martin had Zimmerman down, and if he did indeed threaten to kill Zimmerman as has been stated, and once he physically attacked Zimmerman and was punching him, and beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk, and if at that moment Zimmerman felt that he was about to pass out and was fearful for his life, then deadly use of force was justifiable. Self defense certainly applies.
Just as an aside, I keep hearing rumors that manslaughter for conviction is an option. It could be, but IMHO it is highly unlikely. I do not believe race was an issue either, until of course brought up by the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and any other racist baiting pogue that could have their voices heard, in addition to the lame stream media, who already had Zimmerman tried & convicted in the court of public opinion before the police had even truly began their investigation. And, let's throw in that guilty people DO NOT COOPERATE with the police, ever. Zimmerman has cooperated from the moment the police arrived on the crime scene.
In my mind, this was a justifiable self-defense shooting.
But even after this trial is over, Zimmerman still has big, big problems. 1)He may have a violation of civil rights trial in his future if the USDOJ decides to get into this. I have not heard anything about that, but given what this current adminstration does/believes, I'd say Zimmerman will get to jump from the frying pan and into that fire after this trial. 2)There is sure to be a wrongful death civil lawsuit. You can write that down, you heard it here first. Not sure that Zimmerman has anything to take, outside of future earnings, but rest assured that there will be some attorney somewhere that wants to make a name for himself and try to also get some kind of monetary gain for the Martin family.
Myself, I'd sue Martin's "estate" first because of his attack on Zimmerman. Keep them on the defensive and make them prove that he was the stand-up guy that everyone says he was. Which I do not believe for one second.

[CitizenBBN]

Good post suncat. Zimmerman put himself in a bad situation, one he didn't need to be in at all, but I'm not sure that mistake means he has to allow someone to beat on him. If Martin initiated the physical violence then things shift back in Zimmerman's favor. The "aggressor" in self defense isn't the person who throws the first insult or makes the first offensive move, it's the one who engages in the first physical act constituting a threat of bodily harm. As I read the law, a layman's view no doubt, Martin became the instigator the same as if I threw the first punch in a bar after someone insulted me.

I see fault on both sides, as there almost always is in such cases, but in the end I see a justified self defense shooting as well. Zimmerman may be guilty of something, but he didn't waive his right to defend against bodily harm by getting out of that vehicle. That's what it boils down to for me.

Zimmerman no doubt will face a civil case and IMO likely a DOJ case, at least an investigation, if he is acquitted in this trial.

[suncat05]

Law Enforcement Officers must adhere to what is called the "Use of Force Matrix"(used to be called continuum), and it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the U.S.
A real, clear, demonstrable threat must be present to either your person, another person, or to real property. You must be in fear of your life, and it has to be clear that the threat did indeed exist if you resort to using deadly force against another human being.
That is the standard here in the United States, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Just my take on the Zimmerman trial. He SHOULD NOT have gotten out of the car. Period. But the dispatcher he was speaking with on the telephone was not a law enforcement officer, and therefore whatever he/she told Zimmerman had no legal authority behind it, only the idea of suggestion. Whether Martin felt threatened or not, we'll never know because he's dead. All we have is Zimmerman's word, and his account of what happened is pretty clear, at least in my mind. Once the situation escalated into a physical confrontation, the "Use of Force Matrix" applied, regardless of whether either individual involved had any legal/law enforcement/security/military training at all. That standard exists for a reason, it is the law. Once Martin had Zimmerman down, and if he did indeed threaten to kill Zimmerman as has been stated, and once he physically attacked Zimmerman and was punching him, and beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk, and if at that moment Zimmerman felt that he was about to pass out and was fearful for his life, then deadly use of force was justifiable. Self defense certainly applies.
Just as an aside, I keep hearing rumors that manslaughter for conviction is an option. It could be, but IMHO it is highly unlikely. I do not believe race was an issue either, until of course brought up by the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and any other racist baiting pogue that could have their voices heard, in addition to the lame stream media, who already had Zimmerman tried & convicted in the court of public opinion before the police had even truly began their investigation. And, let's throw in that guilty people DO NOT COOPERATE with the police, ever. Zimmerman has cooperated from the moment the police arrived on the crime scene.
In my mind, this was a justifiable self-defense shooting.
But even after this trial is over, Zimmerman still had big, big problems. 1)He may a violation of civil rights trial in his future if the USDOJ decides to get into this. I have not heard anything about that, but given what this current adminstration does/believes, I'd say Zimmerman will get to jump from the frying pan and into the fire after this trial. 2)There is sure to be a wrongful death civil lawsuit. You can write that down, you heard it here first. Not sure that Zimmerman has anything to take, outside of future earnings, but rest assured that there will be some attorney somewhere that wants to make a name for himself and try to also get some kind of monetary gain for the Martin family.
Myself, I'd sue Martin's "estate" first because of his attack on Zimmerman. Keep them on the defensive and make them prove that he was the stand-up guy that everyone says he was. Which I do not believe for one second.

[suncat05]

Sorry for the double-post, guys and girls. My bride just loaded a new anti-virus program and we have some bugs that need to be smoothed out. Again, my apologies for the double-post.

[CitizenBBN]

Sorry for the double-post, guys and girls. My bride just loaded a new anti-virus program and we have some bugs that need to be smoothed out. Again, my apologies for the double-post.

I was deeply hurt by it, you know how delicate is my disposition, but since you apologized.... :671:

[suncat05]

:unworthy:

[Darrell KSR]

Standard is pretty clear, but applying it is not.

You can use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself if you are in reasonable fear of receiving serious bodily harm or death.

Note... That is not whether you THINK you are in danger of receiving that kind of harm, it is whether it is REASONABLE to believe you are.

Some version of that standard is probably the law in every state, and I sorta simplified it, but it generally is pretty straightforward as a standard.

Just FWIW, the Florida statute is pretty much dead on with this.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[KeithKSR]

Good post suncat. Zimmerman put himself in a bad situation, one he didn't need to be in at all, but I'm not sure that mistake means he has to allow someone to beat on him. If Martin initiated the physical violence then things shift back in Zimmerman's favor. The "aggressor" in self defense isn't the person who throws the first insult or makes the first offensive move, it's the one who engages in the first physical act constituting a threat of bodily harm. As I read the law, a layman's view no doubt, Martin became the instigator the same as if I threw the first punch in a bar after someone insulted me.

I see fault on both sides, as there almost always is in such cases, but in the end I see a justified self defense shooting as well. Zimmerman may be guilty of something, but he didn't waive his right to defend against bodily harm by getting out of that vehicle. That's what it boils down to for me.

Zimmerman no doubt will face a civil case and IMO likely a DOJ case, at least an investigation, if he is acquitted in this trial.

The moment Martin punched Zimmerman in the face and became physically aggressive Zimmerman had the right to defend himself using lethal force.

[KeithKSR]

Just FWIW, the Florida statute is pretty much dead on with this.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Someone has you down and is beating on you applying the Florida law is a pretty straight forward. Eyewitness accounts AND the unimpeachable expert indicated Martin had Zimmerman down.

BTW, the prosecutor claiming someone cannot reach a pistol in your waist band if someone has you down is ludicrous. It would take more weight than Martin had to prevent you from arching your back to reach the pistol.

[blueboss]

Sorry for the double-post, guys and girls. My bride just loaded a new anti-virus program and we have some bugs that need to be smoothed out. Again, my apologies for the double-post.

I felt that the double post is well within your rights and citing the "The Use Of Double Post Matrix" it was warranted and based on your brides aforementioned application of a new program at least IMO there is a reasonable doubt that it was not your intent to willfully and unjustifiably "double post"....not to mention since the post is reasonable and makes perfect sense it is reasonable that the post be double posted.

[suncat05]

I felt that the double post is well within your rights and citing the "The Use Of Double Post Matrix" it was warranted and based on your brides aforementioned application of a new program at least IMO there is a reasonable doubt that it was not your intent to willfully and unjustifiably "double post"....not to mention since the post is reasonable and makes perfect sense it is reasonable that the post be double posted.

Wow! You should run for public office..........or become a barrister!

[kritikalcat]

As a trivial addendum, who here knew that in Kentucky, per statute a private citizen is authorized to use lethal force to

1. prevent someone from taking control of a motor vehicle they are driving (I think any situation here would fall under the reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, but it is explicitly mentioned)
2. to prevent unlawful dispossession from one's residence - so if your landlord tries to evict you without a properly served eviction writ, the Commonwealth says it is legal to shoot them

[CitizenBBN]

As a trivial addendum, who here knew that in Kentucky, per statute a private citizen is authorized to use lethal force to

1. prevent someone from taking control of a motor vehicle they are driving (I think any situation here would fall under the reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, but it is explicitly mentioned)
2. to prevent unlawful dispossession from one's residence - so if your landlord tries to evict you without a properly served eviction writ, the Commonwealth says it is legal to shoot them

If you took the kentucky concealed carry class you'd know. :D

Also if someone is trying to burn your buildings, not just your house. However you can't shoot someone who is just stealing your car from your driveway. They hit the use of force section hard.

[blueboss]

Wow! You should run for public office..........or become a barrister!

...or in other words per Mrs. boss FOS