Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that's just a free license to murder for some trigger happy right wing gun nuts, isn't it?
No, that is the common law that all state and federal courts use to define a case of self defense, acknowledging that all people have the right to defend and protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger or may suffer grievous bodily harm.
No, that is the common law that all state and federal courts use to define a case of self defense, acknowledging that all people have the right to defend and protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger or may suffer grievous bodily harm.
Left wingers are allowed to defend themselves too!
I think they prefer firing two shots out of the window.
(Disclaimer: what Uncle Joe suggested is HIGHLY ILLEGAL. There's no warning shot theory in self defense cases. Warning shot in self defense cases are equal to attempted murder or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. It is also HIGHLY STUPID as after firing the two shots, you would be holding an stick.)
I am a Christian. If someone breaks into my house, and tries to kill my family and I, and I have access to my gun. I am going to blow his brains out, and pray about it afterwards. So in this case murder is justified if my family is about to be murdered by a robber.
Case #2 If someone tries to rob me, draws a gun on me, and after I give him my money, and he shoots me. If I am strong enough to struggle to take the gun from him, I shoot him and he dies, then I think that my murdering him is justified.
Case #3 IF a racist white person were to confront me, and call me the N word, pulls a knife on me, and wants to fight me. I will try to avoid the situation by leaving or not confronting him. But if he continues to come at me with the knife. Then I feel that I have to defend myself and either pull out my knife or use what ever to protect myself from him. If the person dies from my protecting myself, then murder in this case is also justified.
I am sure others can give many other scenarios. But I just gave 3 where I would think murder is justified.
First, we should be using the proper terminology .... "murder" is the unlawful and unjustified killing of another human being. When the killing is justified, as in the case of valid self defense, it is no longer murder.
As for the criteria that justifies self defense, it has long been recognized that once a crime of violence has been committed against you, self defense is justified. Aside the ambiguous nature of "Stand Your Ground" laws, and the subjective nature of when one's fear is legitimate, that simply does not apply to the Trayvon Martian case, because he assaulted Zimmerman (a misdemeanor assault) then proceeded to climb atop him and pummel him with punches ... that's when the crime he is committing extends beyond misdemeanor simple assault and becomes felony aggravated assault. Then, when Martin tells Zimmerman that you're going to die ... it becomes felony attempted murder, whether or not the injuries inflicted were life threatening or not. Martin, by informing Zimmerman "you gonna die" is now engaged in attempted murder, and the defense justifiably pursued that angle. That Zimmerman was on the ground, and Martin on top of him, eliminates the question of whether or not Zimmerman should have retreated, as at that point he was unable. The second important point that the defense presented in their questioning of the Medical Examiner who claimed that the injuries were "insignificant" was how significant would have been the injuries had the beating continued ... but was stopped by the bullet? Given the declaration Martin made about "you gonna die", would not a reasonable person feel his life was indeed in danger? Does it become NOT attempted murder simply because Martin was unsuccessful in making good on the threat ?
The media bias and race baiting throughout this event is disgusting, and in my opinion, Zimmerman has justified cause for a civil suit against many media outlets which went so far as to broadcast an "edited" version of the 911 call, in a deliberate attempt to create a false perception of Zimmerman as a racist. The media also selectively released some information that was deemed helpful to a prosecution, while withholding other information that supported the defense. Clearly a witch hunt was underway, and the goal was to manipulate public opinion, falsely.
There are numerous details to which Martin supporters are either unaware of, or simply ignore in their racism tainted quest for revenge. But thank goodness the jury was intelligent enough to analyze the evidence and reach the proper verdict. Some of this evidence isn't even discussed ... such as the fact that Zimmerman violated no laws in following and monitoring the movement and activity of Martin. He was on community watch, and that is logically what one would do when coming across a stranger in the neighborhood. That might cause Martin some discomfort or anger him, but neither is grounds for committing an act of violence against Zimmerman. The proper course, if Martin felt threatened would have been to call 911 himself and tell them he was being followed. But instead, he confronted Zimmerman, asked him what his problem was, to which Zimmerman replied that he had no problem, in which Martin then told him you do now, and attacked him.
Now, hindsight is 20/20, and it's easy to say, and even reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman would have been exercising better judgement had he remained in his car, allowing the police to deal with Martin. But again, Zimmerman broke no laws in doing what he did. He did not attack Martin, nor did he try to arrest him, or restrain him, or prevent him from leaving. However, what Martin did was a violation of several laws ... simple assault, aggravated assault, and attempted murder, prior to Zimmerman using his weapon.
This case couldn't be more clearly justified homicide by reason of self defense. Those that insist otherwise are either ignorant of the law, ignorant of the facts, or allowing their own racist attitudes drive their emotions.
If I'm not breaking the law and on a public street, it's no one's business where I am going.
Indeed. And if someone asks you, you have the right to say .. "it's none of your business". What you do not have a right to do is beat the crap out of that "creepy white cracker" for asking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
