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.
Can anyone provide evidence, eye witness testimony, or a video of the incident to prove that Martin was defending himself against a gun, or that Zimmerman was defending himself from assault?
So what would you do if a creepy man follows you and then he reaches under his jacket?
Even according to the study you cite, you are much more likely to killyourself than others using your gun. You are more likely to kill the people you know using your gun. Out of the strangers you might kill, large % would mean you no harm. Even if we accept 50-50 ratio for justified/not justified shootings, guns are more dangerous for you and your family/acquaintances than for the murderous strangers. I'm OK with guns and the risks they pose, but let's assume that you forgot your gun and a creepy guy follows you? Do you have the right to defend yourself even if you don't have a gun, no matter the odds? Or the right for self-defense is reserved for the gun carrying public only?
Until there is an imminent threat of bodily harm or death, I do nothing. In your scenario, I'm unarmed. The first rule of going into a gun fight is to bring a gun. Therefore, if I thought the guy was reaching for a gun, then I would never engage him in an altercation.
Quote:
you are much more likely to killyourself than others using your gun.
Remove suicide from the equation and that is not true. Remove guns from that equation and the people would use another method.
Quote:
You are more likely to kill the people you know using your gun.
You are more likely to have a car wreck within 5 miles of your house. That's because you do the majority of your driving within 5 miles of your house. You spend the majority of your time around people you know. People make poor choices of friends and acquaintances all of the time.
Quote:
Even if we accept 50-50 ratio for justified/not justified shootings, guns are more dangerous for you and your family/acquaintances than for the murderous strangers.
My kitchen knives have drawn more blood than my guns.
Quote:
I'm OK with guns and the risks they pose, but let's assume that you forgot your gun and a creepy guy follows you? Do you have the right to defend yourself even if you don't have a gun, no matter the odds?
First, I don't forget my gun. That's like saying I might forget to put my pants on in the morning. And yes, you have a right to defend yourself but only when you are certain your life is in danger. The "Trayvon" character in your scenario is not 100% sure and is in the wrong by making a preemptive attack.
Quote:
Or the right for self-defense is reserved for the gun carrying public only?
Absolutely not. If you get the Outdoor Channel on your TV, then watch The Best Defense - The Best Defense | Outdoor Channel They cover self defense situations all of the time and yours was included recently. Not only do they have appropriate responses with lethal action, they also cover less than lethal (knives, batons, pepper spray, etc). They usually end with legal advice.
Quote:
If you can shoot because "you feel your life is under a threat" can you "attack with your fists if you feel your life is under a threat"?
Yes, you can attack with your fists after you see the gun pointed at you. It's a pretty stupid time to try that while unarmed but legally, that's when you can do it.
Quote:
Lastly, why such a possibility was never considered in this Florida case?
I don't know if it was or wasn't. Based on the forensic evidence, with Zimmerman on the ground, Martin had an advantage. His advantage gave Zimmerman the legal right to use lethal force to protect himself. In this video, examples of advantage are explained in legal terms - Massad Ayoob - Cato Institute - Stand Your Ground Laws - YouTube
Negligent homicide, for stepping out if the car to initiate the conflict is reasonable, and civil, not criminal
No, it is not. There is nothing illegal about getting out of one's car.
BOTH TM and Z had the legal right to be where they were that night.
TM committed the ultimately fatal error of choosing to escalate the encounter to violence by battering Z. Self-defense is legally permissible. TM chose his own fate. The jury concurred.
So if I get all the experts on page #6 right, being at a disadvantage in a simple fight is a sufficient ground for a murder for as long as you can claim "fear"? This rationale would not fly in the 19th (or even 20th) century America, but times are definitely changing. So, if disproportionate to a threat deadly use of force is allowed as long as you can claim "fear" why you all discard possible fears of Travyon? Or one should never fear a guy who follows you, a guy who gets in a verbal argument with you, a guy who would indicate that he's a gun and he would shoot your brain out, a guy who reaches under his jacket to pull an alleged gun.
Seems you all lack consistency in application of your self-defense principles. It seems in the world where a murder in the course 40 seconds fight is justified if you can claim "fear", attacking a suspicious person with a gun should be triple- justified.
So you can pull a gun and fight 40 seconds fight at the same time? Show us, or you have an anti-gravity machine in your basement too?
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.
