Bo Didleysquat
VIP Member
- Oct 10, 2019
- 6,203
- 552
- 65
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.
Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.
In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.
Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.
To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.