2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,253
- 2,290
Since Zimmerman was bigger, older, and stronger, it is unlikely Martin would have held a superior position very long.
But it does not matter, because the use of deadly force is not legal in a hand to hand fight.
Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.
It most certainly does before you kill them.
You can only use the threat of deadly force, such as brandishing, before then.
There are lots of cases where a person has got out and killed a 15 year old kid trying to break into a car, and the person has been convicted of murder.
That is because they did not have to actually shoot in order to protect their property.
The use of force requires things like brandishing be tried first.
Escalating to murder without a fear for life is illegal.
You don't know the laws in all States, in TX if someone is fleeing with your property at night, you can shoot them, no questions asked. So you might want to stop digging that hole you're in.
.
Yes the laws on self defense do vary amongst the states but in the majority of states it is very similar.....Texas being one of those that is quite different. How they define murder being a major difference. Some states require a person to retreat before using deadly force if it is possible to do so.
But here in Florida we do have the stand your ground law...which several states have--though Z did not use it...his case was just one of simple self defense.
The law on self-defense in Florida has been posted...but since the Zimmmeran case was here in Florida perhaps it nees to be posted again.
Some people will not listen no matter how many times you post something. You are correct in that many laws are similar state to state. They are trying to make less and less laws in mine. Now they are working on no duty to advise an officer if you are armed. They also want to take away CCW licenses and allow anybody who can legally posses a gun to be able to carry so with no training or license. I'm not real crazy about either proposal, but some states are already doing those things.
I would rather they work on adopting Stand Your Ground laws, and work on a way to protect the shooter from liability if the shooting was ruled justified. Currently, if you need to use deadly force and it's found justified, the person you shot or their family can still sue you for damages or wrongful death.
I think you should inform an officer you are carrying a gun, simply because you don't want to accidentally increase the tension in an already potentially dangerous encounter....simply because the officer has no idea who you are, whether you are a criminal or a normal person....and suddenly seeing a gun can ramp up an interaction very quickly...
As to training...I agree that anyone who owns or carries a gun should get as much quality training as they can afford in time and money......the problem....left wing, anti-gun extremists...who will use any training requirement as a way to keep regular citizens from being able to afford to own a gun, through increasing the requirements in the terms of time and money to the point that only the rich and powerful will have that time and money....or connections....to be able to own and carry a gun...they already do this in New York...where normal people are essentially banned from owning a gun through their permit process....they also do this in Europe...where they use training requirements to keep the vast majority of citizens from being able to own the limited selection of hunting shotguns....
So as much as I like people to have training......the left wing asshats will use it like a Poll Tax and Literacy test for owning a gun. The democrat party used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep Black Americans from voting, and they will use the equivalent to Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep all Americans from owning and carrying guns.