Powergamz1 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/12/2013 3:09:16 PM)
|
Well written. I'll bet you probably wouldn't 'shoot to warn' under those circumstances either... [;)] quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....) ------------ "That conversation (issues emanating from the Zimmerman trial) is about the particulars and vagaries of laws. It is about a law that allows an “aggressor” to legally use deadly force against a defender if the two become engaged in an altercation where the aggressor begins to “believe” he or she is in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed. Do we want our laws to be written in such a way? Should the “aggressor” pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion? Should the idea of self-defense bounce back and forth between two people like a Ping-Pong ball?" Do we really want handguns operating as the final arbiter of what might otherwise be: 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assaults or Stalkings / bar-room - neighborhood squabbles? Does the "fear of imminent harm - use of deadly force doctrine" open up ispo-facto defenses for every homicide committed in the course of a struggle or disagreement? What factors would you require to justify the use of deadly force in a self defense claim? I carry regularly, so perhaps I should step up to the plate on this one. Z was within his rights to carry that evening and to report M as he did. He did compromise his position by following him, but I believe he was doing what he said to the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred. M was a typical 17 year old male who wanted to make his rep as a badass, as revealed during the trial. He turned up the hormones and decided to teach the chubby white boy following him some respect. Even though technically Z was the instigator, M was the escalator (you know what I mean), and ended up getting shot to death. Z is, as everyone had pointed out, a chubby white guy who doesn't possess much in the strength and street smarts department. M was a fit and healthy young black male, who may or may not have had a little chemical courage in his veins. He quickly demonstrated to chubby white guy who knew what in a knock-down fight. Z got scared, and who wouldn't be when you start getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I know what that feels like myself, and if I'd have had a gun on me then I'd have used it too. Z was faced with the possibility of not only getting his ass kicked thoroughly by this kid, but also having his firearm taken by him and perhaps being used against him or someone else. In this instance, yes, the presence of his weapon was a determining factor in the outcome of the confrontation. In simple terms, he had to use it or lose it. And losing it could have meant serious repercussions for not only him, but someone else down the line if the weapon made it into the street market afterward. The factors that would cause me to use my weapon in self-defense would be similar. Given my physical condition at the moment (bad back and other severe musculo-skeletal issues), facing down a well-built young man like that in a manner that didn't permit me to use my superior skills to full advantage would cause me to rely on my weapon. It was dark, there were no police units in the vicinity, and no one was helping despite the screams (irregardless of who was doing it). When you're all alone in a situation like that, you're REALLY all alone. He was losing the fight (from the descriptions I've read, he never really had a chance in the first place). He had no other reasonable option. Give up? Lose his weapon and hope for mercy? No. You can't ever take that chance, not with some of the animals our society has birthed, and he had no way of knowing what an all-around swell guy M was. Now I'm an experienced fighter, I know how to deliver and take a punch or other blow. I'm also keenly aware of my own limitations, and do not put myself into situations where I may need to draw and fire. Oh yes, when my piece clears the holster, it will be fired. I do not brandish idly, I do not make speeches, and I do not think of it as a replacement for my own common sense and abilities. Merely an adjunct. While I do not compare myself with Z, I can relate to an extent. He got himself in over his head. All M had to do was to remain out of sight, and not confronted him. In that respect, both are guilty of stupidity, Z for getting out of his vehicle, and M for ramping it up for whatever reason he had in his head. He could have pulled a disappearing act with no problem. He chose not to. I say Z is not guilty of 2nd degree. Maybe guilty of negligent manslaughter, I'll allow that, but not murder. There was no premeditation.
|
|
|
|