# Do I ever NOT have the right to self-defense **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948 "2016-11-07T14:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/21 "2016-11-07T19:29:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is why I feel the George Zimmerman decision was wrong. > > Trayvon Martin was walking down a public street, unarmed, and was not committing any crime or other act inciting violence. He was then chased by an armed stranger who was trying to catch him. I think Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be the victim of an armed mugging and was justified in standing his ground and defending himself. (Even if Martin wasn’t aware Zimmerman was armed he could see a person pursuing him for no reason. And Martin’s initial response was to attempt to leave the area rather than confront Zimmerman.) > > I think it was Zimmerman who initiated the act by attempting to chase down and stop Martin. That should have severely limited Zimmerman’s subsequent right to claim that he was acting in self-defense when the situation he started escalated into violence. Zimmerman should have been treated like a street mugger who shot one of his unarmed victims for resisting. To be more precise, you don’t have the right to defend yourself against someone if you are _committing a crime_ against them. Zimmerman was not committing a crime against Martin by following him. Therefore Martin had no right to use violence against Zimmerman. And you are correct - Martin’s original response was to leave the area. According to Dee Dee, he went to his father’s house, and then turned around and came back to confront Zimmerman. Also not illegal on Martin’s part. According to the evidence, the first crime that was committed was when Martin punched Zimmerman in the face. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/22 "2016-11-07T19:37:19Z")
My gut feeling is that a person who is committing a crime does not have a right to self defense, but a person who has completed the commission of a crime does have a right to defend himself against later retribution, unless the victim of the crime can reasonably assume that a recurrence of a crime is impending… ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/23 "2016-11-07T19:49:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is why I feel the George Zimmerman decision was wrong. > > Trayvon Martin was walking down a public street, unarmed, and was not committing any crime or other act inciting violence. He was then chased by an armed stranger who was trying to catch him. I think Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be the victim of an armed mugging and was justified in standing his ground and defending himself. (Even if Martin wasn’t aware Zimmerman was armed he could see a person pursuing him for no reason. And Martin’s initial response was to attempt to leave the area rather than confront Zimmerman.) > > I think it was Zimmerman who initiated the act by attempting to chase down and stop Martin. That should have severely limited Zimmerman’s subsequent right to claim that he was acting in self-defense when the situation he started escalated into violence. Zimmerman should have been treated like a street mugger who shot one of his unarmed victims for resisting. > > But in the court of public opinion, Martin (who was unable to speak up in his own defense) became the person who initiated the confrontation and Zimmerman was able to portray himself as the victim who was acting in self-defense. Zimmerman was acquitted because of all the times you had to write “I think” above. He wasn’t proven innocent, they just couldn’t prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In that sense the jury got it right. Street muggers pull out their guns to intimidate their victims into complying, that’s what an armed mugging is. We don’t know if the gun was employed before or after violence began, or who initiated the violence, because there is no physical evidence or witnesses proving either. The only witness at this point is the accused. You could say that justice wasn’t served and I can’t argue against that but it seems that justice wasn’t attainable in that case. Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario… A guy with a permit to carry a gun, let’s say he’s a security guard. He has a clean criminal record but has gone into debt. He feels desperate and decides to rob someone. He finds a well-dressed guy in an alley. He pulls his gun out and demands money. Unbeknownst to the mugger this man is trained in hand-to hand combat and strikes him hard, knocking him down, cracking a couple ribs, and giving him a black eye. The mugger shoots the man in the chest and kills him. A couple of bystanders come into the alley and call the police. The mugger tells a story that he saw this man acting suspiciously and confronted him and was attacked and had to defend himself. How could he be convicted without some proof his story was false? He’s badly injured, has no history of violence, had a right to carry a gun, yet he’s guilty as sin. There’s just no evidence to convict him. Since our system lacks omniscience this is bound to happen now and then. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/24 "2016-11-07T22:54:02Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I seem to recall a “stand your ground” case where a property owner chased down a thief and killed him with a knife. He was not charged – his claim was that he feared the thief might attack him by swinging the bag of swag. This muddies the water some, I suppose, but I believe this property owner both initiated the violence and retained his right of self-defense. Reminds me of the Trayvon Martin debacle. Zimmerman was a loose cannon vigilante who followed a black kid in the dark, with a gun, for racist reason. He wasn’t an official security officer of that neighborhood. The police he called told him to wait and not engage. He ignored that and pursued Martin, who caught him following him and defended himself. Zimmerman kills him and because they were in Florida, he gets off scot free. In this country, if you’re black, you’re held to a different standard of self-defense. If you’re white you can take over government property with armed supporters and get an acquittal, but if you’re black and get shot by a cop multiple times while in a car with your girlfriend filming, the NRA won’t say a peep in your defense ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/25 "2016-11-07T23:06:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is why I feel the George Zimmerman decision was wrong. > > Trayvon Martin was walking down a public street, unarmed, and was not committing any crime or other act inciting violence. He was then chased by an armed stranger who was trying to catch him. I think Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be the victim of an armed mugging and was justified in standing his ground and defending himself. (Even if Martin wasn’t aware Zimmerman was armed he could see a person pursuing him for no reason. And Martin’s initial response was to attempt to leave the area rather than confront Zimmerman.) > > I think it was Zimmerman who initiated the act by attempting to chase down and stop Martin. That should have severely limited Zimmerman’s subsequent right to claim that he was acting in self-defense when the situation he started escalated into violence. Zimmerman should have been treated like a street mugger who shot one of his unarmed victims for resisting. > > But in the court of public opinion, Martin (who was unable to speak up in his own defense) became the person who initiated the confrontation and Zimmerman was able to portray himself as the victim who was acting in self-defense. Regardless of what you think, you’re factually wrong. Moreover, your error has been explained to you before. I am happy to do so again. Your effort to restate the law notwithstanding, the issue is simply whose use of force was unlawful. “Attempting to chase down and stop,” is not unlawful. Striking someone is, unless it’s in response to unlawful force. The evidence at Zimmerman’s trial established that Zimmerman was hit by Martin. You may believe that this was a lie by Zimmerman, and that he struck Martin first. But that’s simply your invention; no evidence was adduced for that proposition at trial. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/26 "2016-11-07T23:15:52Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > He ignored that and pursued Martin, who caught him following him and defended himself. So if I catch you “following me” I can “defend myself” by beating the crap out of you? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/27 "2016-11-08T00:25:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And it’s quite possible for both parties in a fight to be guilty of a crime. Nothing says that victims have to be innocent. This is what’s referred to as “mutual combat”. I’ve been dispatched to many a bar fight where one of the participants tried to claim self defense when in reality he was the provoker of the incident. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/28 "2016-11-08T00:45:11Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > So if I catch you “following me” I can “defend myself” by beating the crap out of you? No. But if I catch someone following me in the dark, with a weapon, and I genuinely fear for my safety, and its in a state such as Florida which has a record of protecting stand-your-ground pre-emptive attacks as justified, then yes, I can take a few swings at you. “Beat the crap out of you” is relative, it would depend on who I find more trustworthy. I happen to place more trust in Trayvon Martin’s, a kid with no criminal record, alleged fear of being attacked more than Zimmerman who’s had run-ins with the law already and that night disobeyed police by chasing Martin on foot with a weapon. As far as trustworthiness is concerned, Martin has it, Zimmerman doesn’t. He murdered that kid and got away with it ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/29 "2016-11-08T00:52:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You also don’t have the right to defend yourself against someone against whom you initiated violence. If I try to kill you and you pull a gun against me, I don’t have the right to defend myself against you. If I kill someone and am convicted of murder, I don’t have the right to defend myself when society executes me. > > Regards, > Shodan I think you re-establish that right if you flee. IOW, if I bop you on the head and then run away, I have the right of self defense if you chase me down. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/30 "2016-11-08T00:55:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is why I feel the George Zimmerman decision was wrong. > > Trayvon Martin was walking down a public street, unarmed, and was not committing any crime or other act inciting violence. He was then chased by an armed stranger who was trying to catch him. I think Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be the victim of an armed mugging and was justified in standing his ground and defending himself. (Even if Martin wasn’t aware Zimmerman was armed he could see a person pursuing him for no reason. And Martin’s initial response was to attempt to leave the area rather than confront Zimmerman.) > > I think it was Zimmerman who initiated the act by attempting to chase down and stop Martin. That should have severely limited Zimmerman’s subsequent right to claim that he was acting in self-defense when the situation he started escalated into violence. Zimmerman should have been treated like a street mugger who shot one of his unarmed victims for resisting. > > But in the court of public opinion, Martin (who was unable to speak up in his own defense) became the person who initiated the confrontation and Zimmerman was able to portray himself as the victim who was acting in self-defense. I don’t know which public you are referring to but Zimmerman did NOT win in the court of public opinion. I know enough law and order types that some significant portion of even THAT crowd was not impressed with his suburban cowboy routine. Most of this emanates from his disobeying police instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/31 "2016-11-08T00:57:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > To be more precise, you don’t have the right to defend yourself against someone if you are _committing a crime_ against them. Zimmerman was not committing a crime against Martin by following him. Therefore Martin had no right to use violence against Zimmerman. > > And you are correct - Martin’s original response was to leave the area. According to Dee Dee, he went to his father’s house, and then turned around and came back to confront Zimmerman. Also not illegal on Martin’s part. According to the evidence, the first crime that was committed was when Martin punched Zimmerman in the face. > > Regards, > Shodan We will never know what actually happened that night other than the fact that Zimmerman set in motion a series of events that led to the boy’s death. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/32 "2016-11-08T01:14:22Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > So if I catch you “following me” I can “defend myself” by beating the crap out of you? Perhaps if you are also menacing me with a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/33 "2016-11-08T01:19:27Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > No. > > But if I catch someone following me in the dark, with a weapon, and I genuinely fear for my safety, and its in a state such as Florida which has a record of protecting stand-your-ground pre-emptive attacks as justified, then yes, I can take a few swings at you. > > “Beat the crap out of you” is relative, it would depend on who I find more trustworthy. I happen to place more trust in Trayvon Martin’s, a kid with no criminal record, alleged fear of being attacked more than Zimmerman who’s had run-ins with the law already and that night disobeyed police by chasing Martin on foot with a weapon. > > As far as trustworthiness is concerned, Martin has it, Zimmerman doesn’t. He murdered that kid and got away with it Well, lets not forget that Treyvon Martin probably smoked pot. Probably the only teenager int the world that did so. He was also late to class and skipped out on school sometimes. He also liked to act tough on the internet, a SURE sign of genuine thuggishness. Its pretty clear he had a long and violent criminal record in his future. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/34 "2016-11-08T01:30:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Attempting to chase down and stop,” is not unlawful. Isn’t it unlawful to physically restrain (“stop”) someone for no reason? I thought that would be assualt or false imprisonment? In any case, I think it really _should_ be unlawful to chase someone down and stop them unless you are a police officer, a security guard on duty and on the premises/location of your job, or you are chasing a tresspasser on your own property. If you are Joe citizen you should call the cops when you see suspicious behaviour, unless there is an imminent threat to another person. Anything else is just vigilantyism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/35 "2016-11-08T01:34:27Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > No. > > But if I catch someone following me in the dark, with a weapon, and I genuinely fear for my safety, and its in a state such as Florida which has a record of protecting stand-your-ground pre-emptive attacks as justified, then yes, I can take a few swings at you. Not correct as a matter of law. The problem with your statement is it elides the hypothetical conduct as simply “with a weapon,” and does not describe precisely how that weapon is involved. So your statement is untrue: no such pre-emptive attack is legal. The reason is that the Florida law at issue protects the right of a person to stand his ground against _unlawful_ attack, and what you’ve described is not unlawful. Someone following you in the dark with a weapon is not unlawful. If the person following you were to brandish the weapon, or threaten you with imminent physical harm, then his conduct would be unlawful and you would have the right to stand your ground. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/36 "2016-11-08T01:41:22Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Isn’t it unlawful to physically restrain (“stop”) someone for no reason? I thought that would be assualt or false imprisonment? Assault, at Florida law, includes an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so. No evidence at trial showed that Zimmerman made such a threat. False imprisonment, at Florida law, includes the elements that a person, acting without legal authority to do so, forcibly, secretly or by threat either confined, abducted, imprisoned or restrained the victim against the victim’s will. No evidence at trial showed that Zimmerman did this. > [@](#): > > In any case, I think it really _should_ be unlawful to chase someone down and stop them unless you are a police officer, a security guard on duty and on the premises/location of your job, or you are chasing a tresspasser on your own property. > > If you are Joe citizen you should call the cops when you see suspicious behaviour, unless there is an imminent threat to another person. > > Anything else is just vigilantyism. Thank you for sharing your opinion. But I hope you agree that no one, whether or not he’s named ‘Zimmerman’ or ‘Smith,’ should receive a criminal conviction based on your opnion instead of the law in force at the time of the offense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/37 "2016-11-08T01:42:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We will never know what actually happened that night other than the fact that Zimmerman set in motion a series of events that led to the boy’s death. That’s absolutely true. Zimmerman, with delusions of grandeur, acted stupidly and the end result of his stupidity was the death of a young man who did not deserve to die. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/38 "2016-11-08T01:49:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thank you for sharing your opinion. But I hope you agree that no one, whether or not he’s named ‘Zimmerman’ or ‘Smith,’ should receive a criminal conviction based on your opnion instead of the law in force at the time of the offense. Sure, I never said otherwise. And I’m sure you are aware that laws sometimes get changed because of people’s opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/39 "2016-11-08T01:55:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Perhaps if you are also menacing me with a gun. And we have no evidence of that. Being GD and a place where opinions are made, I’ll go on record to say that I think Zimmerman was a self-appointed street guardian in his own deluded mind, a scumbag whose desire to be a pseudo-cop led him to harass a kid, into something that turned violent, and which was unnecessary and tragic. I feel no sympathy at all for Zimmerman who was indeed convicted by the court of public opinion and will probably never shake that notoriety for the rest of his miserable life. I’m not defending him. I’m defending the jury. The facts of the case are sparse and don’t include much of what happened between the time that Zimmerman ended his call to the police and the time that witnesses arrived in the scene after the shooting. We do know that Zimmerman was severely beaten and that Martin was fatally shot. We don’t know what was said between them or who instigated the violence, or whether Zimmerman was threatening with a gun or even mentioned that he had one before the violence began. What physical evidence we have does suggest that Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense and his side of the story are at least plausible and since the burden is placed on the prosecution to prove guilt, there wasn’t enough to convict. Zimmerman may have murdered Martin, or Martin may have snapped and could have killed Zimmerman if he hadn’t defended himself. Yes, fists can be lethal, contact with pavement can be as well, and Martin was an athletic 17-year-old (he played football in high school) physically capable of doing it. We can only speculate, because we really don’t know. Martin seemed like a kid who despite some school problems definitely didn’t deserve to die, and Zimmerman seems like a waste of humanity. Zimmerman will suffer in this life and/or the next regardless of his acquittal and I’m okay with that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/40 "2016-11-08T02:18:00Z")
I stand by what I’ve said. People who are saying you have every right to defend yourself from a mugger are also trying to argue you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself from somebody who is acting exactly like a mugger would act. That’s ridiculous. You can’t base a legal standard on reading the intent inside somebody else’s heard. As for the argument that a court found Zimmerman innocent, let’s not be naive. A black man was dead and a white man was on trial. The police had to be pushed into arresting Zimmerman and the DA had to be pushed into trying him. Nobody involved wanted a conviction. George Zimmerman was found innocent the same way Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam were. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948.md?page=3)