# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/61 "2016-11-08T17:08:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Also forgot about the hoodie, the uniform of street criminals! > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. There are only 2 people who knew what went down that night and one of them is dead. I choose to believe a child with no criminal record felt threatened because a guy with a record of vigilantism brandished a weapon in his effort to Batman the streets of Sanford, Florida on a dark night. Yes, in court we have to assume innocence, but in my opinion I assume that Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/62 "2016-11-08T17:16:30Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > There are only 2 people who knew what went down that night and one of them is dead. I choose to believe a child with no criminal record felt threatened because a guy with a record of vigilantism brandished a weapon in his effort to Batman the streets of Sanford, Florida on a dark night. Yes, in court we have to assume innocence, but in my opinion I assume that Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun Is your opinion based on any evidence? Because it doesn’t seem to account for some of the known facts. For instance, if Zimmerman was threatening Martin with a gun, why did Zimmerman allow Martin to blacken his eyes, break his nose, knock him down, and bash his head against the ground for some time before firing? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/63 "2016-11-08T17:30:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Is your opinion based on any evidence? Because it doesn’t seem to account for some of the known facts. For instance, if Zimmerman was threatening Martin with a gun, why did Zimmerman allow Martin to blacken his eyes, break his nose, knock him down, and bash his head against the ground for some time before firing? You know, occasionally conservatives like you are accidentally right and don’t rush to assume facts that are unknown or still in dispute. Mostly you do it when it corresponds to your personal preferences. When a cop shoots a black guy, for example, you claim that the facts aren’t known, and don’t condemn the cop no matter how bad it looks. And then there are the times when you’re like an army of locusts descending onto a piece of juicy news that’s bad for a Democrat, or bad for a minority, or bad for a non-Christian religion. When that happens, all self-control flies out the window. Did the FBI say something about Clinton emails (she was innocent of all charges)? Guilty! Lock her up! No trial! Did a black guy maybe had some trouble with the law? Then he must have attacked the cops with a gun he probably ditched to his druggie friends D-Money, Smoothie, and Shifty! A guy with a foreign name do something wrong? Build that wall! Lol, I don’t care what you think about the Martin murder. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/64 "2016-11-08T17:33:40Z")
So, no. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/65 "2016-11-08T17:59:31Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > You know, occasionally conservatives like you are accidentally right and don’t rush to assume facts that are unknown or still in dispute. Mostly you do it when it corresponds to your personal preferences. When a cop shoots a black guy, for example, you claim that the facts aren’t known, and don’t condemn the cop no matter how bad it looks. > > And then there are the times when you’re like an army of locusts descending onto a piece of juicy news that’s bad for a Democrat, or bad for a minority, or bad for a non-Christian religion. When that happens, all self-control flies out the window. Did the FBI say something about Clinton emails (she was innocent of all charges)? Guilty! Lock her up! No trial! Did a black guy maybe had some trouble with the law? Then he must have attacked the cops with a gun he probably ditched to his druggie friends D-Money, Smoothie, and Shifty! A guy with a foreign name do something wrong? Build that wall! > > Lol, I don’t care what you think about the Martin murder. And Liberals do the same thing. It’s called a political bias. People tend to focus on things that validate their personal beliefs and give them comfort that the world works the way they want to. Everyone does this to a certain extent, but some people take it to ridiculous extremes. Believing that only Conservatives do this is part of this mindset. ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/66 "2016-11-08T18:53:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For the first point, it was certainly reasonable for Martin to be in fear for his life, because the truth is always reasonable. He was in fact killed, and thus it was reasonable for him to fear being killed. For the second, we have from Zimmerman’s own testimony that he did not act in a manner consistent with how a reasonable person would act if in fear for his own life. _sigh_ Perhaps a moment of additional thought along these same lines will expose the flaw. As an aid to that additional thought, let me offer up the police officer who says, “Of course I had probable cause to search the car. After all, I found drugs there. That makes it certain, not just probable!” Hopefully this exposes the problem with your reasoning – what ultimately happened to Martin cannot legally serve as his basis for fear. His fear must have been grounded in what he knew at the time. Florida law requires that the prosecution disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the claim of self-defense. That means that the prosecution cannot simply ask the jury ti imagine that Martin felt fear for his life. They have to show specific facts that together prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman used unlawful force against Martin first. What specific facts could they put into evidence to show this? ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/67 "2016-11-08T18:56:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Scenario: They are coming to take you to the electric chair/gas chamber…but your lawyer is on his way to the governor with evidence he is sure will exonerate you or at least cause the governor to put a temporary halt to the execution. You honestly believe that if you just go with the flow he won’t reach the Gov in time, so what should you do? Resist, even though your resistance may be unlawful. Scenario: your friend announces, “If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.” Is he correct? (I assume we have transitioned into posing interesting but unrelated scenarios and I don’t wish to be left out of the game) ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/68 "2016-11-08T19:01:28Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Also forgot about the hoodie, the uniform of street criminals! > > There are only 2 people who knew what went down that night and one of them is dead. I choose to believe a child with no criminal record felt threatened because a guy with a record of vigilantism brandished a weapon in his effort to Batman the streets of Sanford, Florida on a dark night. Yes, in court we have to assume innocence, but in my opinion I assume that Zimmerman threatened Martin with a gun Yes, yes, in your own opinion you are of course not constrained by burdens of proof or the law. Feel free to opine as your fancy suits you. But do not, please, translate that opinion into the related but factually wrong claim that the law was not served here. It’s completely possible that Zimmerman threatened Martin with gun in hand before Martin ever struck him. But evidence of that will never be available until we can apply a Tardis or a fast Delorean to the problem. So – as you acknowledge – the criminal trial of Zimmerman ended correctly. It may well be that Zimmerman avoided conviction for a murder that he genuinely committed, but for which there was no evidence. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/69 "2016-11-08T19:10:19Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Did the FBI say something about Clinton emails (she was innocent of all charges)? Guilty! Lock her up! No trial! As a point of reference, here was the thread I started about the Clinton e-mail server issue: > **[Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=750725)** > > From CNN: Of course, some of those with an axe to grind against Secretary Clinton are now piously announcing their great concern for transparent retention of e-mail records. But as a Clinton spokesperson points out: To the extent it’s a... > [@Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/1): > > This is manufactured outrage. > [@Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/23): > > Secretary Clinton followed the established practice of prior holders of the office. > > I fail to see the big issue here. > > Is there some specific allegation of harm? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948/70 "2016-11-08T19:15:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > it was certainly reasonable for Martin to be in fear for his life, because the truth is always reasonable. He was in fact killed, and thus it was reasonable for him to fear being killed. This is after-the-fact reasoning. While I don’t doubt that Martin had cause to fear Zimmerman, this is like saying, “Todd Beamer was foolish to fly on United Flight 93 on September 11, because that airplane ended up being hijacked.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-i-ever-not-have-the-right-to-self-defense/770948.md?page=3)