Okay, let’s go with this. You encounter a criminal who’s armed. At what point can you defend yourself? By a strict no-first-use-of-force principle, you’ve got to let him take a shot at you before you can justifiably fight back. That seems a little extreme.
What’s the armed criminal doing? Just standing there casting scary looks your way? Does he hold out his hand and say “give me your wallet”? Does he take out and brandish his weapon?- THEN a line has been crossed. IIRC, most self-defense laws allow one to respond to a credible threat of great bodily harm or death.
When you are threatened or assaulted. Following you or talking to you is not a threat. It’s really not complicated.
That doesn’t make sense, though. There’s a reason why we freak out when we feel like we are being followed. Following someone is an inherently threatening gesture. It seems that the law has redefined threatened to mean something different from what the word actually means.
Plus there are only two ways I can think of that you would know said person is armed–he’s told you, or you’ve seen the gun. The latter is brandishing, and the former is almost certainly meant as a threat.
Remember, the legal term assault does not necessarily mean physical violence.
Honestly, the law would be so much easier to understand if they’d just use words to mean what they mean to everyone else. And, yes, update with the times. Either that, or make up their own words.
And, yes, I would do that, if I have sufficient grounds to think what Zimmerman did was immoral. It is far more important to serve justice than to keep my promises.
As I’ve pointed out many times, the law often advocates immoral actions. As a moral person, that means I have to ignore it when this happens. If the law disagrees with my morality, the morality wins.
It’s one of those Christian things: God’s law beats man’s law.
No, it isn’t. In certain circumstances, with other factors in play, it may rise to that level, but not by itself.
Some places allow open carry of weapons. As for telling you they are armed, again that would depend on context.
Of course. However, following someone is not an assault.
It would make things easier if in a thread discussing the law, people used words the way the law uses them. Like everything else, it has terms of art, and any intelligent person will realise that words have different meanings in different contexts.
It is essential that the law uses words with greater precision that people having a casual conversation. As for inventing new words, that’s a terrible idea. Jargon is usually bad, and its purpose is usually to obfuscate. What needs to happen is people need to learn what words actually mean, in the various contexts they use them.
A good example of the last was a recent thread along the lines of “Is there anywhere murder or theft are legal”? The answer to which, of course, is no, because by definition murder is an illegal killing, and theft is an illegal taking of property. To use the words in another way, whilst possibly correct as a colloquialism, is wrong in a thread to do with the law.
Then you are dangerous to everyone, and I can only hope you never serve on a jury. The people of your state have decided what the law is, and you don’t get to override them. To find someone guilty when they have broken no law is reprehensible.
This is an argument for finding someone not guilty when they have broken an immoral law, not the converse.
Ah, so you’re dangerous and deluded. Glad that’s been cleared up, anyway.
I have no idea.
What, specifically, happens, step by step?
That would be a grossly irresponsible and reprehensible thing to do.
If one of your loved ones, or heaven forfend, you yourself, were accused of a crime and put on trial, would you want the jury to make their judgment of you based on the law, or on their own individual moral compasses? Even if they were not Christian, horror of horrors, and thus didn’t agree with your own private interpretation of “God’s law”?
I don’t really have an idea either. That’s why I’m asking.
Nobody else seems really certain either, even if they say the issue is clear cut. We agree that people should be able to defend themselves - but we disagree at what point defense becomes justifiable.
It appears that most people feel that it can be justifiable in some circumstances to use force first for self-defense. But we don’t agree on what circumstances justify this.
Is a verbal threat sufficient to justify defensive force? What constitutes a verbal threat?
Is being followed a threat? Is being followed a threat in some circumstances but not others? What are those circumstances?
Is having a gun a threat? Is showing somebody you have a gun a threat? Is holding a gun in your hand a threat? Is pointing a gun at somebody a threat? Most people moved from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ during those questions but where was the crossing line?
And yet, when you are called for jury duty, you DO take an oath to serve justice. Thus you’re breaking your promise AND failing to serve justice at the same time.
I happen to think that Zimmerman is guilty as sin, but I also think he’s entitled to a fair trial based on facts and the law, not emotions. If the prosecution can’t prove its case, then I’d vote to equit, even though I’d think he might be guilty. Because that’s how our system works. Not, “he’s guilty, toss him in jail!” But, “we need to prove guilty”. That’s what keeps innocent individuals from being locked up. That’s the price you pay for freedom.
I guess my point is this.
A lot of people are arguing the position that George Zimmerman shouldn’t be facing any charges because he was just defending himself.
But I think you can make a reasonable argument that Trayvon Martin probably thought he was defending himself as well. Of course, we’re not going to hear what Martin thought because Zimmerman killed him.
Spam link in profile.
Reported.
It’s because there is a Florida law that quite clearly states that someone acting in self defence is immune from legal action. Now, this may well be a stupid law, but it’s one that applies in this case. It can’t simply be ignored because people think it’s stupid.
It’s not, at least on my part, a moral judgement that Zimmerman’s actions were right, and so he shouldn’t face legal action. It is a judgement that setting aside the law because we dislike it puts everyone at risk, and to do so would be a far greater tragedy than letting Zimmerman walk, even if he’s factually guilty.
If Zimmerman wasn’t acting illegally, Martin feeling that way would not affect Zimmerman’s right to self defence.
So what?
I don’t mean to sound callous. I am not minimizing the tragedy. But you’re talking about facing charges, which is a legal question.
Whether Martin also thought he was defending himself is not relevant to the question of whether Zimmerman was defending himself.
There seems to be some kind of perception here that only one person in an encounter could be legally defending himself. That’s not true.
Do you imagine these are mysterious questions?
In this case, it’s an intentional expression of the intent to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and the doing of some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Any circumstance in which the following manifests itself as the intent to do violence to the person of another, is coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and is combined with some act which creates a well-founded fear in the person being followed that such violence is imminent.
I have given it to you. Merely having a gun is not a threat. Doing something with the gun which creates a well-founded fear in another person that violence is imminent is the line.
The standards are not mysterious at all.
What we don’t know is what the precise facts are in this case.
Steophan, namecalling isn’t allowed in this forum. Stick to attacking the poster’s arguments, not the poster.
But the question of whether Zimmerman was defending himself pretty much requires you to answer the question of whether Martin was attacking.
Okay, if not mysterious let’s call these questions unanswered.
“The doing of some act” and “doing something with the gun which creates a well-founded fear” aren’t very precise. Does following somebody while carrying a gun constitute a reasonable threat?
I don’t want to play gotcha, so I’ll include the second part of this question now. What was it that Martin was doing that gave Zimmerman reasonable grounds to regard him as suspicious and call the police? And for the police to regard as reasonable grounds to respond to the scene?
Third part, explain the difference between what Zimmerman observed Martin doing and what Martin observed Zimmerman doing. Why was Martin’s behavior suspicious and Zimmerman’s behavior not suspicious? If Zimmerman had reasonable grounds to suspect Martin was a criminal did Martin have reasonable grounds to suspect Zimmerman was a criminal?
From the 911 dispatch transcript:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.
As for the police, they responded because they got a 911 call. That’s what they do.
I admit it. If I was walking my dog and some stranger in a car was following me and went so far as to exit his vehicle I’d be a bit worried that I was in for an attempted mugging. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Martin to have been afraid.