Completely disagree.Embar Angylwrath wrote:Ok, California requires minimal force to defend, thanks for that.
However, if your fists aren't doing the job of defending, and the next tool you have is a gun, you're justified in using the only tool left to you.
Just like Zimmerman did. The fight went on for nearly 30 seconds to a minute, according to expert testimony, IIRC. For any of you that have been in a fight, that's a long ass time. Especially if you are getting your ass kicked. Let's say that all went down in California, where one has the duty to retreat and the duty to use the least amount of force to defend. Zimmerman would still have walked here. He could not retreat, his use of fists was getting him nowhere, the only tool left to him was his firearm, which he used in self defense, not in an intent to kill.
Dd's position that SYG is synonymous with principles of self defense is incorrect. SYG expands on already established rights to defend person and property, and Zimmerman didn't even need to invoke it since he already met the lower standard of simple self defense.
i) Claim that a jury in CA would let him walk is speculation.
ii) Losing a fist fight doesn't give you the right to *kill* the other guy.
iii) If you kill someone by accident with a lethal weapon, it's called manslaughter.
My position is just fine. Yours, on the other hand, enshrines escalation as a viable and legal path, which is pretty dumb.
@Torakus: As I said, it's all irrelevant anyway, and I *didn't* say it was the law that killed him.
I think that is horrific, frightening and completely sociopathic.Embar wrote:I think the average citizen is justified in using deadly force against any attacker.