Does One Have A Right To Self Defense

[Patranus]

Does one have a right to self defense?

 

[Boris Morozov]

have the courts deemed one has a right to self defense?

 

[Jaskalas]

Far as I'm concerned, yes. There are limits however.

This is also a two part question. One answer could be legal, and the other moral. They are not the same, and the moral answer is HIGHLY subjective based on personal opinion.

 

[Patranus]

have the courts deemed one has a right to self defense?

You look at the Zimmerman case.
You have a witness stating that Martin was on the top of Zimmerman yet some argue that Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself.

You look at the state of California.
It is almost impossible to get a CCW permit in the state as it is not a "shall issue" state.
If the events surrounding George Zimmerman occurred in California, the state would have deprived George Zimmerman the right to defend himself from Martin's assault (as he wouldn't of had a gun) and he may have ended up dead or paralyzed.

 

[waggy]

Far as I'm concerned, yes. There are limits however.

This is also a two part question. One answer could be legal, and the other moral. They are not the same, and the moral answer is HIGHLY subjective based on personal opinion.

and what would those limits be?


personally if i feel my family or I am threatened i will do whatever i have to to end that threat.

IF that means someone dead who i perceive is the threat i will deal with that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

have the courts deemed one has a right to self defense?

Yep.

Now the obvious question we're led to ask is what are the constraints placed upon that.

 

[Subyman]

No, you have to fall over dead if someone attacks you.

 

[Brigandier]

You look at the Zimmerman case.
You have a witness stating that Martin was on the top of Zimmerman yet some argue that Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself.

You look at the state of California.
It is almost impossible to get a CCW permit in the state as it is not a "shall issue" state.
If the events surrounding George Zimmerman occurred in California, the state would have deprived George Zimmerman the right to defend himself from Martin's assault (as he wouldn't of had a gun) and he may have ended up dead or paralyzed.

I still think GZ should have gotten disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace. If two guys get in a mutual scrap any other time, both usually end up with charges. In that light, I don't view the GZ case as being pure self-defense.

 

[Doppel]

Yes, in fact it's one of the few moral absolutes that cross all (or damn near all) societies, along with theft and murder. It is intuitively known by everybody that one has a right to it.

 

[Abwx]

The US law doesnt specify proportionality in retaliating.

Here in France he would had been condemned because
one can use a firearm only if really threatened by a knife
of any object deemed capable of killing , although people
who practice fighting sports can be branded armed even
with only their fists acting ans as such can be killed with
firearm without condemnetion if it was legitimate self defense.

Also , the US laws have no consideration about who is the cause
of the chain of events , so if as in this case the police would have
told someone to not try to arrest someone and the guy is still
proceding he can be condemned because it would be assumed
that he willfully provoked the death by not following the police instructions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

and what would those limits be?


personally if i feel my family or I am threatened i will do whatever i have to to end that threat.

IF that means someone dead who i perceive is the threat i will deal with that.

"Feeling threatened" isn't a defense for all actions. If there's some homeless guy wandering down the street and you feel he might chuck a rock you can't get out the drone and take him down. Yet, if "threatened" is the sole criteria with no restraint that would be exactly what you were entitled to do. Substitute "youth", "black", whatever, for homeless if you like.

Context matters.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You look at the Zimmerman case.
You have a witness stating that Martin was on the top of Zimmerman yet some argue that Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself.

You look at the state of California.
It is almost impossible to get a CCW permit in the state as it is not a "shall issue" state.
If the events surrounding George Zimmerman occurred in California, the state would have deprived George Zimmerman the right to defend himself from Martin's assault (as he wouldn't of had a gun) and he may have ended up dead or paralyzed.

I would like to see a quotation saying that if Zimmerman was in fact threatened then he had to stand there and die. The argument has been whether he used this right improperly to take the life of someone who did not pose a significant threat, and/or Zimmerman provoked the incident resulting in the sad affair. Now suppose that the latter had been true. In that case would Martin have the right of self defense if Zimmerman attacked him?

To be sure the limits on what one may do is up for debate, but in this case the facts took time to be revealed.

I submit the jury found his actions not worthy of legal action or condemnation. What really happened we'll never know. We can't get into the head of the living and the dead.

 

[waggy]

"Feeling threatened" isn't a defense for all actions. If there's some homeless guy wandering down the street and you feel he might chuck a rock you can't get out the drone and take him down. Yet, if "threatened" is the sole criteria with no restraint that would be exactly what you were entitled to do. Substitute "youth", "black", whatever, for homeless if you like.

Context matters.

of course you need to use context.

use common sense. I'm not talking about a homeless man or even a black man walking down the street. while you may want to make this about race i'm not biting on that.

im not even talking about someone yelling and being a idiot.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Does one have a right to self defense?

No. Rights don't exist.

 

[conehead433]

Sure, provoke someone into striking you, pull out a gun and kill them without ever even attempting to strike them back. The new justice, at least in some states.

 

[OverVolt]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html

That is a good case study on the limits of self defense. You are only allowed to incapacitate the attacker... obviously.

Once they are no longer a threat you can't keep firing at them. He rather cold bloodedly stood over one of the incapacitated robbers and basically executed him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

of course you need to use context.

use common sense. I'm not talking about a homeless man or even a black man walking down the street. while you may want to make this about race i'm not biting on that.

im not even talking about someone yelling and being a idiot.

I know you are reasonable about such things, but P&N loves to be childishly legalistic, and therefore I was using your post to point out what should (but won't) be painfully obvious. I quoted you but it wasn't about you.

 

[OverVolt]

The US law doesnt specify proportionality in retaliating.

Here in France he would had been condemned because
one can use a firearm only if really threatened by a knife
of any object deemed capable of killing , although people
who practice fighting sports can be branded armed even
with only their fists acting ans as such can be killed with
firearm without condemnetion if it was legitimate self defense.

Also , the US laws have no consideration about who is the cause
of the chain of events , so if as in this case the police would have
told someone to not try to arrest someone and the guy is still
proceding he can be condemned because it would be assumed
that he willfully provoked the death by not following the police instructions.

There was a firearm in play. Trayvon was on top of GZ, pulled up his shirt and saw the gun and was going for it, according to GZ fwiw since there is only one side.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No. Rights don't exist.

The powerful determine what your rights are. The wisest thing ordinary people can do is to limit that ability, unless you like to be owned of course.

 

[Abwx]

There was a firearm in play. Trayvon was on top of GZ, pulled up his shirt and saw the gun and was going for it, according to GZ fwiw since there is only one side.

The reflex is of course to try to remove the gun to not be killed ,
it was the latino that brought a firearm in the confrontation
while you re implying that the firearm was a common item.....

 

[exdeath]

have the courts deemed one has a right to self defense?

Doesn't matter. Its a natural right of all human beings and not the governments jurisdiction to deny.

 

[Paul98]

You don't have the right to kill someone over minor physical altercation. You can defend yourself, but if the only way you think to respond to getting hit, pushed, is to shoot them there is a major problem.

I think this is the problem with the laws that have been passed. We have made laws making it legal to kill someone who does a minor crime. If we want to be a reasonable civil society this is obviously wrong.

The funny thing is that we have things people do and get away with that are many times worse and we just let them get away with it.

 

[soulcougher73]

Of course you do. The law may think otherwise at times, but you have the right.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, everyone should have the right to self defense including force up to and including deadly force if the situation dictates such.

 

[Doppel]

You don't have the right to kill someone over minor physical altercation. You can defend yourself, but if the only way you think to respond to getting hit, pushed, is to shoot them there is a major problem.

Agree with your first sentence, not your second. Pushing is minor, but hitting often isn't. Many people have been killed by a single punch to chest or face.