Does One Have A Right To Self Defense

[xj0hnx]

This country was just split in half on the subject.
A man came very close to losing the rest of his life for the crime of defending himself.
Even with a trial, he'll be at risk for the rest of his life. Both him and his family.

The country was split on whether or not he actually acted in self defense, not that he has the right to defend himself.

So let me ask you this, is the state of California depriving me of my right to defend myself by not issuing a CCW permit?

Yes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes.

Yes, but he's playing a bit of a game here. Note I have stated a right to privacy, which most people agree exists, but the OP says we have no expectation of privacy. Why? Because laws are "Constitutional" until the courts decide otherwise. Now he's playing the reverse game where he has a right, and California is depriving him of it. Well California has the Constitutional right to prevent CCW, and so he has no right which has legal standing and that's using his own metric. His petard has been hoisted.

 

[child of wonder]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If I have the right to life, I therefore have the right to defend that life from being taken without my consent.

 

[Zodiark1593]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If I have the right to life, I therefore have the right to defend that life from being taken without my consent.

Does a person on death row being led to excecution have a right to defend his own life as well through whatever means available?

I'm not arguing against the right to defend oneself, but this question popped into my mind.

 

[Jaskalas]

The country was split on whether or not he actually acted in self defense, not that he has the right to defend himself.

The words used by the "other side" though, leads me to believe far worse things about them. For example, the President using this as an excuse to disarm us. That's not an argument of a single case, he's trying to stop us from having the means to defend ourselves.

It makes it sound exactly like I said. From the very top down to the man on the street. Their words make it sound like the right to self defense is in jeopardy.

They want to argue that if you get out of your car, if you approach someone, that they may assault you. That if you have the means to stop that assault (a gun) it shall not be used. Shouldn't even have the means to protect yourself.

How can I take it any other way? How can it be such a mild disagreement as you would have me believe?

They don't set their sights to correct the problem of young male thugs. They set their sights on us, law abiding citizens.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

That's just laughably stupid. Are you frenchies really dumb enough to think someone cannot strangle another person? Or that you can't inflict permanent serious damage or even death without the need for a foreign object?

If I grab someone's head and slam it against a wall enough times, that person will be dead or permanently disabled, but apparently according to your law that person is not entitled to defend themselves with a weapon

so if as in this case the police would have
told someone to not try to arrest someone

The police did no such thing. He was not on the phone with "the police", the police didn't tell him anything. He was on the line with a 911 operator / dispatch, which is not a police officer, and instructions from that person carry no legal weight. Why can't you guys actually read up on the case facts before spewing drivel?

 

[Daedalus685]

That's just laughably stupid. Are you frenchies really dumb enough to think someone cannot strangle another person? Or that you can't inflict permanent serious damage or even death without the need for a foreign object?

If I grab someone's head and slam it against a wall enough times, that person will be dead or permanently disabled, but apparently according to your law that person is not entitled to defend themselves with a weapon

It is the same in Canada. To respond with lethal force you have to reasonably (as defined by the courts) believe your life or the life of a loved one is being immediately threatened. Generally this means with a weapon but there are many cases of hand to hand. However, you can't simply shoot someone for threatening you (physically or otherwise) without facing a murder charge.

 

[Abwx]

That's just laughably stupid. Are you frenchies really dumb enough to think someone cannot strangle another person? Or that you can't inflict permanent serious damage or even death without the need for a foreign object?

If I grab someone's head and slam it against a wall enough times, that person will be dead or permanently disabled, but apparently according to your law that person is not entitled to defend themselves with a weapon

I specified that people trained to fighting or with
force above normal are indeed considered as armed.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

But the sidewalk is the deadly weapon if I have control of you and slam your head into it.

In France, are you required to just lay there in such a case, and hope I stop before you are dead?

And in the US, we do consider who is the cause of the chain of events.

 

[LTC8K6]

Let's remember that we had 2 police investigations into this case, plus other ancillary investigations. We also had a DOJ investigation via the FBI into racism. We had FBI analysis of evidence. We had a charge of 2nd degree murder. We had a trial. We had a reasonably long deliberation by jurors. We had a verdict.

We had a lot of screaming initially that GZ had simply been let go without an investigation right after the shooting, but we now know that was not true at all. SPD did do an investigation, despite GZ's initial self defense claim.

We also had the case scheduled to go to a Grand Jury, after the first police investigation, but that was stopped by the Special Prosecutor.

So it's a bit odd to hear discussions that sound as if people think George Zimmerman just walked away from the shooting.

 

[Abwx]

But the sidewalk is the deadly weapon if I have control of you and slam your head into it.

In France, are you required to just lay there in such a case, and hope I stop before you are dead?

And in the US, we do consider who is the cause of the chain of events.

I answered above , there s limitations in the concept
of being armless
In case no one is killed and the agressor being blatlantly stronger than the agressed people will result in heavier sentences with eventual homicide try qualification.

 

[LTC8K6]

I answered above , there s limitations in the concept
of being armless
In case no one is killed and the agressor being blatlantly stronger than the agressed people will result in heavier sentences with eventual homicide try qualification.

How do I know if my attacker is trained or is stronger?

I am glad I have a strong right to self defense. I am glad weaker people can carry defensive weapons. I am glad most of my fellow citizens do not have to submit to criminals.

I am sorry for people who live in countries that limit these rights, and for the people in certain US states where these rights are also limited.

I am all in favor of proper investigations of self defense cases and prosecution of those who violate the law.

 

[PokerGuy]

I specified that people trained to fighting or with
force above normal are indeed considered as armed.

Someone doesn't have to be specifically trained to be able to seriously harm someone with their hands/fists/knees/elbows. That's just plain stupid. If someone's attacking me, how exactly am I supposed to know if they are trained or not, and whether I can defend myself or not? Again, plain stupid.

Bottom line, if you attack someone, that person should be able to use any means needed to defend themselves, including lethal force. Don't like it, don't attack someone. Pretty simple really.

 

[Abwx]

How do I know if my attacker is trained or is stronger?

I am glad I have a strong right to self defense. I am glad weaker people can carry defensive weapons. I am glad most of my fellow citizens do not have to submit to criminals.

I am sorry for people who live in countries that limit these rights, and for the people in certain US states where these rights are also limited.

I am all in favor of proper investigations of self defense cases and prosecution of those who violate the law.

You never know but what is sure is that if arms were
legal he would be 100% sure armed since he would be
100% sure that everybody is armed ,so being armed
yourself wont help you , rather the contrary.

There s far more people agressed and killed in the US
proportionately , so how could you say that legalization
of weapons allow better security.?.

 

[child of wonder]

Does a person on death row being led to excecution have a right to defend his own life as well through whatever means available?

I'm not arguing against the right to defend oneself, but this question popped into my mind.

Great question. I'd argue they do, but society has determined they're to be denied their right to life in the name of justice and to prevent the condemned from hurting others in the future.

To me, this runs along the same vein as citizens protecting themselves from police. As the law stands now, the police can break into my home for any or no reason at all and I can do nothing to stop them. I must allow them to tase me, arrest me, verbally accost my children, etc. Should I make any effort to physically stop them from unlawfully entering my home or causing harm to me, they may charge me with additional crimes for doing so or can take my life with no consequences to themselves.

If citizens were legally justified in defending themselves against unwarranted or illegal home invasions by the police, I think there would be fewer, if any, mistakes made by the police when identifying the correct house and person when entering a home to make an arrest.

 

[Abwx]

Someone doesn't have to be specifically trained to be able to seriously harm someone with their hands/fists/knees/elbows. That's just plain stupid. If someone's attacking me, how exactly am I supposed to know if they are trained or not, and whether I can defend myself or not? Again, plain stupid.

Bottom line, if you attack someone, that person should be able to use any means needed to defend themselves, including lethal force. Don't like it, don't attack someone. Pretty simple really.

As pointed above far more innocent people are killed
or harmed in your country in proportion , numbers are
just stubborned , it s not me...

At first thoughts what you say is logical but practicaly
the things are far worse , actualy they are better only
in areas where there s some unrest , wich lead me to
conclude that the US didnt free itself from the far west
psyché and is living with laws of another era.

 

[michal1980]

You never know but what is sure is that if arms were
legal he would be 100% sure armed since he would be
100% sure that everybody is armed ,so being armed
yourself wont help you , rather the contrary.

There s far more people agressed and killed in the US
proportionately , so how could you say that legalization
of weapons allow better security.?.

Your dumb.

Guns are great equalizers of force.

100lb woman vs 200lb man.

In which case does she stand a better chance of surviving an attack.

1) Both no guns
2) both have guns

 

[exdeath]

You never know but what is sure is that if arms were
legal he would be 100% sure armed since he would be
100% sure that everybody is armed ,so being armed
yourself wont help you , rather the contrary.

There s far more people agressed and killed in the US
proportionately , so how could you say that legalization
of weapons allow better security.?.

And the truth comes out again that this is about guns and surrendering authority over your body to the state and to thugs.

 

[LTC8K6]

You never know but what is sure is that if arms were
legal he would be 100% sure armed since he would be
100% sure that everybody is armed ,so being armed
yourself wont help you , rather the contrary.

There s far more people agressed and killed in the US
proportionately , so how could you say that legalization
of weapons allow better security.?.

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

 

[Abwx]

Your dumb.

Guns are great equalizers of force.

100lb woman vs 200lb man.

In which case does she stand a better chance of surviving an attack.

1) Both no guns
2) both have guns

Not dumb but logical.

The US citizen need weapons because they are basicaly
part of a culture of violence and consequently are worshipping
anything that create the sentiment of powerness.

This is deeply entrenched in a mentality that has its source
in a time when immigrants had to defend the lands they looted
from the native people and even from other reckless immmigrants.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not dumb but logical.

The US citizen need weapons because they are basicaly
part of a culture of violence and consequently are worshipping
anything that create the sentiment of powerness.

This is deeply entrenched in a mentality that has its source
in a time when immigrants had to defend the lands they looted
from the native people and even from other reckless immmigrants.

Culture of rights and the rule of law.

You really should stop speaking about subjects with which you are unfamiliar.

I own or have access to many guns.

I don't own my guns for self defense. I don't keep any guns ready for self defense. I don't carry any guns with me except to and from a range.

So where am I getting this power from?

 

[michal1980]

Not dumb but logical.

The US citizen need weapons because they are basicaly
part of a culture of violence and consequently are worshipping
anything that create the sentiment of powerness.

This is deeply entrenched in a mentality that has its source
in a time when immigrants had to defend the lands they looted
from the native people and even from other reckless immmigrants.

you said guns would make things worse.

then you refuse to answer a simple plausible scenario because you know that answer makes your previous statement stupid.

FYI, all states in the USA have some form of concealed/open carry. I don't carry, but I never even thought about others doing so around me.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not dumb but logical.

The US citizen need weapons because they are basicaly
part of a culture of violence and consequently are worshipping
anything that create the sentiment of powerness.

This is deeply entrenched in a mentality that has its source
in a time when immigrants had to defend the lands they looted
from the native people and even from other reckless immmigrants.

This is complete ignorance. You know nothing of which you speak.

 

[blankslate]

People have a right to self defense what they don't have a right to do is carelessly put themselves in danger then use lethal force to get out of it without facing any repercussions. That's irresponsible, even if some ALEC proposed laws have made it pretty much legal.

 

[Whiskey16]

People have a right to self defense what they don't have a right to do is carelessly put themselves in danger then use lethal force to get out of it without facing any repercussions.

Thank you, to follow that up:

Trayvon Martin’s fate shows deep flaws in U.S. concept of self-defence

George Zimmerman was acquitted on the basis of ordinary self-defense law – the same law that’s operative in almost every other state in the country. There is one peculiarity that’s novel to Florida, however. The Florida statute holds that lethal force in self-defense is justified if “the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.”

Reasonable is a loose term. Indeed, under this, it’s possible to start a fight, or provoke one with your actions, and if you find yourself on the losing side, you are permitted – by law – to use lethal force.

If anything, this highlights the extent to which the American understanding of self-defense is complicated by the presence of a widely-armed citizenry. As Scott Lemieux notes for The American Prospect, “In most cases someone with a gun should not be able to escape culpability if he initiates a conflict with someone unarmed and the other party ends up getting shot and killed. Under the current law in many states, people threatened by armed people have few good options, because fighting back might create a license to kill.”

The Zimmerman decision doesn’t it turn Florida – or any other part of the country – into a version of the Wild West. What it does do, however, is emphasize the extent to which lax gun laws – and widespread gun ownership – have distorted the relationship of citizens to each other. If you’re confronted by someone who wants to do you harm, your ability to respond is sharply limited.

As per this ruling, if one is confronted by another who is armed and returns your unseen death at the confrontation, the armed man gets the final and say for an unbalanced defencive version of events. Default impunity by having the willing means to kill.

US law, is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

The acceptance of disproportionate use of force in the USA is relatively immoral and socially dangerous.