Does One Have A Right To Self Defense

[Boris Morozov]

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

it shouldn't matter. but it does. government has always had jurisdiction over your natural rights.

 

[irishScott]

Anyone who thinks you can't be killed without a weapon has never been in nor been educated about the nature of a street fight. Look at gang initiations. They often only use hands and feet.

If anyone's still in doubt, you're welcome to come over to my place, let me bash your head into the sidewalk, and we'll see how much hard-concrete to the back of the skull you can stand before developing severe brain damage. I mean, I'll just be using my hands, so you have nothing to worry about. Right?

 

[Jaskalas]

and what would those limits be?

If a person punches you in the nose, or assaults you but holds back, does not mount or continue to assault you. If they do not clearly pose a continued imminent threat.

If they turn their back to you, raises huge red flags that you committed murder instead of acting in self defense. If there is any significant distance between the two of you.

Other factors to consider are if you're injured, to what degree, if they're armed, if you're in your home, their home, or on neutral ground.

In addition, if you start the violence, then it's certainly questionable.

 

[monovillage]

It's the most basic human right that exists.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's the most basic human right that exists.

You're not very bright, eh?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
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.

If I correctly understand the above you are incorrect on at least 2 items.

1. U.S. laws (actually they are state laws over here) DO have consideration about who starts a fight.

Some states do not allow the person who provokes or started the fight to later claim self-defense. Other states allow it, but only under strict and limited circumstances.

Generally, in states that do allow the person who provoked/started the fight to claim self-defense, they must, after starting the fight, make it clear that they want to stop and/or try to retreat. Only if the other person refuses to stop and prevents them from retreating can self-defense be claimed by the person starting the fight. This provision was put into law to allow women to claim self-defense. There were too many cases where a woman started the fight with her husband/boy friend and where, after the (abusive) husband/BF went 'crazy' beating the h3ll out of them, she later used a gun in self-defense but was convicted of murder because self-defense was not permitted as she started it.

FL law states fairly clearly what constitutes "provoking" a fight. Merely following someone is insufficient. It takes an actual physical attack to meet the definition of "provoke" under FL law. IIRC, a serious verbal threat of violence can also qualify.

But merely following someone or merely insulting them, whether it be racial epithet or whatever, does not qualify as "provoking".

Fern

 

[Abwx]

If I correctly understand the above you are incorrect on at least 2 items.

1. U.S. laws (actually they are state laws over here) DO have consideration about who starts a fight.

Some states do not allow the person who provokes or started the fight to later claim self-defense. Other states allow it, but only under strict and limited circumstances.

Generally, in states that do allow the person who provoked/started the fight to claim self-defense, they must, after starting the fight, make it clear that they want to stop and/or try to retreat. Only if the other person refuses to stop and prevents them from retreating can self-defense be claimed by the person starting the fight. This provision was put into law to allow women to claim self-defense. There were too many cases where a woman started the fight with her husband/boy friend and where, after the (abusive) husband/BF went 'crazy' beating the h3ll out of them, she later used a gun in self-defense but was convicted of murder because self-defense was not permitted as she started it.

FL law states fairly clearly what constitutes "provoking" a fight. Merely following someone is insufficient. It takes an actual physical attack to meet the definition of "provoke" under FL law. IIRC, a serious verbal threat of violence can also qualify.

But merely following someone or merely insulting them, whether it be racial epithet or whatever, does not qualify as "provoking".

Fern

Thank you for the precisions , this help studying the inherent
consequences about the eventual false claims of the remaining party.

I conclude that it was important for him to say that the weapon
wasnt visible when he confronted the youth....

 

[piasabird]

The right to bear arms is the right to defend oneself. You cant have one without the other. Assault is a crime. If you dont agree go assault a police officer and see what happens. If some thug beats up one of your relatives like your mother or daughter or even yourself, you have a right to defend yourself. To believe otherwise is to let gangs and thugs reign with violence over everyone where you live. Do you think people like being beat to death by violent criminals?

Walking up to someone and talking to them is not starting a fight. It is the first person who commits an act of physical violence. Otherwise a person might say if someone they objected to talked to them or looked at them that they can just start beating them up. For instance beating someone because they are gay or religious or a mexican or an italian would be perfectly acceptable. If you see someone you perceive to be a stranger in your neighborhood you should be able to talk to them to say hello.

Is what you wish to throw civilization out the window and live like animals?

 

[Abwx]

Assault is a crime. If you dont agree go assault a police officer and see what happens .

Not true....

exemple :

In 2005, at the age of 21, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program.

Is what you wish to throw civilization out the window and live like animals?

I m against violence.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not true....

Go ahead and try it.

 

[monovillage]

You're not very bright, eh?

Go fuck yourself brony.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brony

 

[Abwx]

Go ahead and try it.

I m all for intellectual debates but i wont fight to help
enforce rules on a country wich is not mine and wich
has to deal with a somewhat tragic destiny be it in
its foundation or in part of its existence.

From where i stand there s the impression that what
was a problem 100 years ago was a still a problem 30
years ago and even actualy , explicitely that the US
is a society with profound injustices under the cover
of indeed relatively primary laws that date back
from the time of the natives genocide and the inherent
outcome of a people having a quasi religious adoration
for weapons and brute force.

At least , a great thing that came from the USA
in the form of art , perhaps against the dominant
ethnicities wills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE_AQP3bpVU

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not true....

exemple :





I m against violence.

You do realize the assault against the officer was grabbing his arm? Did you know that also the officer was not wearing a uniform and his badge was not in plain sight?


GZ went through a pre-trial diversion which is only for non-violent offenders. He was never convicted of assault.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Thank you for the precisions , this help studying the inherent
consequences about the eventual false claims of the remaining party.

I conclude that it was important for him to say that the weapon
wasnt visible when he confronted the youth....

1) The weapon was carried in a holster on his rear hip.
2) The weapon was not visible - under the jacket and/or shirt
3) Nothing in the evidence indicates that Martin was aware of the weapon prior to the confrontation. It was not visible when the argument started - not being displayed/brandished.


Now IF the weapon was visible at the beginning.
Common sense is that you do not attack a person that has a weapon better than you have unless you are desperate or have something up your sleeve to counteract the weapon.

• Martin did not seem desperate - he was not cornered
• He did not have something else to assist him in compensating for the weapon.
• He was not on drugs to the point that he could not think clearly andnot realize that a weapon existed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Assault is a crime. If you dont agree go assault a police officer and see what happens .

Not true....

exemple :

In 2005, at the age of 21, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program.

Is what you wish to throw civilization out the window and live like animals?

I m against violence.

One has to look at circumstances and the final outcome of any event.

Those looking at the drinking incident that are/were against Zimmerman will ignore the results. they want to think that Zimmerman was bad. Yet these same people think that Martin's actions w/ respect to school should not count.

One should not assault a police officer if you know they are one.
Zimmerman was unaware of such.

 

[xj0hnx]

Of course people have the right to defend themselves, what a stupid question.

 

[Jaskalas]

Of course people have the right to defend themselves, what a stupid question.

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.

 

[Patranus]

Of course people have the right to defend themselves, what a stupid question.

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?

 

[exdeath]

I m against violence.

Unfortunately the best defense against violence is violence.

The sooner people realize and accept that, and the sooner people realize and accept that we can't decide when *other* people choose to initiate violence against *us* despite our best intentions to avoid violence, the better off the human race will be.

 

[exdeath]

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?

The US Constitution only applies to the United States.





:awe:

 

[Abwx]

One should not assault a police officer if you know they are one.
Zimmerman was unaware of such.

Thanks for aknowledging the suspect mentality ,
this mentality that says that if he feel being the weaker
he wouldnt move at all , so it was the certainity of being
the better armed that pushed him to risk the confrontation
with the young victim despite the police telling him to not do so...

As pointed by Rabidmoongoose this guy is both mentaly
deranged and frustrated by his own perceived weakness ,
two things that indeed are "complementary".

 

[mistercrabby]

Does one have a right to self defense?

Yes

 

[Ns1]

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.

404 mutual scrap not found, only felony assault.

 

[Zebo]

Unfortunately the best defense against violence is violence.

The sooner people realize and accept that, and the sooner people realize and accept that we can't decide when *other* people choose to initiate violence against *us* despite our best intentions to avoid violence, the better off the human race will be.

This people men especially are such sissies today. Raised and educated by mommie and Communist hippy washouts. A real man doesnt start fights but knows how to end them cause his daddy taught him that. Keeps violence to a minimum. If you knew every-time you got in a street fight you'd have a good chance to get shot no way would people start shit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

Ahh, well I have a right to privacy and being free from having my communications violated.