Does One Have A Right To Self Defense

[Brigandier]

No. Rights don't exist.

Might makes rights.

 

[Zorkorist]

America, has always been a discussion of Freedom.

That today we have even the semblance of Government control, tells you just how far we have fallen from the land of the free, and are now deeply mired in ... wait for it, a government conspiracy.

-John

 

[marvdmartian]

Does one have a right to self defense?

Tell ya what. We'll put a loaded pistol within your reach, then have someone come at you with a knife, intent on ventilating your body with it. At that point in time, will any moral code you might have trump your basic will to live, and prevent you from picking up the pistol and shooting the guy who's about to kill you??

Yeah, I didn't think so. Of course we have the right to self defense. 🙄

 

[woolfe9998]

America, has always been a discussion of Freedom.

That today we have even the semblance of Government control, tells you just how far we have fallen from the land of the free, and are now deeply mired in ... wait for it, a government conspiracy.

-John

You do realize that in early America, women had no right to vote, black people were slaves, and Congress passed a law which made any criticism of the government a criminal act, in spite of the First Amendment? Today women can vote. Today black people aren't slaves. And today you can criticize the government online or elsewhere, while in 1800, that might have gotten you thrown in jail.

 

[werepossum]

You do realize that in early America, women had no right to vote, black people were slaves, and Congress passed a law which made any criticism of the government a criminal act, in spite of the First Amendment? Today women can vote. Today black people aren't slaves. And today you can criticize the government online or elsewhere, while in 1800, that might have gotten you thrown in jail.

With a little reflection, almost everything we dislike has been much worse in the past, even just within our own country. Doesn't mean they aren't worth opposing though; progress is not necessarily linear unless we work for it.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of black folks alive who grew up when failure to give up their seats to whites was an actual crime that could land you in jail, and there are still a few Japanese, German and Italian (with a sprinkling of others) who grew up in detainment camps. Ain't nothing guaranteed unless we make it so.

 

[peonyu]

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 think the issue with this case comes down to excessive force [killing the kid via a gun] and thats why alot of usually rational people cant believe the not guilty verdict in this case. Shooting Trayvon, in hindsight was excessive but Zimmerman did not know that at the time...Hell, for all he knew Trayvon could have had a gun himself.

Self Defense was justified.

 

[boomerang]

 

[LTC8K6]

I think this fits here also:

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...tand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate

 

[piasabird]

A friend of mine had a son and few local high school thugs beat him so bad he almost died. To this day he still has mental and physical problems and cant live or work on his own. I think if one person slugs you once you should assume he is going to keep coming and shoot him dead on the spot. People do not have a right to just start punching another human being. Trayvon was not some 14 year old teenager he was over 6 foot tall and fully capable of killing Zimmerman by beating him to death.

It is time to speak out against violence. Those who live this violent thug life are bound to end up dead or in jail for life. Trayvon was a known violent individual who liked to take advantage of his large stature. He was the typical bully who thought he could beat the hell out of anyone and they would just have to take it. He was a violent anti-social animal and sooner or later he was doomed to die or go to jail. This gang thug mentality should have died long ago but it is thriving in every city.

 

[piasabird]

If more people had concealed carry maybe the thugs would think twice about attacking people.

So maybe a gang will beat your mother and sister to death tomorrow after raping them. According to Hoder's and the NAACP's reasoning it would be wrong for your mom to kill them with a gun. Is that what you are really saying?

 

[bshole]

Yeah, I didn't think so. Of course we have the right to self defense

Unless it is the authorities beating or shooting you. Then you have NO right to self defense. I have seen enough beatings and shootings of innocent civillians by cops on Youtube to know that the right of self defense means little if we don't have the right to defend ourselves from a police state run amok.

 

[kage69]

Unless it is the authorities beating or shooting you. Then you have NO right to self defense. I have seen enough beatings and shootings of innocent civillians by cops on Youtube to know that the right of self defense means little if we don't have the right to defend ourselves from a police state run amok.

Indiana disagrees with the USSC.


http://theweek.com/article/index/229167/the-indiana-law-that-lets-citizens-shoot-cops

 

[TechBoyJK]

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.

Minor physical altercation? Please tell me how many times you've been jumped by dudes you don't know, at night, who proceeded to beat your ass MMA style and slam your head into concrete.

I'll post pics of when it happened to me, if anybody wants them.

In that moment, it's not a minor altercation. You feel zero control of the situation, you're being brutally assaulted, and you have no idea of how far it's going to go. Only that the longer it goes on, the more likely you will die.

 

[werepossum]

Minor physical altercation? Please tell me how many times you've been jumped by dudes you don't know, at night, who proceeded to beat your ass MMA style and slam your head into concrete.

I'll post pics of when it happened to me, if anybody wants them.

In that moment, it's not a minor altercation. You feel zero control of the situation, you're being brutally assaulted, and you have no idea of how far it's going to go. Only that the longer it goes on, the more likely you will die.

The inescapable conclusion from posts like Paul's is that these people feel that if you can't fight with your fists against whomever attacks you, then you deserve to get beaten and your attacker deserves to have his life protected while he is beating you. Children, women and old people should just huddle at home - disarmed, of course, so they don't harm anyone committing minor crimes such as burglary, robbery, home invasion, rape.

I can respect people on both sides of the Zimmerman shooting trial, but I cannot respect the opinion that I owe my attacker safety and should therefore take my beating lying down to avoid endangering his life - never mind that he is endangering mine.

 

[klinc]

Self-defense was universally regarded as the primary law of nature. Personally think that a requirement for a defendant to exercise a reasonable degree of self-control in response to the threat. Test test of “reasonable degree of self-control” would take into account both the power of fear and anger to induce instinctive defensive reactions, and our legitimate social expectation that the actor respond to and express such emotions with appropriate restraint and sound judgment.

 

[sportage]

Naturally people have the right to defend. The problem comes in when the idea of defending is twisted around as with the Zimmerman case.
I call being followed and stalked by a stranger first in a car then on foot, absolutely the right to defend against such unwarranted threat.
But sadly, Martin did not have a gun to defend himself.
If I were a black father after this perversion of justice in the Zimmerman case, I'd buy and teach my son(s) how to use a gun and always carry. Always carry!!!
But then again... That is exactly what the NRA hopes will happen.
Besides...
We all know how this would have went down if Martin would have had his gun and shot first, now don't we.......

 

[klinc]

In the suddenness of an attack, a private person might simply react, and might not actually form all the supposedly requisite beliefs about the extent of the threat, the expected seriousness of his violent response, and the availability of alternatives to using deadly force.

Many criminal acts occur in highly emotional, stressful, or emergency situations, situations in which it is often both unrealistic and unfair to expect the actor to formulate beliefs about all of the facts relevant to the legality or justifiability of his conduct.

 

[Zaap]

Right to self defense? Absolutely. ALWAYS.

Right to use deadly force as self defense? Sometimes highly dependent on circumstance but not always.

 

[klinc]

Right to self defense? Absolutely. ALWAYS.

Right to use deadly force as self defense? Sometimes highly dependent on circumstance but not always.

Lets say I attack you. Are you going to think about the law first and and wait for all the elements before you react with a certain degree violence to counter violence? Or are you just going to react ?

 

[BladeVenom]

It's a natural right, and should be a legal right in any civilized society.

 

[Veliko]

Lets say I attack you. Are you going to think about the law first and and wait for all the elements before you react with a certain degree violence to counter violence? Or are you just going to react ?

As he said, it will depend on the circumstances.

If the 'attack' is someone touching your arm because you jumped ahead of them in the queue, pulling out a sword and chopping their head off wouldn't be accepted as a valid instance of self defence by many people.