Thats what he said, but the Shoot First Defense is whats being used in court. Well have to see how it plays out.
YOur post, and the title of this thread (probably because that is how it is labelled in the new article, is misleading and inaccurate.
It is not “Shoot First”. It is “Stand Your Ground”. The law does not promote vigilantism or gunfights at the OK Corral. It simply means that you have a right to be safe in your person wherever you are, rather like a portable Castle Doctrine, in essence saying that your skin is your castle and you do not have a duty (obligation) to retreat from a threat. Now, it may be advisable, it may be pragmatic, or it may be safer to retreat from a threat if that is the course of action that saves your life without taking another one. However, sometimes is it just not possible.
What I have not seen anyone address is the apparent evidence that Martin was trying to get Zimmerman’s gun. As I’ve maintained, all this needs to be sorted out by the legal system, and I am sure that Zimmerman will claim that they were fighting over Zimmerman’s gun when Zimmerman shot Trayvon. If it is decided that this is a reasonable and substantiated claim, backed by evidence (Trayvon’s fingerprints on the gun slide, the fact that the firing mechanism didn’t cycle, etc…) then this will be a legitimate case of self-defense, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the altercation.
What really needs to happen is for members of Congress to shut the heck up and stop stoking the fires of racial animus. Calling Zimmerman an animal, saying Trayvon was “stalked and shot like a dog in the street” is uncalled for and patently untrue, based on what is already publicly known.
