B
Bocephus
Guest
I believe I wrote the post to which you are referring.
Guns can be a very viable solution to defending yourself. Every situation is different though.
wnd.com/2002/06/14164/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Guns can be a very viable solution to defending yourself. Every situation is different though.
wnd.com/2002/06/14164/
S
seekerz
Guest
I’d rather not speculate on the role of family connections, but you raise the most important point of this whole conversation: Trayvon has been dead for more than a month and we have no official information on why his shooter is still free.Now we know that it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 call (therefore it was Trayvon’s).
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
Trayvon is more than one month dead, and Zimmerman is still free. It looks like being from a well-connected family lets you get away with murder in the USA (just like it probably got Zimmerman his concealed gun permit despite a past of attacking a police officer.)
B
Bocephus
Guest
I’m not familiar with those cases or the details at all.“Imminent” is understood in all the scenarios my post includes: Trayvon vs Zimmerman, the young woman and the baby, the Texas burglaries (though I really don’t get how you ‘defend yourself’ from your neighbor’s house getting robbed).
There was a woman in Florida who had received a pink pistol for Christmas from her boyfriend. About a month later a man broke in, knocked her boyfriend out cold and on his way to rape her received a few rounds in the chest.
Had it not been for that gun there is no telling what he would have done to her.
S
seekerz
Guest
Thanks for another good example of how self defense does not require that you first allow yourself to be attacked. You can strike first in the process of defending yourself, is all I’ve been saying here.I’m not familiar with those cases or the details at all.
There was a woman in Florida who had received a pink pistol for Christmas from her boyfriend. About a month later a man broke in, knocked her boyfriend out cold and on his way to rape her received a few rounds in the chest.
Had it not been for that gun there is no telling what he would have done to her.
J
Jerry_Miah
Guest
A tangent about the benefit of gun ownership would be a waste of time. Suffice to say that a gun in the house shoots friends or family much more often that it shoots a criminal.I’m not familiar with those cases or the details at all.
There was a woman in Florida who had received a pink pistol for Christmas from her boyfriend. About a month later a man broke in, knocked her boyfriend out cold and on his way to rape her received a few rounds in the chest.
Had it not been for that gun there is no telling what he would have done to her.
M
maryjk
Guest
Wow. I am surprised that Zimmerman would give a voice sample to the newspaper. It doesn’t seem like something someone would do that wanted a fair trial. Maybe they are simply basing their information on what they already have, which would mean that the analysis wouldn’t be conclusive.Now we know that it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 call (therefore it was Trayvon’s).
And maybe it wasn’t Martin’s. Maybe it belongs to that “little boy” that the newest witness heard.
I would still like to see where it is shown that Zimmerman has a felony conviction against him. Being charged with or being accused of a crime doesn’t preclude you from having a concealed weapon permit. (Or for that matter the transcript of the 911 call that you claimed Martin made.)usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
Trayvon is more than one month dead, and Zimmerman is still free. It looks like being from a well-connected family lets you get away with murder in the USA (just like it probably got Zimmerman his concealed gun permit despite a past of attacking a police officer.)
B
Bocephus
Guest
There are exceptions, mostly depending on the location and nature of the aggressive person. In general, out on a public street you can not brandish a weapon just because someone’s looking for trouble.Thanks for another good example of how self defense does not require that you first allow yourself to be attacked. You can strike first in the process of defending yourself, is all I’ve been saying here.
J
jen_fla
Guest
it depends on the violence. if you see someone coming at you with a bat and they look like they are going to swing, you most certainly can, pull your gun and tell them to stop or you’ll shoot. if a very large muscular man comes at a much smaller person with their fists swinging same thing applies. those fists in that case could reasonable be seen as deadly weapons.Did you read the post I was responding to? Obviously not.
It was informing me, a non-gun owner, that a person could not draw a gun to warn someone away who seemed to be threatening physical violence. In light of such information, my statement is a logical conclusion: owning a gun is not a solution to being unable to defend yourself physically.
B
Bocephus
Guest
Source?A tangent about the benefit of gun ownership would be a waste of time. Suffice to say that a gun in the house shoots friends or family much more often that it shoots a criminal.
M
maryjk
Guest
Prove it.A tangent about the benefit of gun ownership would be a waste of time. Suffice to say that a gun in the house shoots friends or family much more often that it shoots a criminal.
J
jen_fla
Guest
i haven’t read the details of those other cases, so i’m curious if we disagree on anything i posted in 421. thanks.“Imminent” is understood in all the scenarios my post includes: Trayvon vs Zimmerman, the young woman and the baby, the Texas burglaries (though I really don’t get how you ‘defend yourself’ from your neighbor’s house getting robbed).
M
maryjk
Guest
That would be an example of the Castle Doctrine, where you are not required to run and hide while in your house. The woman with the pink pistol was allowed to shot someone breaking into her home.Thanks for another good example of how self defense does not require that you first allow yourself to be attacked. You can strike first in the process of defending yourself, is all I’ve been saying here.
S
seekerz
Guest
I didn’t find anything there to disagree with. If I interpret correctly, you are saying that the danger or threat has to be imminent to justify self-defense, no?i haven’t read the details of those other cases, so i’m curious if we disagree on anything i posted in 421. thanks.
S
seekerz
Guest
And the Stand Your Ground law extends this right to any place you have right to be, no?That would be an example of the Castle Doctrine, where you are not required to run and hide while in your house. The woman with the pink pistol was allowed to shot someone breaking into her home.
J
jen_fla
Guest
exactly! … because the threat was imminent. however someone walking up to someone and asking them a question, (even after they followed that person) does not make the threat imminent. again, i don’t know if this is what happened. i refrained from many posts, stating where my gut feelings lay in this case, but i actually have a feeling zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter if not second degree murder. however, my feelings don’t matter. none of our feelings matter. we can’t jump to conclusions at this point.Thanks for another good example of how self defense does not require that you first allow yourself to be attacked. You can strike first in the process of defending yourself, is all I’ve been saying here.
S
seekerz
Guest
In that case, I’m confused. See post 438 and 440.it depends on the violence. if you see someone coming at you with a bat and they look like they are going to swing, you most certainly can, pull your gun and tell them to stop or you’ll shoot. if a very large muscular man comes at a much smaller person with their fists swinging same thing applies. those fists in that case could reasonable be seen as deadly weapons.
In the case of Trayvon, Zimmerman was heavier, was armed (we don’t know if his gun was visible at the time they encountered each other) and was following him. At least two, if not three reasons a possible aggressive move on Zimmerman’s part might be construed to represent a threat to life.
Since we are short on relevant details, we have no grounds to reduce this scenario to “who threw the first punch”.
M
maryjk
Guest
Yes, so if my husband and I are walking down the street together and someone comes up to my husband and knocks him out, like in the example, I would be within my rights to shot the person.And the Stand Your Ground law extends this right to any place you have right to be, no?
S
seekerz
Guest
I think we are all in agreement then, if I’m walking, minding my own business and a stranger confronts me with what I perceive to be deadly intent, I may have good grounds to throw the first punch.Yes, so if my husband and I are walking down the street together and someone comes up to my husband and knocks him out, like in the example, I would be within my rights to shot the person.
B
Bocephus
Guest
Be a tough sell by prosecutors if they determine there is enough evidence to go forward with the case.In that case, I’m confused. See post 438 and 440.
In the case of Trayvon, Zimmerman was heavier, was armed (we don’t know if his gun was visible at the time they encountered each other) and was following him. At least two, if not three reasons a possible aggressive move on Zimmerman’s part might be construed to represent a threat to life.
Since we are short on relevant details, we have no grounds to reduce this scenario to “who threw the first punch”.
S
seekerz
Guest
With the cries on that tape reported to not belong to Zimmerman? I don’t think so.Be a tough sell by prosecutors if they determine there is enough evidence to go forward with the case.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.