• George Zimmerman found NOT GUILTY
    1,148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515272]First of all, you should never go looking for trouble. If however trouble finds you, you have to use the least amount of force to get what you need done, which is the attacker to stop trying to hurt/kill you. But if you're using more force than you need to, (unless it was an accident) then you probably are looking to hurt/kill the attacker, which is more than what you need to be doing.[/QUOTE] trayvon was the one probably looking for trouble, he was ahead of zimmerman the whole time if he kept walking home he would have never confronted zimmerman. How else would zimmerman get a younger more stronger taller teen-adult off him that was straddling him? He didn't plan on killing him from the start, his life was in danger and he used a item that he had to defend his life.
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41515327]And you are willing to draw that line for him? How are you certain Zimmerman would still be alive and well today if he hadn't used what force he felt was necessary? If he was in fact being beaten senseless on the pavement, he could have gone unconscious at any moment. What I mean to say is that in any situation like this there is no reset button, so using "undue" force and surviving beats applying too little force and being killed or more seriously wounded.[/QUOTE] Well I sure hope it was really the only thing he could have done at that point to save himself. It would be sad otherwise. It is sad though that this whole thing could have been avoided if both of them had acted better than they did. If you're not hurting anyone, you shouldn't walk around in fear. And if you're not out to get anyone, you don't hurt anyone. [QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41515327]Also your first statement could apply to either Travon or Zimmerman; how do you know Travon [i]wasn't[/i] seeking out trouble? How do you know that Zimmerman was?[/QUOTE] From what I hear, apparently they kinda both were. It maybe could have been avoided if at least one of them had the sense not to, but it seems like they both did.
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515272]First of all, you should never go looking for trouble. If however trouble finds you, you have to use the least amount of force to get what you need done, which is the attacker to stop trying to hurt/kill you. But if you're using more force than you need to, (unless it was an accident) then you probably are looking to hurt/kill the attacker, which is more than what you need to be doing.[/QUOTE] You should come to Russia. You'd love the system our courts have on self-defence, based around a concept of "commensurate use of force". Woman here can get in jail for stabbing a rapist who only used his hands to overpower her. Also, going in jail for using traumatic weapons (that end up killing an assailant) against a group of very angry men with knives and an axe. Oh, he has a knife? Bring your one! But if he's towering over you, twice your weight, twice your muscles, but has no weapon? Too bad for you, yell "police!" from the top of your lungs while he beats your intestines out of you. But to that you're probably going to respond "don't get yourself in trouble then", so nevermind.
[QUOTE=gudman;41515479]You should come to Russia. You'd love the system our courts have on self-defence, based around a concept of "commensurate use of force". Woman here can get in jail for stabbing a rapist who only used his hands to overpower her. Also, going in jail for using traumatic weapons (that end up killing an assailant) against a group of very angry men with knives and an axe. Oh, he has a knife? Bring your one! But if he's towering over you, twice your weight, twice your muscles, but has no weapon? Too bad for you, yell "police!" from the top of your lungs while he beats your intestines out of you. [/QUOTE] That's ridiculous. How is that law supposed to guide and protect people? Are you supposed to all learn martial arts to defend yourself in case your attacker has no weapon?
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515549]That's ridiculous. How is that law supposed to guide and protect people? Are you supposed to all learn martial arts to defend yourself in case your attacker has no weapon?[/QUOTE] Well, according to you, shooting an unarmed person under any circumstance is not self defense but murder, so I suppose the equivalent with any other weapon would make sense as well.
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515549]That's ridiculous. How is that law supposed to guide and protect people? Are you supposed to all learn martial arts to defend yourself in case your attacker has no weapon?[/QUOTE] Well we're supposed to not get ourselves in trouble. From time to time it is possible to prove in court that you had no other options. But it'd require very good lawyers. Plus the fact that, while we don't have "case-law" system, our judges are lazy and they are more likely to just copy the judgment from some other case from years ago, so pray it wasn't conviction.
[QUOTE=t h e;41515688]Well, according to you, shooting an unarmed person under any circumstance is not self defense but murder, so I suppose the equivalent with any other weapon would make sense as well.[/QUOTE] Not under any circumstance. If you can get an attacker to leave you alone without killing/injuring them, that's great. If not, you are just saving your own life. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is all that I meant.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.