Ninja wrote:Dangerousman wrote:Hopefully we can avoid a complete rehash of the Martin-Zimmerman case, but I'm curious as to what you believe would have provided Martin a reasonable basis to conclude that he was about to become the victim of a forcible felony? Because someone followed him? That's weak.
If the police or prosecutor asks me why I opened fire on someone, or punched them square in the face, I certainly would hope I'd have a lot more to say beyond "he was following me." If that's my response to their question, I would expect to go to jail and spend some more time there after a conviction. And rightfully so.
Because it's completely subjective and if I was a teenager confrtonted by a stranger in a strange neighborhood in the middle of the night I'd probably start fucking him up too. Why would he even step to me and start something if he wasn't at least arguably going to commit a forcible felony on me? Who the fuck is this guy?
That's the point of these laws. To remove any question from your right to defend yourself against anything that scares you. We've departed from hundreds of years of legal tradition to make this happen. I suspect that real goal of these laws was to insulate certain people from teenagers in hoodies, but the law is the law, and teenagers in hoodies can avail themselves of it as well.
In reference to Trayvon Martin, it was neither "the middle of the night" nor "a strange neighborhood."
Nothing in any law in any state allows a person to use physical violence against another person with impunity based purely upon what subjectively sacres that person. You're either just making that up or have a very flawed understanding of the law. My guess is the latter, since there is so much nonsense about self-defense laws fed to the public by agenda-driven liars.
If you bother to research it, you'll see that "stand your ground" has hundreds of years of legal tradition behind it.