« What's Good For GM | Main | Right On Cue »

03/21/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

jaycee

Hmmm...is the Black Panther Party a Tea Party affiliate? I thought only right-wingers and Tea Partiers were violent extremists:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11778354-wanted-dead-or-alive-poster-issued-for-george-zimmerman-by-new-black-panther-party

Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson, aka The Court Jester, declares, "We're ALL victims!" (I guess he means victims of Hispanics, as no white folk were involved in this shooting)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-jesse-jackson-20120323,0,2131299.story

Spag

I agree with Marshall. Self-defense is an affirmative defense meaning the burden did proof is on the person claiming it. Obviously if one is charged with murder they would defend themselves. There is no presumption that shooting someone is lawful anymore than there is a presumption that a person deserved a bloody nose.

jaycee

Marshalls' statement suggests that if one is not attacked with a deadly weapon (“gun, knife, bat..etc..”) then one may not defend oneself with deadly force. I disagree.
The question will be whether the defendant believed he was in fear for his life when he took defensive action, not whether the attacker was using a "deadly weapon" to instill that fear.
Sometimes a person defending himself is charged, sometimes he isn't. No two cases are exactly the same.

tk solomon

it's essential to categorize race if we are to validate our personal Miltonian psychodrama. it's not hate that makes us confront, then inflict injury and death upon someone we don't know. it's our need to be a part of something we believe is more important than ourselves. it's a need to identify our ego with a collective. in the process we establish covenants in our minds that we believe will raise the value of our own thoughts. we join with co-thinkers to keep out the undesirables, whether they wear a hoodie, kippah or their cap backwards.

Could that guy patrol a neighborhood or what. He seemed to notice everything but his own thoughts. He might have become an intawectual on some bwog if the order he was trying to maintain had not caused so much dysorder. Who writes this stuff.

The shooter didn't know "this one thing" that Curly knew. Curly knew that to G-d we are all niggers. The only neighborhood watch that matters is our own mind before and after we decide what headgear we choose to attach to our frail and frightened egos.

bubba

"Marshalls' statement suggests that if one is not attacked with a deadly weapon (“gun, knife, bat..etc..”) then one may not defend oneself with deadly force. I disagree."

And based on information now becoming available for the first time, that particular point may well be the most important part of the discussion, assuming "progressives" and their race baiting pals don't find some way of diverting attention away from the truth in this matter....again.

Spag

I don't think that's what Marshall was saying. I think he was saying that a person who uses deadly force against an unarmed person is likely going to have to defend the use when/if charged with murder. I don't think that changes anything. A person can raise self defense in any murder charge whether a gun is involved or not.

Marshall can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his remarks were a defense of concealed carry- suggesting that there is a remedy (murder charge) if it is abused and a justification (self-defense) if it is not.

bubba

"A person can raise self defense in any murder charge whether a gun is involved or not."

To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman has yet to be charged with any offense. I don't think that's an oversight on the part of authorities in FL.

jaycee

Sam, that's the way I read it. I could be wrong in my interpretation of what Marshall wrote.

Marshall

Yes Sam...you said it much better than me...

"Marshall can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his remarks were a defense of concealed carry- suggesting that there is a remedy (murder charge) if it is abused and a justification (self-defense) if it is not."

Was the concealed carry attacked? Did the attacker show deadly force weapons..gun, knife, etc.?

My understanding is that a fist fight could be in full force and the person carrying the gun should leave it in their pocket even if being beaten.

Fred Gregory

Perhaps this should be a whole new discussion.

Hey homie want a light

Billy Jones

As a avid gun owner and holder of a CCW permit, I think too many on the right are trying to put the NRA hero hat on Zimmerman. In my world we'd call him a pussy for taking a beating from a kid 70 pounds lighter after having chased the kid down, turning to run and resorting to using his gun on an unarmed opponent.

I think there are real gun wielding heroes the right would do well to elevate. Zimmerman isn't your man.

jaycee

"My understanding is that a fist fight could be in full force and the person carrying the gun should leave it in their pocket even if being beaten."
Marshall, nothing is cut and dried in the real world.
A person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force if they fear for their life. Whether the attacker has a weapon or not is moot. Every case is different and stands or falls on its own merit.
Imagine a 70-year old man with a heart condition in a wheelchair being beaten savagely by a 17-year old, 6'2" football player...the 70-year old may feel he is in mortal danger and will die unless he defends himself with deadly force. Switch the players and a 17-year old, 6'2" football player facing a 70-year old man with a heart condition in a wheelchair who takes a swing at him may not feel his life is in danger.
Most cases will fall somewhere in between my above examples. Every circumstance is different and unique.

Billy Jones

jaycee wrote: "Imagine a 70-year old man with a heart condition in a wheelchair being beaten savagely by a 17-year old, 6'2" football player...the 70-year old may feel he is in mortal danger and will die unless he defends himself with deadly force. Switch the players and a 17-year old, 6'2" football player facing a 70-year old man with a heart condition in a wheelchair who takes a swing at him may not feel his life is in danger.
Most cases will fall somewhere in between my above examples. Every circumstance is different and unique."

Agreed, but in this instance that just isn't the case. Zimmerman is a young man and considerably bigger than Martin. He should have took his ass kicking like a man.

jaycee

Billy, as I said, each case is different and unique. None of us knows the facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case; we only hear what the media has told us.
I am passing no judgement on either Zimmerman or Martin. My point is that it matters not what you or I or anyone else thinks, the crux of the issue is what was in the mind of the person who used deadly force to defend himself.

bubba

"I think there are real gun wielding heroes the right would do well to elevate. Zimmerman isn't your man."

How do you know?

Do you have access to evidence the rest of us do not?

Certainly, those who continue to demagogue this issue don't care about evidence. It's the old tried and true strategy of "verdict first, trial later" school of libthink that's been plaguing us for years.

Spag

"A person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force if they fear for their life." I agree if the fear is reasonable. Also, that has nothing to do with concealed carry as deadly force is justified under such circumstances regardless of the weapon chosen or where it is deployed.

jaycee

"Also, that has nothing to do with concealed carry as deadly force is justified under such circumstances regardless of the weapon chosen or where it is deployed."
Agreed, Sam. My comments in this thread are addressing the larger arena of general self-defense and not concealed carry laws.

bubba

More detail.

Stormy

It's interesting to read everyone's comments about what happened, when there are few that know what did happen. But, that does not stop many from talking about it as though they do know. Do the words "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" ring a bell anywhere? In case anyone doesn't catch my drift, don't jump to conclusions until you have all of the facts in a court of law.

jaycee

Stormy, that's exactly why I haven't commented on this specific case; none of us knows the facts. I spent too many years investigating crimes to base any judgement on media reports or race-driven hysteria.

The comments to this entry are closed.