d
So then you have no problem with a law that essentially says if a couple of trick o treaters come up to your door dressed like cops and robbers with toy guns, you could technically shoot them? A law that even a lot of law enforcement thinks is bs?
There is far less conclusive evidence that the kid did anything to him. Are you telling me that "if" a kid punches you in the nose that gives you the right to kill him? What kind of "man" is that?
As for trying 17 year olds as adults, give them full legal adult rights at 17 then try them. His tweets as you say are in question, and there are many faked accounts out there. Even so the kid for all I know was a total asshole. Most likely, being that he was 17 I would almost guarantee he was. When I was 17, I had long grungy hair, 2 eyebrow rings in one eyebrow, wore System of a Down shirts and had baggy jeans. No one at school would ever **** with me because I was 6'1 220 lbs of punk kid. Anymore, what someone says when they are 13 on up to 17 really has little difference. So what was the point in your post other than trying to justify the murder of an unarmed child?
So let me so if I am following you on this one. If anyone, child or not gets into a fist fight with you out in the street you have the right to stab or shoot that person?
You're gonna love this one, I totally forgot to mention this in my own derailing of this thread, but the picture of that badass kid? That isn't him. Yep, whatever "reputable" news source you got that from isn't all that reputable. Of course anyone could tell the difference couldn't they? Well wait, you probably couldn't could you? That is what is so hilarious about all the **** you posted! You can't! Neither can any of the other concerned totally unracist citizens that posted those cute little pictures showing Zimmerman in a suit, and the other kid.
Anyways, it's been swell guys.If you are wanting to talk about this in one of the other 500 threads about this topic I would be more than happy to.
6' 3" isn't a "kid" to most people.
Do you really think a person must agree to only defend he/herself without a weapon when under attack? That a woman can not?
I actually tried to figure it statistically one time across my life. How many "fights" (real world) fights I had been in and how many I saw. Though not typical for certain, the those numbers are around 2,000 and 20,000 by age 16. I could have rather easily quickly downed and done about anything I wanted to men of more docile, ordinary society if were to become necessary for me to so. This level significantly reduced after that, but did not become rare until about 4 years ago when I dramatically changed my life circumstances and environment for the 3rd time. As an adult, I was detained, questioned and even arrested a few times for matters concerning "assault." The question was never if violence was justified on my part, but rather was the level of harm to the other person excessive?
That is not an easy question for law enforcement to decide with perfect clarity. They had to make a judgment call each time. Generally, they knew 1.) I was within my rights to use physical violence against the other person in a defense of others or myself, 2.) it wasn't really a fair fight in terms of skills, in the sense the other person essentially had no chance of winning 3.) I probably had the person unable to proceed with threat or assault without as much injury done and 4.) I could have easily continued to do far greater, even permanent or lethal, harm to the person but did not. With that, they had to decide had I shifted from reasonable defense to unreasonable and has I shifted from being defensive to assaultive? Those really not simplistic questions with absolute answers.
My brief explanation, wording actually by an attorney, was that I had acted in defense or others or myself against assault or reasonably believed imminent assault based upon the words or actions of the other person. What I did responsively was for the purpose of as quickly and in a manner I believed most likely to be successful in disabling the person from being able to injury or continue to injury anyone, myself and to avoid escalation of events that could result in greater injury or death to the other person. With that, the police had to decide if they have basis for an initial arrest, and if so, then whether they really wanted to give it to the DA to consider or just drop it.
There are many cops and ex-cops on this forum too. They can tell you with certainty 1.) for the average man they could not only "beat up" that man, but then could proceed to do serious and even permanent injury or death just with their hands or feet and 2.) even an unskilled person can cause permanent injury or death on a lucky punch or kick.
Once someone knocked you down and had overwhelmed you, they could tear out your eyes (literally and that has happened in "unarmed fights," kill you by stomping on your throat or just a hard punch in the throat, kick your ribs into your lungs, pull so hard on your testicles that you end effectly castrated, and essentially any severe, permanent or lethal damage they way.
The standard of law is what would a reasonable person do? A woman certainly could use a weapon to defend against an attack by the average man. But not if she's an athlete and the man weighing 110 pound and a last-stage dying cancer patient or an elderly Alzheimer's patient who do then to get violent.
When is it "reasonable" for a man to use a weapon to defend against or stop a violent assault or reasonably believed imminent violent assault? There is no absolute answer at all, is there? Some aspects of law are ill-defined and impossible to have perfect clarity.
The question in regards to Zimmerman is would a reasonable man being him in his situation reasonably believe using deadly force (ie a gun) necessary to assured defend against or stop a serious violent assault against him that is or reasonably is believed may cause him serious physical injury or death. The age of the other person isn't of itself relevant. The reasonably believed danger and actions of the other person is. Thus, but for injury to the back of Zimmerman's head, probably using deadly force was unreasonable or questionably so. IF his head was being pounded into the concrete, probably it was - though all factors to be considered.
You over-simply if you claim a person cannot use a deadly weapon against an unarmed assault.