Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
What I am writing about is a balance between self defense and avoiding accidental injuries, shooting where not necessary and a few other considerations. I would not be agreeable, for example, to being loaded ONLY with non-lethal ammo. Rather, my view is that it only takes a fraction of a second to just fire again - with the 2nd and after ammo being then lethal. The odds of that fraction of a second making a different is very slight - but the result of that slight risk is avoiding of a fatal accidental, wrongful or unnecessary fatal gun death - and those are not rare despite all good efforts to avoid it.
For example, if a kid did someone come across one of those firearm (yes, we do keep them secure but things can happen) and shot himself or a friend with the rubber bullet, it all but certain that kid wouldn't fire again. If in the middle of the night an intruder is shot in a fast impulse shot - and it some guest, kid, or someone else we REALLY would NOT want to kill, again that rubber bullet or bean bag allows a second evaluation of the situation. As examples.
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc shots could be done as fast a person pulls the trigger. If a criminal already has a gun leveled at you or is running at you with a knife, even then the 1/1oth second it takes to pull the trigger again likely won't change anything - you're probably going to be shot or stabbed either way.
In my opinion, the first shot being non-lethal makes it easier to fire, as you don't have to - in that first instant - be certain you need to lethally shoot the other person. If the first round is deadly, you have to.
Not to just ramble on, to use an example of the police...
Departments have different attitudes in a fairly common situation. There is a fairly stressed person in a yard holding a handgun. Not pointing it at anyone yet and mostly seeming the person is going to suicide himself or do a suicide-by-cop. Some departments take an attitude of taking cover and trying to talk him out of it - while prepared to shoot to kill if he points his gun towards the officers. Other departments will take the attitude to demand he drops the gun and if he doesn't drop it they shoot him (to kill). Still other departments will have an officer open up on him with a 12 gauge loaded with bean bags hoping t cause him to drop the gun and if so then just tackle him. However, they still have maintained the lethal option. When the situation calls for it, I think that a good decision.
All decisions, of course, involve risks and the odds. We tend to have so many kids, guests and even people staying over that we felt that we need to take that extra precaution. If a person lived alone maybe it not necessary.
As extreme example I've posted before, although this annoys some people, one time a few years ago my wife drove off a group of protestors who were literally trying to break into the house (a long, odd story), for which she rushed out with her Saiga 12 gauge with it's 30 shell "Zombie" canister pulmetting them fast as she could with bean-bag loads while shouting "go away! go away!" Between the booms of the shotgun and people acting like they had been shot, they were all convinced she was killing everyone and even the first call to 911 by one of them was "she's killing everyone!" They didn't just stop trying to break in, they ran like hell to get away from the crazy little woman with the big shotgun.
Lest she sound crazy, she did have her 38 special in her belt, and in that situation she could have been using lethal rounds (I won't explain to keep this short), but what a person MAY do and MUST do aren't always the same. She correctly calculated she could drive them off before they actually got inside the house we had then - and then everything would escalate radically. They were tying to get and forcibly take a teenager who had legally been placed in our care and she did NOT want to go with them - terrified of it. My wife the only other person at our home. She would have used lethal force to stop that if it had come to it - but really, really didn't want to - and those people were just working themselves up into a mob-mentality situation that was dangerous escalated. She got ahead of the curve. And in a sense literally showed them where this was leading to if they did get in the house or to that teenager.
While a crazy incident, it does make a point. Someone is in your house or trying to break in. You don't know who or why. That person doesn't have a weapon or you don't know what the person is up to - only you know it no good - and there's some distance. And demand to stop, get out etc does not result in the person leaving or ceasing. Do you REALLY want to kill that 15 year old or two 14 year olds - who very well maybe could overwhelm you and even take your gun and use it on you? Do you really WANT to wait until the person breaks in? Wait until they decide whether or not to attack you? But your only option is to kill that person?
You may not feel you are certain that is necessary. If you shot that person - then all the noise and shock-effect of the gun shot - or shoot thru the glass of the door or window of the person trying to break in - with a rubber bullet or bean bag that person now is made to realize the reality that you are armed and will shoot. Any rational person would then flee. If not, then you know for certain you must shoot lethally. YET, if lethal shots instead were needed from the start? Just keep pulling the trigger. You still have the lethal force. I can think of few real-situations where that 1/10th second makes the difference, and accidental or unnecessary death potential isn't acceptable if avoidable.
It is unfortunate better non-lethal force options are not available, and unfortunately because the PERFECT and certainly non-lethal systems cannot be designed without leaving civil liabilities. So unfortunately it is safer legally to shot to kill someone (by police or civilians) than to use a non-lethal system that 1 in 10,000 times is lethal or causes permanent injury anyway. For example, both a net-gun and glue-gun was developed. The net-gun could rapidly fire a nylon net with tiny nylon barbs which would then lock the net(s) around the person. The glue-gun basically fires a sticky film around the person.
Neither are lethal. BUT, of course, someone then could trip and fall hitting their head or on something sharp. And non-police may have used them wrongly or when they shouldn't. In that first scenario the police and manufacturer is sued. It the latter the manufacturer is sued because their non-lethal weapon was lethal in that rare instance. Yet in those instances it may have been legal to shot lethally - plus it is very difficult for someone who has been shot and killed to sue.
Last edited by joko104; 07-22-13 at 12:21 PM.
Plus your right to self defense and castle doctrine etc can become more difficult. For example, if you did convince him to lay face down but after a couple of minutes waiting he starts to jump up and towards you - or just up and you don't know why, are you going to shoot down at him in the back? And then the investigation concludes he was headed towards a door and was only 15? So you shot a 15 year old in the back while he was trying to leave - as his punishment for not agreeing to wait for the police? That won't fly in some states.
You DO have a right to deadly force for self defense. You do NOT have a right to use deadly force to hold someone for the police in most jurisdictions. A decisive legal distinction. Even cops usually can't shoot someone for fleeing.
In my opinion, if you are alone unless you are tough-as-hell and the other person obviously a wimp, or there are enough of you there to assuredly be able to restrain him, don't try to hold him. Just tell him to leave. If you can't hold him for the police WITH CERTAINTY without using deadly force, don't try to.
Last edited by joko104; 07-22-13 at 12:36 PM.
Umm...maybe clear up something for me. Which if any of those things were Martin doing?
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
Last edited by joko104; 07-22-13 at 12:42 PM.
The law presumes that by age 18 a person has reached a minimal adult frame of mine. However, generally allows the prospect a person reached it at a younger age.
I ALWAYS think it grotesquely false PR propaganda to refer to TM as "a child" at age 17. Reuters even refers to him as "a young child." Even the law does not use that term. It uses "minor" as legal terminology only. Hell, we all are someone's child no matter what age we are. I see nothing about TM indicating he was living or acting like "a child" in his life.
Of all the anti-GZers who refer to TM as a "child," NONE EVER did so about 17 year olds before this case. In fact, many doing so on other threads advocate lowering the age for consent for sex, while concerning TM they insist he was "a child."
If so, then his step-father should have been prosecuted for child abuse for leaving his his "child" to wander around the street.
Last edited by joko104; 07-22-13 at 12:53 PM.
Oh, let me clear up an apparent confusion you have. Martin wasn't on trial.
GZ says Martin was feloniously assaulting him, but the bottom line is we don't know with certainty what Martin was doing nor what he was doing when GZ first saw him either. Not knowing means just that. It doesn't mean Martin was not involved in criminal activity or planning to do so. It means we don't know. Since Martin wasn't on trial, it doesn't matter.