A good guy with a gun?

Snickers Man wrote: »

So the kid had it coming then?

If Zimmerman's story is correct, yes.

I'm not sure you're quite getting the point of how things work around these parts. If you start to beat up someone (and Zimmerman's head did seem to be getting the worse of the situation) you run the very serious risk that if the individual is fearing for his safety and can get to his weapon (whatever that weapon is, knife or pistol), he will use it on you, with the very likely possibility of serious injury or death. A physical fight is strongly discouraged and should not be considered a preferred method of conflict resolution.

For falling under suspicion, unfounded, that he was intent on committing a crime, for running away from a strange man in a car who was clearly stalking him and then for somehow "instigating an attack" on said strange man who had chased after him?

There is no indication that I am aware of that Zimmerman attempted to do any more than observe and report. If such evidence to the contrary does exist, I'm sure it'll come out at trial.

This is all from Zimmerman's side of the story. We don't know, and will never know, Trayvon's side of the story. Cause he's dead.

Nope, so it's down to forensics and a jury of twelve men fair and true.

If Zimmerman is to survive his trial, what will have to be disproved is his claim that despite stalking Trayvon in his car, scrutinising him while phoning the police and then chasing him when he ran away it was somehow Trayvon that started the fight.

Prosecution would like to show that an armed man suspiscious of an individual willingly got caught up to that individual so that he forfeited his advantage of being armed, got into fisticuffs range, started a physical confrontation, and then, not fearing for his safety, shot Martin. Personally, if I were suspiscious of a strange man in my neighbourhood, the last thing I'd be doing is willingly getting within twenty feet of him. What the prosecution has to show, is that no matter the circumstances of how the fight started, Zimmerman was not in fear of his safety at the time he fired the shot. (There is a clause in the law which states that even if the man who killed the other instigated the fight, if he had clearly indicated his desire to surrender/cease conflict and continues to be attacked, he may then legally use lethal force)

I'm appalled, if not surprised, by your suggestion that it is an "occupational" (sic) hazard of living in the US that an unarmed person has no protection legal or physical against threatening behaviour from somebody who is armed.

I never stated any such thing. To be in fear for your life to the extent that you may use force requires some genuine reason: Being very nervous because you are being followed does not reach that threshold, there must be an actual demonstrable threat. Otherwise you can go around shooting people because you 'feel' like it, which is a somewhat uncivilised state of affairs.

The implication of what you say is that the onus is on the unarmed not to arouse any suspicion or cause the slightest offence to somebody who may be armed because if a squabble breaks out, the armed person has the right to kill you.

One certainly shouldn't start the squabble.

I would have thought that someone who favours granting citizens the right to be armed in anticipation of their being attacked would at least insist as a corollary that somebody so armed should bear the onus of responsibility not to use it unless in the direst of circumstances.

Absolutely agreed. Indeed, that's pretty much what the law already states, so I don't see any quarrel there.

Can armed people indulge their slightest whims, paranoias, prejudices and fears and dismiss any unmerited deaths that ensue as the "occupational hazard" of living in such a society?

Of course not. Unmerited deaths tend, for example, to come with a murder (or at least, manslaughter) charge with a slight penalty attached if convicted. Given the rarity in which legally armed persons seem to be convicted of firearms offenses, it would seem that the point of only using firearms within the law is reasonably well taken by them.

That's the whole problem, its far from simple, or correct, you can technically be a currently law-abiding citizen, but be very far removed from being a 'good guy'. Being a technically 'law abiding citizen' with a desire to circulate in society with a loaded firearm, does not make them some sort of 'good guy'. In fact any 'good guy' should have no desire to do so.

So you can't be a good guy unless they are willing to submit to others the advantage of force?

We both live in reasonably free countries. As long as we conduct ourselves within the law, we are free to do whatever we want. If you don't like what I do, or if I don't like what you do is irrelevant. We're just trying to make our way through life, and who am I to judge your motives? There are those who believe that no violence is warranted under any circumstances. In the Army, they're Consciencious Objectors. If one thinks that even having a hurl or baseball bat in one's house to do damage to an intruder is not sufficiently caring to one's fellow man, one may be a pacifist. They probably think that the majorities are 'bad guys,' for their willingness to engage in violence if required but we're not going to alter behaviour because they disapprove.

Further, there is no practical way other than the law of distinguishing 'good' behaviour from 'bad' when looking at this sort of thing. I can look up laws and adjust my behaviour accordingly. I can't look up the mores of "that guy over there."

And in the context of this thread, the 'bad guy' is one who is doing illegal harm to someone else. Even if the person confronting him is morally questionable, I'm pretty sure the 'bad guys' victims will consider him a 'good guy' for trying to stop him as far as the situation at hand goes.

NTM