Quote:
Originally Posted by dmg1969
That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.
ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.
|
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
|
IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
[RACE] is the issue.
|
Really? Gee thats a new twist
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.
This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules.
|
Agreed