Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest

[krazen1211]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.
[/quote]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

[krazen1211]

Shoot a lot of people, do you krazen?

Do you think the world is full of Jack Bauers who can hit a bullseye with their off hand while sprinting in the opposite direction?

Where do you think instructors teach people and police to shoot? The torso is the biggest target.

[krazen1211]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.

[krazen1211]

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

Uh huh. You've been able to shoot moving foxes and turkeys in the legs while avoiding their body, consistently, while said fox or turkey was mashing on your face?

Said scenario makes it far more likely that the perp would get shot in the torso. It would be far more difficult and dangerous for someone to attempt to shoot the perp anywhere else as you endanger yourself to richochets.

Why do you think policemen are taught to shoot the torso?

Shoot to wound is of course a sad illogical statement. The assumption of course is when one shoots that death is a possible, if not likely, outcome!

[krazen1211]

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.

Perhaps people should use their xray vision to ensure that someone is unarmed. Or, wait until they point a firearm at your torso first....

The perpetrator has the element of surprise. SYG laws are designed to level the playing field.

[krazen1211]

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.

Well, whether the law is correctly applied to this situation will surely be determined by investigation.

But the concept of SYG dates back hundreds of years...hence of course the term castle doctrine.

Duty to retreat of course puts the attacker at an advantage as he/she has the option of escalating force.