Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
That's simply not the way it works.
You also have to define initiate. A neighbourhood watch captain questioning a stranger on private property does not equate to initiating a physical confrontation. Certainly not to the extend that you can break someone's nose and continue to assault them while they are on the ground.
Even if he had initiated a physical confrontation, that does not give you a right to pummel somoene. You're expected to stop once the threat has been ended. And by threat, it has to be imminent harm. Someone following you, in itself, does not count as a threat that you are allowed to respond with physical violence too. Particularly when you are a guest on private property.
Perhaps Zimmerman did more than simply follow Martin, but, if that's the case, it still has to be proven in a court of law.
Edit: To put it more simply, there always has to be some proportionality in response. If one party escalates things the other has the right to self-defence regardless of who the initial aggressor was.
|
I think we know the way it works, at least most of us, what I'm saying is that I don't like it. If you initiate a confrontation while armed you should not get the benefit of pleading self defense when you kill someone with that weapon, or at the very least should have the onus put on you to prove the need to use deadly force, rather than being placed on the state.
And someone following you can certainly be responded to with physical violence in certain circumstances. You are not required to wait for someone to attack you.