since some question, in the Trayvon Martin case, maybe Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman.

Personally, I'd grab the gun, if I could, and shoot my aggressor.

But, she took the fight to me.

Always to blame for what ensues. There would be no death without the aggressive and wrongful action of the first party.

What do you mean by "cornered?" Do you mean imprisoned falsely, or just that one man is in the other's face?

Who escalated the scuffle from a verbal confrontation to a physical fight?

So, whose fault is it in that case someone ended up dead? The first man for aggressively pursuing a stranger, or the second man for defending himself against a man with a gun?

You can't pick a fight with someone and claim that you are acting in self-defense. There is a concept in the law known as "mutual combat," and what you have described here COULD be that or it could be an assault.

Brandishing a gun without justification is a crime.

Forcibly taking someone's gun without justification is a crime.

Shooting someone without justification is a crime.

It's all in the details. Reasonable people generally don't get into fights.

true, slackmaster.

If I was confronted with an aggressive person with a gun, had to place to run (I'd RUN first- I don't wanna shoot nobody) but, if we went mano a mano, and I could grab the gun, I'd shoot them. Not to kill, but I probably shoot them.

I have no idea who this person is to be questioning me.

to defend yourself. Should you just stand there and wait to get shot?

In this scenario, the second man was merely 'standing his ground' when he was threatened and defended himself. Under Florida's law, he did nothing wrong. But imo, even without that law, he was merely defending himself.

He had a permit to carry, but not any authority to use it for neighborhood patrol.

Even IF Trayvon hit him, George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. Who, I am sure, just wanted to make it home quickly in the rain.

I would have been terrified had I been that young man.

However, this likely won't apply if man #1 is white and man #2 is black.

If you go around stalking people, you are asking for SERIOUS trouble.

The PURPOSE of the "stand your ground" law is so that the SECOND person has a right to defend themselves from the HARASSING first person.

How else are they going to be able to know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It's plain as day that if man #2 was white and man #1 black that SPD would have exonerated #2, and would have done the exact opposite if the colors (and their underlying presumption of who represented crime and who represented order) were reversed.





Useful hypothetical....Thanks for posting.

a hypothetical is only as relevant as the point you want to make in a broad sense. since you're dealing with an altercation where details matter in the end (because of physical altercation, fog of melee, and eventual death that needs detail to determine self-defense), hypotheticals will only be as relevant as how you structure the scenario down the last detail. and at that point they will likely be structured to support your own bias, either consciously, or unconsciously. so in other words, this doesn't help any sort of discussion of the source topic much.

this isn't as helpful as you wanted, is it?

But thanks anyway.