The second amendment right,does stand your ground make sense?

1. 59

   mio cidposted 12 years ago

   For what I heard on the reports on the Trayvon Martin case the police didn't arrest Zimmerman because they considered he acted in self defense.they seemed to conclude that his description of the situation to the police officers were consistent with what they saw at the scene. Let's suppose for a moment that what they saw is exactly as he said, that there had been a fight, and that he presented a broken nose and scrapes on the back of his head, and wet and green stains on the back of his jacket.It is my understanding that in that case he really thought his life was in danger and he shot Trayvon dead,and would have committed no crime because he killed him in self defense according to stand your ground.Now let's suppose on the other hand that Trayvon Martin had a license to carry a gun  and was actually carrying one at the time, and he is walking back from the store and a man in a car is following him, gets out of the car and keeps following him on foot, words are exchanged and a fight ensues ,Trayvon pulls out his gun and shoots Zimmerman dead,because if they are in a fight and this well built guy a hundred pounds heavier and more muscular is beating him to a pulp and he is really in fear for his life.(let's not even bring up the fact that one is black and one is white and we know that  a black man who just killed somebody and a white man in the same situation are not treated the same way, just for argument's sake)In that case Trayvon would also be innocent of any wrong doing according to stand your ground.DO YOU NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?So what happens if everyone on  the street is carrying a gun and upon any dispute or argument if a fight happens to start people feel afraid for their life and start shooting each other?There is no way you can convince me this makes sense in 2012 America.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In your scenario Martin is indeed in the right.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         mattforteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed.
         In your scenario, you are saying one person is in the right...but then you present another scenario that is in essence, the same scenario - and saying that the person is not right.
         Sounds hypocritical to me.
         
         So no, I don't see anything wrong with that. If I happen to have a gun, and my life is in danger, I sure as hell hope not to have to choose jail or death. Shoot the bastard and let me go free.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think you don't understand what i'm saying, in both cases the scenario is the same and the outcome is the same and both persons are innocent, no hypocrisy here. so you think it's ok everybody carries a gun and any argument can end up in a fight that can evolve into a gunfight  and we'll just have endless number of shootouts like if we were living in a real life spaghetty  western movie.really?

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Either you'll have the spaghetti western scenario or a lot more people that are reluctant to throw that first punch simply because they're insulted or "disrespected" somehow.  If I knew that some guy was in the legal right to kill me (and might be packing a weapon) if I punched him in the face for insulting my wife I would think twice about doing it, drunk or sober.
               
               The problem, I think, is that "fear for your life" thing.  I don't find it reasonable to tell someone they are competent to carry a gun for self defense but at the same time they are murderers if they kill someone regardless of the reason.
               
               Nor is it reasonable to set them free if they provoke someone else into throwing a punch.  That's not fearing for your life, but what is?  Should it be left vague and interpreted at each instance?  Should it be better defined, while trying to cover a 5' woman being struck by a 250 pound drunken man?  Should we simply disregard our constitution and jail anyone found with a gun?
               
               Sorry, I don't see any good answer.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Equally at what point does it become reasonable to use your weapon? Do you have to have broken bones etc? It's a tough one really, I have seen someone die in fist fight it happens all the time.

      replyreport
2. 66

   Michael Willisposted 12 years ago

   I see two different situations in this.
   
   1st: How can Zimmerman say he feared for his life and had no choice but to kill Trayvon,(he could have left it up to the police after the 911 call) when...He is the one who iniated the act? I see Trayvon as self-defense in the fight(if there was one). No case for "stand your ground" here.
   
   2nd: Legal license to carry weapon and a man follows you and then pursues you on foot and is very much larger person than you then attacks you. You would fear for your life and this case could be considered as "stand your ground."

   replyreport