Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
That's a much easier question to answer as everyone has a right to defend themselves. Really what this comes down to is simply as Grandpa Redneck says, shoot the dirt bag or not. I agree that if you feel threatened then any use of force including lethal may be permissible under the law, but for me personally, I would only play that card as a last resort. Owning a firearm comes with some serious responsibility and the ability to be cool in a tense situation. I for one would not want the death of another on my conscience unless I was absolutely convinced at the time I had no other choice. I sincerely believe that is the intent of law.
Anyone that decides to play vigilante and the situation ensues/escalates to the point of a fatality, well that's a different story. Far as that Martin case goes, it's easy to play on emotion, nobody wants to see a kid get killed needlessly no matter their race. Is that what really happened? Who knows, with any luck the cops will make a decision to prosecute or not based on the evidence, not because of the pressure put on by the lunatics running around convicting the shooter without even having any first hand knowledge of what really happened. Lynch mob mentality is every bit as wrong as vigilantism.
|
i agree i would also only KILL if it was a last resort, but like the ward bird case and this case. NO ONE IS DEAD, ward bird never fired a shot, and fleming only fired one into the ground. therefore by a legal standpoint, both are totally fine by law. as long as fleming had a permit for the gun. hell he can say he was doing some target practice or what ever, last time i checked, with proper permits, you can fire a gun on your own property. so what the hell was he arrested for? i shake my heads at the officer who did the arresting and at the AG, you are a fool.