Interesting facts (truth)coming out about Trayvon

[-SD-]

the topic at hand is whether the law imposes a greater level of duty on an individual to avoid altercations. In my state it definitely looks like it does..even in Fl SYG applies when you feel your life or someone else's is in immediate danger. If Zmmerman really was getting his head bashed into the ground and was able to get up and try to move away and Trayvon continued to assault him...he was definitely in the right to shoot him, even if he provoked the fight. If Trayvon was leaving the area and he still shot him than SYG does not apply. Where is our misunderstanding?

If someone in a bar starts a fight with you, even if there's the possibility of just leaving if you fight back within a reasonable amount of time you're in the clear. So that shows it is a different standard between fists and armed confrontation. Even in Fl SYG only applies if someone is coming at you with the intent to maim or kill...you have to show that definitively. If someone is just yelling swear words at you and draw on him that does not fall under SYG. And if you provoke a fist fight you are also not covered under SYG to escalate to deadly force unless you can show you disengaged and the other guy then became the aggressor..only then does SYG refresh.

The standard for drawing down on someone is "reasonable fear for ones life". If Brock Lesnar starts a bar fight with me, I can reasonably draw down without any higher standard even if brock doesnt have a gun. So in any given fight situation the justification to draw down can change very fast. If joe blow breaks a bottle and threatens to cut a bitch, I can draw down justifiable. In TX I do not have a duty to retreat whether Im armed or not. The only duty is "reasonable fear for my life or that of a 3rd partys life".
But once again, if Im starting shit with people and it escalates to where they are justifiably threatening me with bodily harm, I cant justifiably draw down. But that would be the case whether I was armed not so once again we are back to there being no higher standard for this whether there is a CCW or not.

Cant start shit and expect to be justified drawing down on someone when they defend, retaliate.
Cant start shit and expect to be justified kicking someones ass when they defend, retaliate.

 

[themondtster]

My CW instructer said it doesn't matter who it is, if threatened(by an unarmed person) you must declare that you are either uncomfortable or threatened and that you're armed. If they take one more step towards armed or not you can shoot. But then its up to you to prove justification of no witness. Even with someone following you in parking lot and gives you a weird feeling, you turn and tell them to stop and that you are armed(do not brandish). If they continue then you can draw. And if they continue to advance you may defend. But then again you must justify and if no witnesses it could be trouble. His advice was if it can be avoided to just go on.

So this is what's going on now. George has to prove that it was defense or was it provoked.

Also SD not sure what the law is called but I like it. The one in Texas about intruders in your home. Shoot to Kill or something.

 

[themondtster]

Also about the bar fight comment, we were told that the only place you're allowed to have a weapon where they serve alcohol are consenting restaurants. Even if you're not drinking.

 

[jnevin]

I don't know shit about gun laws, don't own a gun. I know Utah has laws that are seemingly pro gun owner on paper, but if people actually pull or use their firearm they seem to be prosecuted more often than not. There was a guy here that owned a gun store and was driving through a neighborhood too fast. Some guys chased him down and when he got to the end of the street they cornered him. One guy smashed his taillight with a rock and held on to it and walked toward the douche. He told them to stop and he was armed, they didn't stop, and he pulled his gun. He got prosecuted and lost his license to sell guns.

I don't know shit about this, but I know the results.

 

[mrplunkey]

My CW instructer said it doesn't matter who it is, if threatened(by an unarmed person) you must declare that you are either uncomfortable or threatened and that you're armed. If they take one more step towards armed or not you can shoot. But then its up to you to prove justification of no witness. Even with someone following you in parking lot and gives you a weird feeling, you turn and tell them to stop and that you are armed(do not brandish). If they continue then you can draw. And if they continue to advance you may defend. But then again you must justify and if no witnesses it could be trouble. His advice was if it can be avoided to just go on.

So this is what's going on now. George has to prove that it was defense or was it provoked.

Also SD not sure what the law is called but I like it. The one in Texas about intruders in your home. Shoot to Kill or something.

Use of deadly force in your home generally falls under what is called the "Castle Doctrine".

 

[themondtster]

I don't know shit about gun laws, don't own a gun. I know Utah has laws that are seemingly pro gun owner on paper, but if people actually pull or use their firearm they seem to be prosecuted more often than not. There was a guy here that owned a gun store and was driving through a neighborhood too fast. Some guys chased him down and when he got to the end of the street they cornered him. One guy smashed his taillight with a rock and held on to it and walked toward the douche. He told them to stop and he was armed, they didn't stop, and he pulled his gun. He got prosecuted and lost his license to sell guns.

I don't know shit about this, but I know the results.

See here if pulled gun out and warned them first, he has to give them a chance to leave. If they advance he has the right to defend but can be subjected to prosecution which is why its best to try and avoid if possible. Like my CW instructor said, if you think your life is in danger its better to be alive and take your chance in court later then to be dead and leave your loved ones behind.

My aunt had a friend who was downtown at night. A homeless man jumped in his truck and tried to car jack telling him he had a gun. The guy paniced and pulled his gun and shot the homeless man in the head. Police couldn't find a weapon on the homeless guy. So not only did he catch a manslaughter charge but also became HIV positive from the blood splattered on him. Sux but sometimes defending yourself can turn on you, especially if you don't use your better judgement.



Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness

 

[redsamurai]

Use of deadly force in your home generally falls under what is called the "Castle Doctrine".

This is not about castle doctrine dude, there is no debate that if someone comes into your home you don't have to announce your intentions politely or nothin...and that's the way it ought to be. This Zimmerman issue has nothing to do with CD so stop bringing it up

 

[redsamurai]

wow so the dude jumps into the back of his truck and verbally threatens deadly force and they still prosecuted the guy? that doesn't sound just whatsoever. Your vehicle is considered like your house from what i've been reading so i thought CD would apply in a situation like that.

 

[jnevin]

We'll just call him insane...

A Look at Super Dell Schanze's Life | ksl.com

 

[redsamurai]

So plunkey..now we have someone in this thread who's actually been through CW training and is posting what he was taught. Are you going to continue your line of arguing despite not having done one sentence of your own research and basically blowing it out your ass yet again. The notion that the law would treat armed and unarmed conflicts the same should strike the normal rational person as utterly absurd. Why on earth would you think that your individual responsability while armed amounts to the same as if you were walking down the street unarmed and skipping like a fag? It's precisely people like you that shouldn't be allowed to really have any sort of firearm at all let alone be able to conceal. You don't get it, you don't get the responsability. Do you feel that if you can walk around in a video game with an assault rifle that what's the big deal with this whole CW thing? I'm all for citizens being armed until it comes down to people like you who think it's just another free market right that comes with as much responsability as walking down teh street with an ice cream cone.