Why not? Most people don't react by attacking someone who addresses them.Tero wrote:I hope some more legislation comes after the case. Obviously we are not going to take guns away from gun enthusiasts (aka nuts). But, I woulk like to see involvement in other people's business while you have the gun minimized. Do not approach the people, do not speak to them.
You'd prefer they shoot both? Really?Do not judge which of two people you need to shoot.
Actually, I am. So are many others.You are not trained for that.
And have my head smashed on the sidewalk or allow someone to do so to someone else? No thanks.Shoot neither.
Even if Martin, being on top, was legitimately fighting with a criminal, his right to use lethal force is limited by the law, and I'm not going to stand around and watch him crack someone's skull open unless I perceive that a lesser degree of force is inadequate. And in such a situation, any reasonable person would cease such force as soon as others are able to come to their aid and help subdue the criminal.
It's a complex situation that is not amenable to generalized rules of conduct. Things in such situations are very fluid and the instant that one is justified in using lethal force may come and go very quickly. Thus it behooves the armed citizen to be extremely careful in using lethal force, but one is still permitted to act on appearances and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.
For example, let's hypothesize that I come upon Martin on top of Zimmerman and he's banging his head on the concrete. Zimmerman appears to be flaccid and unconscious but Martin says "He's got a gun!" My response is still going to be to order Martin to stop what he's doing and if necessary us my weapon to enforce that command because if Zimmerman is not actively fighting back or visibly brandishing a weapon, then Martin does NOT have lawful authority to KEEP banging his head against the concrete. His legal authority to do so would be limited to putting a stop to the threat and no more. He can't knock Z unconscious, take his pistol and then shoot him in the head. That's murder.
But if Martin is on top of Zimmerman and they are actively fighting and Martin appears to have the upper hand when Z pulls his gun I'm not going to shoot either of them before commanding BOTH of them to stop fighting and drop the weapon. And in that situation the one who does NOT stop attacking the other, knowing that there is an armed third party present to assist whomever is engaging in lawful self-defense rather than unlawful attack, is likely to be the perpetrator not the victim. And even if Martin IS the initial victim, if Z drops his gun and surrenders on my command and Martin continues to bash his head on the sidewalk, then the situation has instantly reversed itself and it is again Martin who is engaged in conduct that raises a reasonable belief that he is about to kill or seriously injure another, which, if he fails to stop, justifies the use of lethal force against him.
Guess what...I have a legal right to meddle and will do so when and where I believe it's reasonable and necessary to do so.even if you point the gun and speak, you are already meddling.
Indeed they do. So what?Cops, trained, sometimes shoot the wrong person.
My liberty to move freely about in my own, gated, private community isn't to be infringed by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to traipse about.If you sit in your truck and they come after you, drive off or shoot if you really have to.
If you don't want to be approached and questioned about your activities in my community, then don't walk in my community.
