jad0110
Member
Quote:
Posted by henschman: ...if you are carrying concealed and someone attacks you physically but without a weapon, at what point are you "sufficiently" in fear of death or serious bodily injury to draw and fire? I know it depends on a lot of things, but how long would you wait?
Generally speaking, one may not "draw and fire" in defense against an attack by persons without weapons* except under one of the following circumstances:
The defender is female, and the attacker male.
The attaker is fit, and the attacker, aged or infirm; size may enter into the equation.
The attacker is known by the defender to be hightly proficient in martial arts.
The defender is outnumbered.
Also depends on the state. In mine, regardless of whether or not the aggressor is armed with a weapon, if your life is in fact in immediate danger (or at the very least their is a very realistic threat of serious bodily harm), from the "reasonable person" perspective, deadly force can be justified in self defense. If the aggressor has a weapon he is employing against you, it makes your claim easier to support and harder for the state to prosecute you. Best bet is to stay alert and avoid trouble if at all possible to begin with though.
In my state, if an aggressor repeatedly slams a person's head into the concrete, that could be construed as a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Real life isn't like the movies, where the good guy and the baddie trade blows to the head with tire irons and hammers. In real life, such things can very easily result in death. But sadly, most people don't live in reality and they think .45s will blow a man 20 feet backwards and blows to the head with a lead pipe only cause superficial scratches to the hero.
Now in this case, we weren't there and we really don't know what happened. We don't know who did what to whom first, and what the subsequent chain of events was and in what order they occurred. Given the information that is out there, it really is clear as mud. The state of FL has the burden of proof, as always, and the standard for convicting Zimmerman is high (beyond a reasonable doubt). Unless they have an ace up their sleeve the public doesn't know about (which could well be), the evidence just doesn't convince me that it wasn't self defense. May not have been, of course, but I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt." Perhaps I will be as time passes.
I'll just wait patiently and see.