Fox News Readers: Trayvon Martin A ‘Little Thug Ghetto Monkey.’

[Leatherneck 693]

The man that shot the kid did not hunt him down. He in my opinion should not have gotten out as he had already called the police. He went back to see where the kid was at to let the police know. He should have stayed in the car. He got out and asked the kid something. The kid attacked the man as a witness even saw. The man had to defend himself at this point.

I agree with you here Luckytxn. However, if and when you get in somebodies face or challenge them about their conduct, unless you're law enforcement -- you better be prepared to take an azz whopping or give the other person an azz whopping. Mano y mano!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with you here Luckytxn. However, if and when you get in somebodies face or challenge them about their conduct, unless you're law enforcement -- you better be prepared to take an azz whopping or give the other person an azz whopping. Mano y mano!

But wait - isn't the logic of using lethal force when you feel threatened and clearly, Trayvon Martin felt threatened? Zimmerman did not personally feel threatened by Martin at the point he called the police.

Can anyone else see the potential problem with lethal force in a situation where you have two gun owners, both 'feeling' threatened by the other. For example, if you were carrying a gun in the middle of the night and some stranger started to approach you, what would you do? Would you draw your weapon?

[luckytxn 2,263]

But wait - isn't the logic of using lethal force when you feel threatened and clearly, Trayvon Martin felt threatened? Zimmerman did not personally feel threatened by Martin at the point he called the police.

Can anyone else see the potential problem with lethal force in a situation where you have two gun owners, both 'feeling' threatened by the other. For example, if you were carrying a gun in the middle of the night and some stranger started to approach you, what would you do? Would you draw your weapon?

Well in Flagstaff if two strangers near each other at night they more than likely will head to the bushes.

[Harsh_77 716]

Murders happen every day in this country. Here in sunny Florida, we just quit prosecuting the murderers. Whether the victim is an innocent child, whether the victim is veteran that served his country honorably. Doesn't matter. The rights of cold blooded killers to kill as they desire and see fit just matter more in this state than the lives of innocent people. That's the real tragedy.

Wait until you have complete details of the case, so far police has not released complete details and media just picked up on it and made a breaking news.

As per new details zimmerman had bloody face and from witness statement Kid was in fact sitting on top of him punching him.

[Leatherneck 693]

But wait - isn't the logic of using lethal force when you feel threatened and clearly, Trayvon Martin felt threatened? Zimmerman did not personally feel threatened by Martin at the point he called the police.

Can anyone else see the potential problem with lethal force in a situation where you have two gun owners, both 'feeling' threatened by the other. For example, if you were carrying a gun in the middle of the night and some stranger started to approach you, what would you do? Would you draw your weapon?

The standard is not "feeling threatened" or if you "feel threatened," in a lethal force situation. The standard is generally much higher than how one 'feels,' I say "generally" because each state has different standards.

Generally criminal law allows for the use of deadly/lethal force when a victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or serious bodily harm to him/her.

I would rather have 'stand your ground' laws than the nonsense standard we've had to live with for many years -- like a victim having to 'retreat' from the perp before using lethal force. Now, the standard that requires a victim to 'retreat' is just outright moonbat lunacy.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The standard is not "feeling threatened" or if you "feel threatened," in a lethal force situation. The standard is generally much higher than how one 'feels,' I say "generally" because each state has different standards.

In FL, that's all it takes. A reasonable believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to defend oneself or another from death or great bodily harm. They lowered the bar 7 years ago and "justifiable homicides" have skyrocketed since. After all, there's always only one person that can attest to whether or not one reasonably believed to have been in danger - the killer. Just don't shoot a cop. Then you're toast. Everyone else is fair game. Shoot them all and let God sort them out. Welcome to the Sunshine State.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The standard is not "feeling threatened" or if you "feel threatened," in a lethal force situation. The standard is generally much higher than how one 'feels,' I say "generally" because each state has different standards.

Generally criminal law allows for the use of deadly/lethal force when a victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or serious bodily harm to him/her.

I would rather have 'stand your ground' laws than the nonsense standard we've had to live with for many years -- like a victim having to 'retreat' from the perp before using lethal force. Now, the standard that requires a victim to 'retreat' is just outright moonbat lunacy.

Okay, so in a 'stand your ground' scenario with two people who are carrying weapons in the middle of the night and happen to cross paths, what happens? You know, both of them are going to draw their weapons if they are smart. Any perceived threat will be treated as such. They might not initially use deadly force but you can hopefully see how quickly things could escalate based on both of their own perceived feeling of being threatened or in danger.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay, so in a 'stand your ground' scenario with two people who are carrying weapons in the middle of the night and happen to cross paths, what happens? You know, both of them are going to draw their weapons if they are smart. Any perceived threat will be treated as such. They might not initially use deadly force but you can hopefully see how quickly things could escalate based on both of their own perceived feeling of being threatened or in danger.

It doesn't take two packing participants. The one packing can kill the one not packing and still get away with it. Happens very regularly here. A father standing up for kids on a playground? Boom. Shot dead in front of his kid and other kids. No big deal. The other guy was packing and the father stood in his way to intimidate those kids. Here in FL, that father had it coming to him. And the shooter is in good shape. He felt scared, you know?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It doesn't take two packing participants. The one packing can kill the one not packing and still get away with it. Happens very regularly here. A father standing up for kids on a playground? Boom. Shot dead in front of his kid and other kids. No big deal. The other guy was packing and the father stood in his way to intimidate those kids. Here in FL, that father had it coming to him. And the shooter is in good shape. He felt scared, you know?

Are you referring to the father that chased a man who was already leaving the playground and then grabbed him. That guy was an idiot and doesn't serve your view well at all.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It doesn't take two packing participants. The one packing can kill the one not packing and still get away with it. Happens very regularly here. A father standing up for kids on a playground? Boom. Shot dead in front of his kid and other kids. No big deal. The other guy was packing and the father stood in his way to intimidate those kids. Here in FL, that father had it coming to him. And the shooter is in good shape. He felt scared, you know?

And that's an example of this 'feeling threatened' problem with these new laws. There seems to be no qualifications beyond the one using lethal force's own perception. You'd think that a person being unarmed would be an automatic disqualifier, but I guess to gun-toting, sissy-boy, paranoid types who can't stand up to anyone without their weapon in hand, anyone and everyone is a potential threat.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

My take on it and I believe a lot of peeps here in Alaska have the same look on it as this. If you really feel like your life is threatened then ya shoot the other guy. If you followed the guy and he kicked your a$$....well then don't be a p*ssy and shoot the guy, take your a$4 whipping like a man and next time you want to fck with someone you think twice about it but don't be pulling a piece unless you really think your going to die otherwise.

[Leatherneck 693]

Okay, so in a 'stand your ground' scenario with two people who are carrying weapons in the middle of the night and happen to cross paths, what happens? You know, both of them are going to draw their weapons if they are smart. Any perceived threat will be treated as such. They might not initially use deadly force but you can hopefully see how quickly things could escalate based on both of their own perceived feeling of being threatened or in danger.

Surely it would take more than just "...happen to cross paths." I think you really under estimate those that have consciously decided their safety is important enough to secure a CCW and carry a firearm. CCW holders understand the heavy burden of having to discharge a weapon in self defense (there are exceptions) and the possible legal fallout, thugs and criminals do not have the same regard.

My point is this -- I don't see your scenario playing out in real life, except where one of those involved is possibly a criminal. CCW holders usually don't draw their weapons at the first sign of 'somethings not right' however, they do get prepared to do so, that's what I do -- it's called situational awareness.

[Leatherneck 693]

It doesn't take two packing participants. The one packing can kill the one not packing and still get away with it. Happens very regularly here. A father standing up for kids on a playground? Boom. Shot dead in front of his kid and other kids. No big deal. The other guy was packing and the father stood in his way to intimidate those kids. Here in FL, that father had it coming to him. And the shooter is in good shape. He felt scared, you know?

For too many years we had it the way you want it to revert back to -- look how that served us, criminals gone wild. Was it ok with you when folks were shot dead because the state wouldn't allow the use of lethal force unless the victim first retreated? That old standard got a lot more folks killed than stand your ground has.

I think reasonable folks would agree having to "retreat" in the face of death or serious bodily injury is a very flawed standard, if not outright lunacy. A mental patient must have developed that concept of "retreat" before using lethal force.

[Leatherneck 693]

My take on it and I believe a lot of peeps here in Alaska have the same look on it as this. If you really feel like your life is threatened then ya shoot the other guy. If you followed the guy and he kicked your a$....well then don't be a p*ssy and shoot the guy, take your a$4 whipping like a man and next time you want to fck with someone you think twice about it but don't be pulling a piece unless you really think your going to die otherwise.

Well said and that has been my stance on this. If you step to another man or woman and get a good ole fashion beat-down, just take your azz whopping and lick your wounds later. I really do not think self defense should be allowed as a legal defense where one caused or instigated a situation to the point of needing to resort to deadly force to save his azz. In the old days, we called such a person a trouble-maker.

Lethal force and a lethal force legal defense should be reserved for those that are defending their lives or the lives of others from an aggressor, in which the person using lethal force did not first make an overt contribution toward the aggressor.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Well said and that has been my stance on this. If you step to another man or woman and get a good ole fashion beat-down, just take your azz whopping and lick your wounds later. I really do not think self defense should be allowed as a legal defense where one caused or instigated a situation to the point of needing to resort to deadly force to save his azz. In the old days, we called such a person a trouble-maker.

Lethal force and a lethal force legal defense should be reserved for those that are defending their lives or the lives of others from an aggressor, in which the person using lethal force did not first make an overt contribution toward the aggressor.

Back in the day my brother and I went to the Eagles club to give my step dad a beat down. The plan was I get him out of the bar and my brother would come from behind and knock him upside the head with the baseball bat. I got him outside the bar, my brother stayed behind the truck (he chickened out) and I got the beat down of my life. A cop parked across the street watched the entire thing. When the cop saw I was close to losing my teeth he finally rolled across the street and pulled up next to us. I was lying in the snow covered in blood with my step day still wailing on me. The cop rolled down the window and said I'm going to give you boys three choices; 1) "You can stop this sh*t and go back inside the bar. 2) you can get in your rigs and head home (so much for DWI back then), or 3) I can run both of you boys in and let the magistrate handle it."

I went in the bar to clean up, my step dad bought me a shot of tequila and a bud, and the next day I beat the holy ####### out of my brother.