The Gun debate sandbox

I never said fleeing (even if remotely possible) was the only, ONLY ! legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression. You do a fine job of editing a premise and truncating it's context.

Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead. The perfect logic in this as reflected in state's rights is indisputable.

If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?

Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not brandishing it or revealing it in any way.

What Martin felt "threatened by" was Zimmerman's cell phone.

And that whole "stalking" bit is absurd.

Unlike Martin, Zimmerman actually had a legitimate purpose and had every business being where he was.

I'm NOT saying that Zimmerman handled the situation wisely! He was advised by the cops to stand down, and he should have... or at least kept a lot more distance!

But casting that encounter as "poor, innocent Martin who is just reacting legitimately to Zimmerman's 'aggression'" is flat-out ABSURD.

Martin died because Martin was a thug with a criminal record who initiated an assault against (to his mind) a smaller, older, unarmed man.

And in ANY state a defender is going to have cause to engage in deadly-force self-defense when his ASSAILANT is beating his head into the concrete!

your question is patently ridiculous on every level.

What's your source for that information?

He was following the kid with a gun. That could reasonably be termed stalking, couldn't it?

Martin lived there, and was returning from the store with tea and candy. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

Martin stood up to an armed THUG with a criminal record.

Gary, how do you propose that smaller/weaker (perhaps due to age or disability) persons defend themselves against physical assault?

The court found that Zimmerman produced and discharged his gun only after he was underneath and being savagely beaten by Martin.

"Reasonably?" Apparently not. Rather than for you and I to brandish our opinions about, the better alternative is to look at the court transcripts and findings. The court found that Zimmerman was not "stalking" in any legally-relevant sense. Martin (obviously) did not know Zimmerman was armed. To call a neighborhood-watch guy a "stalker" is pretty impressive!

"Returning home?" Is that how you're casting it? LOL

NOBODY with a knowledge of the public record of the incident could reasonably cast the incident that way.

I'm done with the Martin example. Next you'll be race-baiting with it.

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.

So to think, as you're getting out of this thread, that he with the firearm is making claim to a superior right to self-defense is really only half-assed logic. They're not claiming superior rights, just superior armament. Or at least equal armament. A fighting chance, so to speak.

But to think that none of us is capable of taking on that responsibility in a nonthreatening manner, with the requisite skill and judgement to have reasonable odds of successfully defending ourselves and our loved ones is... well, pathetic.

Gary, how do you propose that smaller/weaker (perhaps due to age or disability) persons defend themselves against physical assault?

In fact not one gun owner I know has ever sold a gun to someone they didn't know very well.