Posted on 03/28/2012 8:08:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Exhibit A on why liberals seldom go into police work -- Ed Schultz's chat with a like-minded caller to his radio show yesterday about the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
To the caller, it was "cut and dry" that Zimmerman murdered Martin during their confrontation in Sanford, Fla., last month. (audio)
CALLER: Hey, what is it about the right that just can't be wrong about something? This whole Trayvon Martin deal is just driving me nuts. It's cut and dry. The guy brought a gun to the fight. The kid was just walking home. You know, a scuffle ensues because this guy pursued him and he shoots the kid. That's, that's murder ...
SCHULTZ: Well, well, here, here, here's the thing. So what if Trayvon Martin hit him?
CALLER: That's exactly. So what if ...
SCHULTZ: So what if he, uh, broke his nose?
CALLER: I, I agree.
In fairness to Schultz, he does have a point. It is, after all, universally known that if a person has been punched, his nose broken, the assailant then slamming his head repeatedly on pavement, the assault will definitely end right there and go no further. Every person in this situation can be certain of that -- not to worry, the worst is over, just ride it out and wait for your assailant to tire himself out. Only a matter of time, no doubt about that, and your survival is all but ensured. The last thing a victim should do is allow the situation to escalate into violence.
Let me see if I have this straight -- Rush Limbaugh verbally assails a foot-stomping perpetual student who demands her Jesuit law school give her free contraception, and it's a crime against humanity. Schultz takes Zimmerman at his word, if only momentarily, and says he should have accepted getting physically assailed -- and that it was criminal of Zimmerman to defend himself.
Fortunately for Schultz, Zimmerman isn't a radical Muslim, thus sparing Schultz considerable confusion...
When democrats collide.
End the DNC’s war on Hispanics and Catholics.
You know, if someone has broken your nose and is repeatedly smashing the back of your head into a concrete sidewalk without any apparent intention of stopping, I would seriously say that your life is in immediate danger. A skull crushed into fragments will do it every time. Imagine that your assailant is between 6’ and 6’ 3” and fit, you are 5’7” and out of shape.
never bring a fist to a gunfight,
What is being said, however, is that Trayvon threatened to kill Zimmerman and went for Zimmerman’s gun. These elements, in addition to the pummeling, justify Zimmerman firing his weapon in self-defense. Still, if it were possible, Zimmerman should have shot to wound. Under these circumstance’s, Trayvon’s death is a tragic accident. Remove one or two of the elements of self-defense, and we’re talking manslaughter. Remove enough of the elements, and we’re talking murder. The police on the scene that the wasn’t enough elements to arrest Zimmerman on the spot and the District Attorney has empaneled a grand jury to see if there is probable cause. The system is working the way it should.
Why don't you guys read the police reports. Zimmerman did NOT confront TM, it was the other way around. Zimmerman lost sight of TM and was heading back to his truck, as confirmed by 911 calls, when TM confronted him. It was a case of assault by the kid from start to finish. As for Zimmerman following the kid for a distance he had a perfect right to do so, he did nothing to warrant an attack by TM, except for the Black Male macho code which requires them to get in the face(Up in his grill)of someone they perceive has "dissed" them.
Shooting to wound is illegal if you are a CCW holder. If you are justified in shooting then you shoot to kill because you fear for your life. Shooting to wound implies you had no fear of your life, therefore you had no right to shoot. Shooting to wound only happens in old 1940s western movies.
From Zimmerman’s lawyer, I think we can say that Zimmerman wishes to God he had only wounded Trayvon.
In the case you describe, when a civilian is dealing with an intruder or with somebody threatening your life or the life of another, you shot to stop. Usually this means you shot at the center of mass or torso. An element of proof that you shot to stop, rather than to kill, is, having stopped the other person, did you continue to shoot into him or did you take any steps such as immediately calling 9-1-1 to bring in medical attention.
You use the word “fear.” Just to be sure, the standard is reasonable belief that your life or the life of another is imperiled. This could be what you mean in your use of the word fear. If you’re reacting emotionally, you’re risking a manslaughter.
Here’s some good advice regarding the use of a concealed weapon:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Again, from what I can tell, the legal authorities have been conducting themselves correctly in this matter.
Or did you just sign-up two days ago to stir the pot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.