The rule of proportional force takes account of situations like Zimmerman and the 90 year old lady. Lethal threat can be whatever might present a particular victim with a legitimate expectation of serious bodily harm or death. But an older man getting fiesty with a younger man, but no realistic prospect of serious harm, will not be seen as sufficient agression to justify the younger man pulling a gun. These are old rules. Proportional force goes way back into the common law. If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.
Gun advocates and owners (and I am both) must use restraint and discretion. It’s the difference between the foolish martial artist who is anxious to beat someone up just because he can, versus the wise martial artist who wouldn’t harm a fly unless there were no other options.
Seek peace with everyone. Only use lethal force as the last possible resort. But if you do have to shoot that home invader, the first thing you should say when the police arrive is, “I was in fear for my life,” assuming of course you really were. Make a point of it. Your lawyer will thank you.
“Rodriguez (pro-Obama) told police that he wasn’t interested in discussing politics and told Williams (anti-obama), “People like you should be shot,” according to police.”
So Rodriquez admitted to police he said that before the scuffle. Then the scuffle, and perhaps it looked like he was reaching for a weapon and Williams pulled his gun. Seems a case of “rather be tried by 12 than shot”.
Of course this situation is far different than an intruder in one’s home, but here in Washington state, the presence of an intruder in your home is enough to shoot him.
“If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.”
Ok, then how do you defend yourself against the knockout game.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945577/posts
According to your theory no one is allowed to defend their
self until after they are attacked. That’s B/S. I’ve had
cops pull their gun out when approaching my vehicle at night
for not signaling a right turn. I was a perceived threat
and so was the old man in the article. And just because
a person is old doesn’t mean they can’t cause bodily harm.
If you are the first person to raise an act of aggression you lose. That’s common sense. At least in Texas anyway.
I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say but I
believe it fly’s in the face of “stand your ground” laws.
My theory is that the old guy smarted off about the young
guys bumper sticker and an argument ensued. Whether baited
into or not the old guy probably threatened the younger guy
with some form of bodily harm, making himself a perceived
threat and out comes the heat. On the other hand the young
guy could be the “foolish martial artist” with his first
gun. Sill a good defense can be made on the grounds of a
perceived threat of bodily harm.
Oh yea, keep your mouth shut and don’t admit to anything.
Your lawyer will thank you.
To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway: "Never pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you."