re: #100 Daniel Ballard

Oh I understand that some have falsely claimed self defense. That’s why in a previous post I did advocate a narrowing of this law even though like some other I think it irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. Defining in actual threat would help. Excluding those who by their actions have demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict. Certainly life and limb, not property. This is not complete just a quick couple concepts. Nothing will be perfect. I endorse Castle doctrine for life and limb, but not property. I endorse the victims right to use force enough to overcome an attack.

I know you don’t support the right to use deadly force to defend property; I’d never lay that accusation against you.

Do you think Zimmerman, by following Trayvon demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict?