re: #95 Obdicut

But what you’re championing is actually something to prevent people from becoming victims, by that definition. Which is a perfectly admirable goal.

But the point is that the same thing can be claimed— and has been claimed— by people who there is at least enormous doubt as to whether or not they really were being attacked, or attacked to the level that they needed to use the force that they did.

Like the gang members who returned fire with other gang members, and killed a passer-by.

And sadly for responsible CCW holders, Zimmerman was a CCW holder— and still is, for that matter. It can be argued he was a bad apple, but one thing I’ve been often assured is that CCW permits are only issued to people who really demonstrate the calmness and sensibility to hold one. This guy clearly did not. He was an accident waiting to happen.

I also think that the root— often an expressed root— of many Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground advocates (and this does NOT include you) is a belief that it is okay to use deadly force to defend property. This is actually in law in Texas.

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.