If someone were chasing me and trying to rape me

[gollygee]

and I tried to defend myself and hit him in the nose, would it be legal for him to shoot me?

I'm just wondering in what circumstances someone is allowed to chase down and shoot someone because the person defends themselves.

I think the reason the gun nuts are behind Zimmerman is because they are a) racist and/or b) want all the rights of gun ownership and the right to carry a gun but absolutely no responsibility at all over what they do with their guns.

[NoOneMan]

1. Yes.

We are learning that when two people perceive their lives are in danger--despite who causes the situation--whoever executes the most lethality both wins and gets a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Of course, we must trust them on the perception bit too. Best murder loophole ever.

[yardwork]

2. Only if you are wearing a hoodie.

The scenario you describe is ok only if you you are perceived as a fucking punk (or other word) by the person who shoots you.

If somebody wearing a hoodie shoots somebody then all bets are off. Nobody will defend them.

[friendlyFRIEND]

3. It depends

on the state and the situation.

If a man is chasing you around the park because you dropped your debit card and he's trying to return it to you, and you think he's a mad rapist... if you assault him and put him in fear of his life/major injury yes he can shoot you.

However if a man actually assaults you or if you have reason to believe he will attack you, like holding a baseball bat over your head and saying "die bitch" then you can shoot him.

[gollygee]

4. So it would make a difference if I was wrong about the person's intent?

Does the fact that Zimmerman was wrong and Trayvon Martin really did belong in that neighborhood and was walking home make a difference then?

[friendlyFRIEND]

6. Yes and no

If Martin thought that Z was a child abductor and grabbed a shovel out of a landscaping shed and bashed Z's brains in, killing him... he would have misjudged Z's intent and would be liable.

In the Z/TM case the only thing that matters to the verdict is if Z can prove he was being beaten and thought the next blow might incapacitate him or kill him. That's the way the LAW is written.

However... this should prove that states like my own, California... are correct in allowing nearly ZERO concealed/open firearms carry. If this incident happened in Santa Monica the police would have arrived to the two wrestling on the ground and would have broken up a fistfight. Liability to who was in the right/wrong would have been sorted out later.

[lolly]

12. In other words, OP is correct

If someone chases you and is clearly hostile to you, and starts a fight and you defend yourself, the instigator of the altercation has every right to shoot you if he thought he was going to lose the fight.

[NickB79]

19. No. He has no "right" to shoot you if he's losing the fight

IF he's the one who actually instigated the fight, ie made physical contact first, cornered you and/or verbally threatened you with harm. If a bystander saw this and testified to police, the attacker would be charged with murder.

The attacker could ONLY attempt to claim self-defense if there were no witnesses to the crime and the evidence wasn't clear one way or another who started the fight. That doesn't mean they had a right to shoot their victim, only that there was no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

[friendlyFRIEND]

20. No

Unless...

You're asserting that Z approached TM, gun in hand... growled "You in da wrong neighborhood, kid" and proceeded to jump on TM and beat him and shoot him.

IF THAT WERE TRUE...

TM would be vindicated and Z would be a murderer.



Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever that Z ever struck TM and there is eyewitness and physical evidence supporting Z case.

Why can't we all just agree... what Z did was WRONG. It was unnecessary and cruel. It was probably biased.

But what he did may be LEGAL under current FL law.

[LittleBlue]

5. Chasing you, or in the act of raping you?

Someone following you, and your suspicion that said person is a rapist, doesn't make it legal for you to attack her/him. Defending yourself against an attacker makes you the victim, and you have every right to defend yourself.

If you attacked someone you suspected of being a rapist, he could shoot you dead if he had reason to believe you wanted to kill him or cause grievous bodily harm. If he threatened to rape you or was actually raping you, he could not shoot you in self defense, that would be murder.

[HockeyMom]

7. When we were followed in the subway

My Sensi friend said keep walking and say nothing. She didn't act at all until the man tried to grab her from behind. At that point he attacked her, BUT although she could have killed him with one blow, she didn't and just disabled him. Some people, gunners, think that would have been enough for her to kill him, preferably with a gun.

[LittleBlue]

8. No way

A disabling blow is not grievous bodily harm. If he attacked her, and she disabled him, and then he shot her, he would be rightly charged with murder.

[Yavin4]

15. How would you prove in court that the stalker / potential rapist said something threatening?

The potential rape victim would be dead, and the stalker / potential rapist could simply claim self defense.

[NickB79]

18. And that's why Zimmerman will probably walk

He's claiming to be the victim, and we have no witnesses to say otherwise.

[NickB79]

17. This right here.

Until physical contact is made, you are cornered and cannot retreat any further, or a clear verbal threat is made, you do NOT have the right to use physical force.

The moment he lays a finger on you though, and you reasonably fear for your life, you have the right to deliver an ass-whooping from Hell itself.

[HockeyMom]

21. Threat is in the eye of the beholder

Even after that jerk grabbed her, my friend the Sensi, still didn't fear for her life, and that is why she only threw him, and didn't KILL him with a lethal blow.

To go to Zimmerman. If he had a GUN, aswith my Sensi friend with her MA training, why fear someone else who doesn't have your advantage?

[rug]

9. No. And if you died it would be felony murder.

[mwrguy]

10. Only if you are a black kid and the rapist is a 'creepy cracker'

Then it's open season, and gun owners will rejoice.

[Warpy]

11. I'd scream bloody murder

and it sounds like Martin did just that.

[Yavin4]

13. Yes.

If your assailant feels threatened, then he/she has the right to kill you. At least in Florida that is.

[NutmegYankee]

16. The laws require that someone using lethal force in self defense not be engaging in illegal acts

Chasing a woman to rape her is very illegal (if only prosecutors had the balls to actually, you know, prosecute). It falls under the "egg shell skull" doctrine, wherein an attacker takes the victim as they found them. If the woman is a trained fighter, they get an ass beating. If they shoot the woman, they are guilty of murder. Not that they'd be super worried about that given the attempted rape.

Moral of the story - rip his throat out.

[HockeyMom]

22. Those 6 ft men ran

having a 5 ft woman throw him. Actually, I think that put more fear in them than if she did have a gun. Element of suprise there. Most men don't expect to be thrown to the ground by a female.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Nope.

It would be murder if they shot you.