The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: "Duty to retreat."

(See in situ)

wolfe's picture

"Duty to retreat."

Here's why. At least according to Florida law. The use of lethal force in self defense requires that you are either unable to retreat or that a retreat is unlikely to terminate the situation.

Lethal self defense does not mean able to kill someone just because they are an aggressor.

Both Zimmerman and Trayvon had a duty to retreat against aggressive actions if they deemed it likely to bear fruit.

Trayvon's retreat when Zimmerman appeared to be an aggressor would have ended the situation.

It's harder to argue that Zimmerman, after the physical encounter occurred, could have reasonably retreated.

Self defense also generally means that equal/appropriate force is applied. Meaning, once Zimmerman stopped being a threat, Trayvon should have stopped beating him.

I have refrained from posting on any of these topics because I consider both Trayvon and Zimmerman to be in the wrong.

Whether Zimmerman should have went to jail, well, innocent until proven guilty. But just because he may not have been found guilty, does not make him any less wrong or a less of a jerk.

There are no good guys here. In any encounter, there rarely is a "good guy". Good guys usually don't put themselves in these situations.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -