Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Can we pease stop advocating murder in the gungeon? [View all]jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)blueridge: No one has advocated shooting and killing someone who has tackled another.
GGjohn said it would be justified, if daniels had pulled out his gun & shot: (GGJohn): I thought that those with CHL's were just itching to pull their gun and shoot someone. Guess Clarence Daniels didn't get the memo. This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.
blueridge: The author of the other OP {GGJohn} noted that the individual who committed the unprovoked assault was lucky to be alive as the victim was justified in defending himself from an unprovoked attack. As the victim was armed the defense could possibly have included the use of deadly force. Someone else picked up on that and attempted to categorize the behavior as "murder".
A lot of this argument hinges on where & when the assault occurred, & how the assailant appeared.
White assailant attacked black victim daniels in the lobby of a walmart, I believe in daylight(?), in full view of dozens of walmart shoppers, with the fairly obvious belief he thought he was preventing a crime in the making, as assailant had seen black man daniels earlier with a concealed pistol (legal, unbeknownst to assailant). Misguided assailant did not appear to have a gun.
In light of the circumstances, it's hard to justify daniels pulling out his gun to defend himself, thus overreacting to a physical assault as well as endangering bystanders with his gun, or possibly having assailant grab gun & shoot, someone. Daniels likely thought he was safe enough in the walmart lobby, had no desire to draw his firearm, likely far from his mind.
Had the assault taken place in an isolated area, with none to few witnesses, victim daniels could more likely claim self defense, for obvious reasons. But then, more likely to be in a damned if he draws, damned if he doesn't, scenario. (good argument against carrying concealed).
So GGJohn is wrong to contend daniels would've been 'fully justified in defending himself', as 'deadly force' was not really justified to avoid assailant's punches. GGJohn has overreacted, tho I can't fully agree that he's advocating murder, except in an offhand way.
donP: I'm sure every black man in the South that's suddenly attacked by a younger white man knows he doesn't really mean him any harm and should just sit back and take the beating, right? {sarcasm tag}
That is such a dumb fucking concept I don't even know where to start with the weasels suggesting that he didn't have the right or need to defend himself. After all he was just tackled, right? No biggie.
So then was trayvon martin justified in assaulting Zimmerman? trayvon's stalker? Was zimm justified in shooting martin? or is it just another 'no biggie'.
Daniels indeed had every right to defend himself. It's with what & how much, that is the concern.