General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman. [View all]anomiep
(153 posts)That's likely because that *isn't* the law - the standard is a reasonable person.
If a five year old starts swinging at me, unless that five year old is *actually* the strongest kid in the world, it is not actually reasonable for me to think that a five year old hitting you is danger of great bodily harm, and it's pretty easy to argue that, beyond a reasonable doubt, getting hit by a five year old does not cause a reasonable person fear of death or great bodily harm.
Now, put an axe in that five year old's hands - maybe. I don't think it would be reasonable for an adult to shoot in that situation, though, either, because it's going to be pretty easy to just grab the axe from a five year old, but the point is it's all about the circumstances.
There are examples of shootings where the person shot was unarmed and beating up the person who shot, who were no-billed or acquitted. Some were, of course, in states that weren't Florida but had similar standards.
There was a case in Texas where someone in a Porsche had (minorly, imho) sideswiped someone. A different guy, in a different Porsche, who knew nothing about the original accident, saw that Porsche pass him and turn off the road.
The second Porsche rolled up into traffic, and the original vehicle that had been sideswiped caught up to the second Porsche. He mistakenly thought it was the Porsche that had sideswiped him. So he got out of his vehicle and started hitting the guy driving the second porsche in the head, through the window.
The second Porsche driver had a concealed handgun. He stated that he dizzy and could not stop the guy from hitting him. He could not drive away because of the traffic (and, imho, trying to move the car may well be deadly force in a situation like that anyway). He pulled a firearm and shot the attacker. The guy who was driving the second Porsche was, if I remember right, no billed by a grand jury - precisely because he could state all of those factors (getting dizzy, etc) that showed a reasonable fear of great bodily injury.