Is the right to self defense an inherent right?

There is a right to self defense, this is recognized by social conventions and the legal system.
In the Zimmerman case, the legal system decided that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder.
However, decent society will shun Zimmerman, and he will lead an unhappy life, and in all likelihood suffer an early death, even though he escaped the judgment of the legal system, decent society will never allow him to thrive.
He will have difficulty finding work, finding a place to live, finding a place in society. Because he's a murderer, and society will punish him.

 

Excellent.

If I accept the premise that - ones "ownership" of something is determined by another's willingness or ability to take that thing away" - I would have to agree with you.

However, I don't agree that my life only belongs to be - to the extent that others are willing to allow for me to continue to live it.

Like many other living creatures, I would take one of theirs in defense of my own.

Or, I would die trying.... but I hope you can appreciate the point.

That's a good observation - but I don't see how that proves against the right that the tree has to live the life it is living.

 

It's not an inherent right because it impacts so obviously on other people's rights and the danger of collateral damage is often present. This is not to say that I wouldn't exercise self-defense as strenuously as I felt I had to, but if I screwed up and a stray bullet hit a bystander I would know I was justly on the hook for the injury or death.

 

As a Neighborhood Watchman, George Zimmerman had a duty to watch and protect his community. Had Martin been white instead of black, the case would never have been taken to trial. Zimmerman had every right to watch Martin, and even to question Martin's behavior. All of the evidence indicates that Zimmerman didn't even question Martin, and didn't approach within close distance to Martin. The evidence supports that Martin purposefully waited to confront Zimmerman instead of peacefully going home. The evidence supports that Martin threw the first blow, and Martin alone is to blame. The evidence supports that Martin hit Zimmerman, and banged his head on the concrete. Should Zimmerman have laid quietly on the ground in hopes that Martin would eventually allow him to get up??

Martin was 100% at fault for the confrontation! Zimmerman had an absolute right to defend himself from Martin's aggression. For anyone to argue that a victim must allow himself/herself to be beaten to death rather than maiming or killing the aggressor is insane. Zimmerman is no hero, but neither is he a villain. Punishing him for doing what any normal person would do in defending himself from a violent aggressor is wrong-minded.

 

Well, they are an abstraction, yes, but it's impossible to reason without using abstractions, so they might as well be real.

And where do you think "hot" guns come from?

Let's take it to mean the ability to do something without violating the law. I can't readily see lots of holes in that.

I find it very arguable. In both cases their "innocence" is based entirely on a story that is logically inconsistent and based on very ambiguous evidence. There is, IMO, MORE evidence against Zimmerman than O.J., but that is another thread that has run its course of present interest.

 

Correct. We all have a right to defend ourselves, but vigilantism isn't self-defense. It's murder.

 

As I understand the Neighborhood Watchman program it grants you absolutely NO rights that you do not have as a normal citizen. Every time I've ever seen it presented we were told we had no more rights to be armed than we ever did and that it was NW policy that we WATCHED, no matter what was happening and even if someone was being hurt . (We could, of course, violate that policy, but we would suffer the same legal repercussions as any other citizen might or might not)

And as I understood the Zimmerman case Z was not officially a Neighborhood Watchman anyway, that was why he called on the non-emergency number.

If you want to believe that Martin was "100% responsible" on the basis of the story and evidence presented, that's fine. I also have some rather wet Floridian Real Estate and this nice bridge in New York, rock bottom prices, just because I like you. My belief is that a wannabe cop and neighborhood bully-bigot got away with murder because the police helped a judge's ne'er do well son make the evidence of his crime too ambiguous to convict him.

 

It makes no difference whether Zimmerman was an official Neighborhood Watchman or not, though my understanding is that he was. Regardless, the real question in that case is whether one "normal citizen" has the same rights as another "normal citizen".

Both Martin and Zimmerman had a RIGHT to be where they were that night. Zimmerman had every right to get out of his car, and had every right to peacefully ask Martin what he was doing. Following someone from a safe distance or even peacefully asking someone question is NO justification for a violent attack! Zimmerman did NOT initiate the violence, Martin did! At that point, Zimmerman, you, me, or anyone else has an absolute right to defend ourselves. If you believe that it's a victims responsibility to accept abuse, then you should sell the properties in Florida and New York to yourself!

 

Zimmerman is a murderer, and society will punish him, he escaped the legal system, but his life is ruined, just you watch, he'll have a hard time getting a job, he'll get arrested a lot, and he'll die an early death.
He may have beat the legal system, but he's still a miserable scumbag murderer, and that will follow him forever.

 

GUYS!

This poll question and thread is not about the specifics of any ONE case.

It's a general question.

"Is your right to defend YOURSELF an inherent right?"

"Or not?"

Please don't drag other stuff into it.

 

Typical of the left.... punish the victim if he/she is white, and absolve the criminal if he/she is black. Punish the innocent Duke lacrosse team, punish the innocent white men in the Tawana Brawley case, and then tell us how OJ Simpson was justly acquitted of murdering two white people. Zimmerman killed an arrogant, violent, and racist black criminal who attacked him for having the gall to inquire what he was doing. Ignore the evidence, lefty, as the left always does in racial cases. If Zimmerman had allowed himself to be beaten to death, and had Martin been charged with the murder, the leftists would be calling his prosecution "racist".

 

You don't have a clue what happened in that alley.
All you know is that a kid and armed man went into the alley and the kid got shot, and there isn't enough evidence to prove that the armed man intended to kill the kid.
You like Zimmerman, hire him, give him a job, see what happens to your business....

 

People PLEASE!

This thread has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZIMMERMAN CASE.

It was only a question inspired by that case and MANY other things.

 

In regard to self defense against immenent harm or danger: I will exact equal re-course to defend my family, loved ones, or myself against such threat regardless of the written law.

I am content upon being judged upon my actions. I am content to know that I acted honorably regardless of perception.

 

This (in complete context - not just the bolded part) is very much indicative to me - of an inherent right.

 

Welcome aboard. Have fun in the forum.

 

Without the right of self-preservation, everything else is pretty academic.

 

Shoot her??? Oh heck no, that would only (*)(*)(*)(*) her off.

 

I have many clues and hard evidence as to what happened in that alley. So should you if you looked at all of the evidence. This thread is about "self-defense", and the case we're discussing is a classic example of that inherent right. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman and continued beating him on the ground, then self-defense wouldn't be a defense. The FACT is that when a human being is attacked, and is continuing to be beaten and injured, the attacker is fair game for ANY counter-force necessary to stop the attack!

 

Then why will decent society shun Zimmerman and drive him to an early death?

 

So if Martin had gotten the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him, you would call that self defense?

 

if the cheater wanted to be a real jerk, he could call the cops and have her arrested for losing her temper over him cheating on her

 

I haven't seen any decent, objective people shunning him........., and certainly not wanting to drive him to an early death for defending himself. Decent, objective people don't do such things. They also recognize the right of others to self-defense against an offensive attacker.

 

No, that's illogical. If you attack someone, and are beating him to death, you don't have a right to take his only means of self-defense from him and kill him with it! That's no different than someone trying to kidnap your child, and when you pull a gun to defend your child, the kidnapper grabs it's and shoots you. The criminal has a responsibility to back-off, not the victim! The bottom line in these kinds of self-defense cases is which person was the aggressor. In the Zimmerman-Martin case, Martin was the aggressor.

 

How exactly do we define "inherent"? All rights are subject to enforcement and interpretation.

For a relevant modern example, look at how the War on Terror is "reinterpreting" our right to privacy.

I would argue nothing is inherent. Pretty much everything is situational and dependent on interpretation and the ability to make your interpretation authoritative.