On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:24:30 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:



It doesn't look like a very clean case for "stand your ground" but there's a
long way to go in the investigation, I'd bet. You wouldn't want to base
your reading of the case on the facts presented by reporters interviewing
people on the street . . . (-:

The problem that most often manifests itself in lethal force cases is the
level of force applied. At least some judges have ruled that shooting a man
coming at you with only his bare fists isn't appropriate. I don't like that
theory because it totally disregards another well-known phenomenom, the "one
punch homicide."

Plenty of people have died from taking a single punch. I would probably try
to shoot to maim such an attacker. Probably. (-: Just today I bought a
cane that's got a stun gun and LED built in. I'd probably use that before I
shot someone. Probably.


If you had a Taser, it would be much more appropriate in a situation
like Sanford. If the guy coming at you was into body building or
boxing, yes, he could take you out with one punch. But . . .

If you are the local vigilante, you should have had at least some
basic training on what to do. You should also carry some pepper spray
and perhaps a Taser.

It will be interesting to see what the final investigation reveals. At
17, the kid may have been mouthy as many would be, but he does not
look like he could be much of a physical threat.