Replies

So the castle doctrine, mentioned in the article is irrelevant to you?? I say he had every right to defend himself against a PERCEIVED threat, and the accidental shot doesn’t come in to play.

Curiously, do you believe George Zimmerman was guilty?

I say he had every right to defend himself against a PERCEIVED threat

He is not even arguing that he perceived a threat.

He is arguing that he had an accident.

So the castle doctrine, mentioned in the article is irrelevant to you?? I say he had every right to defend himself against a PERCEIVED threat, and the accidental shot doesn’t come in to play.

Of course the castle doctrine is relevant, but I don't think this shooting is justified under the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine states that you have no duty to retreat within your own home, and that you may use deadly force when you reasonably fear imminent death or serious bodily harm. Mere perception of a threat is not enough - it must be reasonable, and it is going to be very difficult to convince a judge or jury that you reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily harm with a locked door between you and the source of the perceived threat.

Curiously, do you believe George Zimmerman was guilty?

Absolutely not. That was a clear-cut case of self-defense, and I believe that Angela Corey committed prosecutorial misconduct by bringing charges against Mr. Zimmerman.

So the castle doctrine, mentioned in the article is irrelevant to you?? I say he had every right to defend himself against a PERCEIVED threat, and the accidental shot doesn’t come in to play.

No, the law says he has the right to protect himself against imminent unlawful use of force against him. There is no evidence at all that she threatened him in any way, or that she was trying to break into his home.