Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
no, from a legal standpoint, it doesn't.
the fact that he was carrying a weapon does not in any way impact his rights before or during the confrontation. he was within his rights to follow martin, armed or not. he was within his rights to ask what he was doing, armed or not.
|
If, at this point Martin felt threatened, wouldn't he have been within his rights to defend himself? When can you begin using "self defense" as a legal defense for violence? Do you have to be physically assaulted first and self defense is fighting back? Or could other actions lead you to feel threatened enough, that without being physically hit, you could strike the other person and have a valid claim at self defense? I'm nowhere near being a lawyer so I'm generally just interested in the answer, and not making a claim on what may/ may not have happened in this case.