Do you feel bad for George Zimmerman?
If it wasn't for liberals and the main stream media, he never would of gotten charged with a crime. Do you feel bad that he has to deal with a high stakes murder trial and having to pay for lawyers, even though there's an excellent chance that's he's truly innocent.
Why is this Trayvon Martin thing such a big deal, I don't get it?
People die everyday. This shouldn't have escalated this far. The only factors that fed this whole mess is because of three things: 1. Victim was a minor. Children die. Whether it happens in murder or by cancer, or any other reason for that matter; it happens. Accept it, bad things like this happen. 2. Race. People say if the races were reversed, Zimmerman would have gone to jail. This is an inference made upon fallacious standings. The verdict was based upon a jury. The prosecution made a better case, they won. Nothing to do with race. If anything, black(or if you're really racy and rather spend an extra 1.5 seconds to say African-American, there you go) supporters for Trayvon were the ones who brought up the whole race issue in the first place. 3. Media. They over-exaggerate everything and give you false information everyday. This itself, is rather self-explanatory. All in all, people fail to accept the world as it is. So one boy doesn't get to live his life. There's billions of people. Third world countries have starving children on the brink of death, power-abusive dictators, militia-based brutality governments who terrorize thousands. There are much worse things. People just turned this into a giant snowball that eventually caused these outrageous reactions. Shows you how gullible people can be without realizing the bigger picture.
If I'm at a shooting range and somebody turns around and starts shooting people there, what do I do? Am I allowed to shoot him?
Course you are - this person is clearly intent on endangering life and also seems pretty stupid to go onto a live range where everyone has a gun and can shoot back, the chances are someone else on the range is a better shot than the anyway. It just wouldn’t happen, more likely is someone who uses the range, using their weapon in public but even then there’s a high chance of death as Firearms officers wld be called in (and they do a lot more patrols in the UK now- often responding to routine calls as well as Weapons incidents).In the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force - generally considered to be lesser than or equal to the amount of force being used - if u had a knife and ur opponent had a gun that would be reasonable force, ud have to be pretty brave and skilled with a knife to take on a gun though, as it wld the other way around but the courts would question whether shooting a knife attacker was the only option available as would the police but ultimately what matters is whether or not there is a serious threat to life.However in ur scenario u have to try and ensure ur bullet didn’t hit anyone else, either before or after - a 5.56 at close range is gonna be a thru and thru, a lot of pistol calibres at close range wld be too. Even the police and military have to be careful of this when discharging their Firearms. That shldnt stop u taking the shot but if u can avoid wounding or killing someone else that’d be good!
Are racist white people afraid of losing gun laws cause they cant defend themselves against black people?
You saw what happened to George Zimmerman. Got his *** whooped by an unarmed teenager Lol. He lucky he had that gun. Are racist white people afraid of losing guns laws because they can't defend themselves in a physical fight against a black person
In the United States, can burglars sue the owners if they are injured in the process of burgling?
A person can sue in such a situation, but they are unlikely to win or even be able to avoid a peremptory dismissal. Occasionally you read about some outrageous occurrence where some miscreant sues a a homeowner, and very less often that he/she gets some money. It is more a matter of urban legend, or something that that’s written into television series or films, than it is reality.Duties to “invitees” on one’s property vary by state, but a trespasser is not an invitee. How one can treat trespassers also varies state to state.In general, a homeowner is not liable to a trespasser for acts of simple negligence, that might incur liability to someone else. So if a burglar slips on the floor because its wet, and injures himself, he might try to sue you but he won’t win.On the other hand, if you place pans of acid on your floors to injure potential burglars and one burns his foot breaking into your house, well then he might have a cause of action, depending on the state. The latter case would be considered a reckless trap in many if not most jurisdictions. The rationale for holding the homeowner liable is that an otherwise “innocent” person might be injured by the trap simply for making a mistake. For example, a teenage paramour tries to sneak into his girlfriend’s bedroom with her consent but is injured by the acid pan.The same ideas apply to the deliberate use of force, though it also varies from state to state. In Maryland, if an unarmed burglar climbs through the window and I simply shoot him with no warning, no attempt to retreat, no call to the police, etc., I am liable to be prosecuted, and successfully sued by the now crippled criminal. Again, the rationale for a state like Maryland is “What if the guy was just some confused kid, not a burglar? We need to deter such reckless use of force.”In Texas though it would be different. There was a famous case a couple decades ago where an Asian exchange student who had a few too many drinks went up to the wrong porch, banged on the door, and got shot dead. The homeowner did not incur any criminal or civil liability.But in general, regardless of the state, a burglar who is injured in your home through an act of simple negligence, as opposed to “reckless” or deliberate action on the homeowner’s part, will not be successful in a lawsuit.