That last comment was cryptic.

Besides that, I know what you’re saying. Serving in the Army in my rapidly receding youth did spoil me in some ways. One was taking for granted that if I needed help like Zimmerman needed help, and a soldier was in position to help, he would help. And vice versa.

It’s not the same in civilian life.

After completing the Combat Lifesaver course (not a medic, but should be able to keep your wounded battle buddy alive long enough to reach a medic), the instructor warned us about using our new medical skills off duty. He said if it’s within the military community, then go for it. But if we happen upon an accident in the civilian community, we might get in trouble for using a technique that exceeded Good Samaritan protections. Something to do with certifications, I think.

The point is the assumption was that a soldier, when faced with a situation, would – as you said – head to the sound of guns.

The reason I’ve been able to obtain what little power I have was due to others. The duty to protect others was what allowed me to achieve the knowledge base I have now. Without that motivation, I would not have challenged things as they were. Protecting “myself” would have been easy and I would have needed only 5% of what I know now, for that. I wouldn’t have reached for anything more.

The Meta Golden Rule also commands me to treat those in an inferior position the same way I expect those in a superior position to treat me. Whether that’s a position of class, money, morality, or power doesn’t matter.

I have little choice in the matter. I owe certain things to certain people, and if I choose not to aid such people in the future… the power I have would disappear and I would never be allowed to perform as well as I could have.

My only choice is to determine whether the action and force required is really “necessary or not” and how much of it I should apply, when, how, etc.

But I cannot determine when, if ever, I will get the challenge to do so, or where it will happen, if ever. Fate can only determine that.

If I refuse to use what power I have to aid fellow innocent humans…. that power will be stripped from me for an act of injustice. In that sense, not even the fear of death is a deterrent.

I must act, somehow (if only using words to distract someone from torturing another human). Or else I will never be permitted to act in defense of another ever again.

However, in a ground and pound, the primary weakness is that other people can boot the guy on top in the head and the guy on top can’t do much about it, other than get out of the way. Getting out of the way means he has to get off of the person he is pounding.

I never think of a target (to be terminated) as someone “I fight” with using strength, speed, or size.

The moment I decide to use physical force against a person, 90% of the time it would be for the mere goal of killing them. I’m not communicating “get off that woman, boy, or else”. I’m not communicating anything. I’m terminating something that will not exist after I’m done with it.

Those who don’t want to get this “done” or lack the motivation, should not use force on others (verbal violence is still violence and force). Nor should they allow OTHER people to use violence against them. Simple. Hard though.

If Martin was beating Zimmerman or a woman down, I would have to make a simple decision. Do I stand here and do nothing, do I do something and get the victim killed, or is it necessary that I use lethal force in defense of another.

That’s a hellish choice. Pure hell. Martial art “non lethal force techniques” is the usual answer, but it’s not the answer my original instructors allowed me to get away with answering.

I understand very well why people don’t physically intervene. It takes a lot of confidence for an individual to do so. Like rushing a bank robber, when everyone else is thinking “first guy that moves dies from the gun”.

The law by itself won’t make for an effective civic force/duty. Tools that let people “Get it done” is necessary.

Many people who even carry concealed carry, will go into a store and call the police or 9/11 as a man beats a woman into the ground and then drags her off never to be seen again, before the cops arrive. That’s because America is the country of the gun and without one, many people feel helpless, untrained, unsure. They won’t take that uncertain bet. The police has more guaranteed force, but their reaction time is slower than helicopters in counter insurgency ops. More like APCs and tank response times.

My personal focus was on ignoring the law and building up training ethos first. Only after a person was trained to the degree that he has 50/50 chances with a serial killer, do I then worry about the laws and post facto justifications.

One thing that struck me about Zimmerman’s video walk-through that sharpie linked was that at least one person, perhaps two, were in position but refused to physically intervene to separate the two. Instead, they retreated and offered to call 911.

They could have saved Martin’s life as well as Zimmerman’s.

Yes, I realize the risks and fears of jumping into a fight between two grown men in the dark, but Zimmerman was pleading for help with his life in danger. And they just left him.

Juxtapose Zimmerman’s active community ethos with his neighbors’ refusal to get involved and deference to 911.

I am opposed to an America where Zimmerman’s ethos is wrong and his neighbors’ sheepishness is right.

Europe has a lot of Islamic and muslim gang related rapes precisely because they don’t have any law that says you have a civic duty to not allow crime to happen so long as you aren’t doing anything illegal. Your job, as a European slave, is to save your life so the state can get its Full Tax out of it. Your duty is not to protect your “property” (which isn’t yours to begin with), nor is it to protect “other people”. That is the job of the state’s military and police arms. Their banning of handguns was merely a “means to an end”. They aren’t particularly against guns, since the government needs goons with guns to enforce things (like sexual slavery in Germany).

That’s a very different philosophical interpretation than the American Republic’s concept.

Without such laws, the South would not be able to have its citizens exercise full due diligence in the civic duty of protecting one’s civilization. You would only be authorized to defend “yourself” and only “yourself”. A slave’s self reaches no more than 5 centimeters beyond his shackles.

There’s also the thing about “lawsuits” concerning negligence. If someone helps people in the street against a crime, and someone ends up injured or dead, then the law can say that you did something incompetent, unnecessary, or negligent. Pay up now or else.

But if there’s a law that says you don’t have to “flee” first, then that changes everything.

Anyway, Florida averages about one thousand murders per year (1,009 in 2012). Get rid of stand your ground and there’s hardly any change in the murder rate.

I’d also add that with so few cases, racial disparities are probably just statistical noise.

Eric has the right of it.

Opponents of SYG are NOT opposed to it because of any potential harm to criminals or minorities. They are opposed to it because it enables the individual to resist. On the most fundamental level it acknowledges that the individual has the unalienable right to life and may exercise that right absent the States’ permission.