However, if either of them had lived, they could claim self-defense! 
Wow! Talk about a 1 in million chance of something happening. That's got to be close. It's the first time I've seen it happen. Great clip!
I think it's most likely that one person was the aggressor. The one that wasn't the aggressor was probably trying to defend himself with obviously very mixed results. Maybe he saved the lives of those with him (if you're inclined to believe the account from the 911 tape released). Just because both died does not mean both were at fault.
I find the irony humorous in that once guns were drawn, both men could claim self-defense, even though either or both did something to cause the exchange. Much like the case of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman, each did something to provoke the other, justified or not. However, once Zimmerman felt threatened, if he truly did, he took Martin's life.
When you first posted you had no idea if one of these dead men was not guilty of any wrong doing let alone any crime yet you used it to ring that bell. Now it's looking more like it was a case of ineffective yet righteous self defense yet you must continue to use it as an excuse to ring the bell.
So, you're saying that, in both cases, there were not things that both sides could have done differently to avoid the outcomes that were reached. That is where I see the similarities. I didn't saying anything about guilt or innocence regarding Zimmerman. I did note that we only have his word for if he truly felt in fear of his life. None of us will ever know. You've no doubt seen enough westerns where the gunslinger provokes someone else, often one much inferior in those skills, to draw on him. Once the poor sap takes the bait, and draws his weapon, the gunslinger can be said to have killed in self-defense. However, in reality, he got exactly what he wanted.
How about this one that happened today?
http://www.king5.com/home/Owner-shoots-kills-car-theft-suspect-in-gunfire-exchange-225001512.html
Any comical irony here? Ring any TM/GZ bells for you?
You don't know what really happened in the Michigan case that you pointed out yet your "irony" bells went off and you do have an opinion about what happened.
I thought I made it quite clear how the two cases are similar. I'll try to make it even simpler. Unless someone is boxed in a corner by someone with the intent to shoot him, he has options to avoid a confrontation. I believe this was true for Trevon Martin, George Zimmerman, and the two guys in Michigan who shot and killed each other. That's all the similarity that is needed. Are you saying this isn't true?
You have absolutley no clue that was true in Michigan. And as I pointed out due to more recent news, quite the opposite seems true. My only conclusion can be is that you wanted there to be this "similarity" solely for the purpose of ringing your TM/GZ bell.
No comment on my recent "similar" example, eh? Didn't think you would.
the obvious, the essential dynamic of conflict and conflict resolution, and get bogged down in the minutia of each case, there is no reason for me to read it.
I've spent over 25 years in martial arts, and the first lesson that is taught is the best defense is not putting yourself in situations that limit yourself to fighting your way out of that situation. The next lesson is practice, practice, practice in the case that you have to fight your way out of it, whether you made choices that put yourself there or not. I see the same issues applying to both parties in both cases mentioned above. End of discussion!
Shall I claim that if you can't understand the difference between facts and conjecture there is no reason to discuss further?
It's nice that you understand the only sure way not to lose is to not play but you still chose to play your game of conjecture; yet you still insist on "winning" even when presented with contradictory facts (some of which you choose to ignore).
I'm relieved (yet no more enlightened) that the discussion is over.
-- Modified on 9/25/2013 5:31:11 PM