Is Carrying a Gun Provocation to be Attacked

Open Carry at Church, Equipped with AR-15 and Radio, img by Dean Weingarten
Open Carry at Church, Equipped with AR-15 and Radio, image by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A.-( In the law of self-defense of almost all states, If a person is attacked, and reasonably fears for their life, they may legally defend themselves with deadly force. A small minority of states require a person to retreat from the situation if they can do so in complete safety.

In all states of which I am aware, a person may not use deadly force in self-defense, if they provoked the attack with the intent of using deadly force.

It is not legal to start a fight so the person who started the fight can kill someone who they provoked.

Mere possession of an openly carried weapon is not a legal provocation to attack.

The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.

This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor. Apply this to the police. They almost always carry a deadly weapon, openly.

This concept is contrary to common sense and the experience of thousands of years. If a person has a weapon, people see a reason to leave the armed person alone.  In the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, the prosecutor, ADA Binger, during a pre-trial hearing, said this:

“He was running around with a assault rifle type weapon, a very threatening,  aggressive weapon. One that deters people, it is designed to deter people. It is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got.”  

During the trial. Binger did not claim mere possession of a firearm was a provocation to be attacked, although he hinted at it. He claimed, on the basis of very fuzzy drone footage, that Kyle had momentarily pointed his rifle at two other people, and that was a provocation for a third person, Rosenbaum, to attack Kyle. The jury did not accept this theory.

In a sane world, carrying a weapon is not a provocation to be attacked. The Left has worked hard to make it a provocation, in law.  In an editorial  about open carry in 2012, there was this; from

It is appropriate for law enforcement officers and the public to treat these situations as extremely dangerous. Open carry advocates claim they need a gun for self-defense. However, if the Trayvon Martin case has taught us anything, it is that an individual carrying a gun may misjudge a situation, think self-defense is called for, and erroneously—and often tragically—reach for the gun.

A jury decided the editorial writer’s portrayal of the Trayvon Martin case was erroneous. It was Martin who attacked George Zimmerman. It was Martin’s judgment that was faulty, not Zimmerman’s.

Here is an opinion published in The Hill, in November of 2019, before the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The opinion is discussing the Wisconsin disorderly conduct law.  From

The text of its disorderly conduct law criminally bans “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” But absent a showing of “criminal or malicious intent,” a person may not be charged with disorderly conduct “for carrying or going armed with a firearm . . . without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm . . . is concealed or openly carried.”

Think about that. Being publicly “violent” or “abusive” is a potential crime in Wisconsin — unless it entails waiving around a loaded firearm.

The argument is false. The law does not allow being publicly “violent” or “abusive” simply because a person has a firearm. It states a person may not be charged with disorderly conduct for merely carrying or possessing a firearm or knife. Here is the relevant passage:

Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried.

This correspondent followed what led to the passage of this Wisconsin law. In 2008 Brad Krause was planting a tree in his yard. He had a holstered pistol on his hip. He was charged, in Wisconsin, by West Allis police, with disorderly conduct. He fought the case. He won.  From

West Allis – As Brad Krause planted a tree in his yard last summer, a neighbor noticed that in addition to a shovel, Krause had a tool not usually required for yard work – a gun in a holster.

Police arrived and gave Krause a ticket alleging disorderly conduct, launching a case that a national gun-rights group has been watching for months.

On Tuesday, Krause won acquittal in what some advocates say is one of the first so-called open-carry gun cases heard in a Wisconsin court.

Municipal Judge Paul Murphy said he had reviewed several state statutes and court cases related to the right to keep and bear arms. ‘There being no law whatsoever dealing with the issue of an unconcealed weapon or the so-called open carry is why we’re here today,’ Murphy said.

In the end, he determined Krause’s actions did not rise to disorderly conduct and found him not guilty.

Milwaukee Police had been charging people with disorderly conduct for the mere carry of firearms, for decades. The legislature finally had enough and reformed the law to stop the abuse.

Here is a later opinion published on September 10, 2020,  from Bloomberg, written by Noah Feldman a former Harvard Law editor:

The trouble begins when you start applying the legal rules to someone in Rittenhouse’s situation, namely, someone who has carried an AR-15-style weapon to what is intended to be a peaceful protest. In a commonsense universe, this act itself would appear to be a provocation.

Yet under Wisconsin law, adults are entitled to carry around their licensed firearms in public places. An open-carry law means that prosecutors would have a tough time convincing a jury that simply carrying an assault rifle counts as a provocation.

As a lawyer, Feldman should have known Wisconsin law does not require a license to openly carry firearms. It never has. Wisconsin law has never forbidden people 16 years old and older, from carrying long guns.

To paraphrase Noah Feldman with a more commonsense observation; the trouble is when you start defining the peaceful carry of a firearm as a provocation. Hundreds of people saw Rittenhouse and many others carrying firearms.  Initially, only Rosenbaum decided to attack Kyle Rittenhouse. The person who was supposedly “provoked” was mentally ill Rosenbaum, who was suicidal and who had spent many years in prison.

Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse repeatedly.  If there was a provocation, it appears the provocation was Rosenbaum attempting to provoke Rittenhouse to aid in another Rosenbaum suicide attempt.

Three others decided to attack Rittenhouse as he ran to turn himself into the police after he shot Rosenbaum.  According to testimony under oath during the trial, the mob was urged to attack Rittenhouse by the same man who had urged Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse.

The man who urged the mob to go after Rittenhouse had a checkered police record. The three attackers had multiple police histories and problems with authority.  Two of the those attacked Rittenhouse with weapons and were shot by him. One was killed, and the other was wounded. It was all recorded on video, from multiple angles.

The jury did not accept the prosecutor’s theory that Rittenhouse had “provoked” Rosenbaum.


The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.

Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech.

When leftists surround a car and beat on it; that is not provocation; when leftists shoot at people; it is not provocation; when people the left does not agree with, display weapons; that is considered a provocation by the left.

This is a retreat to tribalism by the Left: Those who agree with us are people; those who disagree with us are the enemy.

Pundit and radio personality Dan Bongino put it this way: Conservatives think leftists are people with bad ideas; Leftists think Conservatives are bad people.

Part of this attitude toward the open carry of weapons by people other than government agents comes from the Left’s worship of government as god. A private person openly carrying a firearm is a direct and obvious statement:

The Constitution means something; the Bill of Rights means something; the power of government is limited.

The Left hates the idea of limits on government. For that reason, gun control is in Progressivism’s DNA.

Defining open carry of weapons as a legal provocation is Orwellian word manipulation.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
American Cynic

Someone said, “A few decades back, if a person was openly carrying a firearm, most people wouldn’t say anything or just ignored it.” But can we really blame the ignorance of the population? The reality, a few decades ago, was such that we did not have cellphones, video cameras at the ready, and no matter what you do or where you go, a crowd gathers to video tape you. That is the mob mentality that has been fomented. The technology, in and of itself, is useless without social media, where the video of you carrying or firing your weapon is… Read more »

Last edited 9 months ago by American Cynic

While reading the article, I was musing that there were 2 reasons Rittenhouse was attacked, even though carrying a semiautomatic rifle.

The first is, they were sure Rittenhouse wouldn’t fire. I suppose that came from their threats not provoking him. The second is the effect of mob mania. People will do things in a mob that they would never consider alone.

Your comments touched on both aspects.


wish he had sold the gun to highest bidder ,could have diminished bloombergs accounts a little sell it as upper and lower


The “woke” left exploits the armed citizen’s restraint. Like they exploit the misplaced restraint of dunce Rs who let DemComs call them racists, always defensive, never turning the tables, never taking the offensive to label DemComs the true racists they are.


open carry of a shotgun was normal for grade school kids walking to school


Totally on board with that all day long. I carry concealed because I don’t like dirty looks, snide comments about Penis envy or mental illness and I don’t want to be a target for a gang. There is more but that’s enough.


Carry concealed , So no one ever knows what you bring to the table. I never want to project look at me drawing attention to myself. Learn to hide in plain site stay unnoticed.


 Hide in plain site
All you have to do make sure that you become identified by other characteristics. Also, if the decoy characteristic you assume resembles characteristics of many other people it will be pretty much useless, as folks only rely on the things that make you look different.

Avoid Sticking to large crowds
Avoiding eye contact
Avoid direct line of site


I disagree with your last two points. I never avoid eye contact with someone looking toward me. I want them to see a confidant, heads up person that is paying attention to his surroundings. By avoiding eye contact, one might be considered frail or fearful. Same thing with hiding behind direct line of site. How better to see someone preparing to pull a gun or knife and being able to respond in kind, should that situation present itself.

Happy Everafter

Many many years ago one needed some training certificate to get their permit in my state. At my 1st NRA sanctioned ‘how-to’ training in the next county the retired police chief from that town covered among other stuff some of the legalities regarding carrying. Concealed carry was proper, but openly carrying, while also completely legal, could get you charged with disorderly conduct if some grocery store granny took exception and called the cops. Even further, he said ‘printing’ or accidental exposure of concealed carry would get one the same charges. None of this was true, even back then. In fact,… Read more »


When I first took class for concealed carry license, instructor told us you could get charged with “brandishing” for printing or if any part of your gun ever became visible. This contributed to me not carrying at the time. Few years later state legislature addressed issue by changing concealed license to carry license (open or concealed) and made it illegal for police to even stop someone just because they are armed. For me, open carry legalization is great legal protection for accidental exposure. I’m OK with just a T-shirt lumping over my pistol – knowing most will never notice but… Read more »


And this is why I take exception to LEO’s being “firearms experts”. Most of them have no clue what you’re carrying, whether it’s legal that you can or not, or that what I’m doing is none of their business. ESPECIALLY a retired chief that probably carried a “Chief’s Special” “back in the day”. It kinda goes along with a LGS that has “practice sessions” (that you have to pay for) where you can conduct draw drills. Most of the “instructors” are LEOs. Occasionally they do low light sessions. Okay, good training there! BUT, and here’s the kicker, they won’t allow… Read more »


Damn you make me feel lucky. Around where I live there are multiple training organizations and (afaik) all have serious low-to-no light training. Most instructors I’ve spoken with strongly recommend night sights and mounted light, including those with LEO or military background. In some cases it feels as though they don’t take you seriously as a student if you don’t have a mounted light in a basic pistol course!

I’ve done low light class using handheld light and found it tough…

Last edited 9 months ago by Finnky

Very good analysis and commentary, Mr. Weingarten. Thank you.


A few decades back, if a person was openly carrying a firearm, most people wouldn’t say anything or just ignored it. Today, with the rise in the levels of ignorance and stupidity throughout the population, too many idiots will confront the armed individual, verbally harass him, call the police or attempt to disarm him themselves, believing that they are somehow impervious to the effects of a firearm, despite the excellent Kyle Rittenhouse examples. If you aren’t willing to use the gun, don’t carry one openly as you may actually have to use it on some woke, liberal, moron.


As I said in my reply to American Cynic above, I think they feel free to attack verbally because they’re sure the armed person won’t respond.


had one get in my face police arrested him , and until they touch you or grab at your gun you dont respond unless verbally


I’d go one further and say that if you are not willing to use it, you shouldn’t carry at all. So if you own a firearm do some soul searching and figure out when and where you are willing. Be that grandma who said she could never shoot someone until provided scenario of someone having a knife to her granddaughter’s throat. Think things through ahead of time when you have luxury of time – for “heat of the moment” is not the time for quiet reflection.


have a friend who’s wife says I am cold always calculating who I may need to kill, until she pointed it out never realized i was sizing everyone up but she is right. her husband is just like me we must be great fun to go to dinner with one sighted on kitchen and emergency exit other the entrance we ar a real pair a noids


The statement that left is floating the idea that open carry is provocation for red flag laws. People here need to remember that those folks that democratic socialist far left Bernie Sanders lovers are armed. Who does not think that Antifa and some of the BLM group have not been waiting for the next riot in a sanctuary city. Thinking that some are not armed, that would be a “mistake” in every sense of the word. Rocks frozen plastic bottles were free and fireworks easy to buy. The opposition those funding these radical groups will whisper in their ears telling… Read more »

Dr. Strangelove

I disagree with Bongino; I think that leftists are bad people. Even if they’re not out in the street provoking trouble like Buy Larger Mansions or pantifa, they support or condone such behavior.

Ansel Hazen

Just think back to 2020 and every single lawn that had a China Biden/Kameltoe Harris sign on it. Every one of them is/was complicit in the rigged election.


I think you misunderstand what he is saying. If you actually listen to him, he despises leftists with a passion. He’s constantly telling them to stop moving to Florida where he lives. He says he doesn’t want them anywhere near him. And he goes on and on. I believe the statement is what the average live and let live conservative thinks or better yet, used to think about leftards. Until our side woke up and noticed he was right. I’ve heard many people provide cover for the rank and file dimocRAT voter over the years, after all they aren’t like… Read more »


just like you shouldnt let people who protect pedos off the hook


Lots of (mostly) good comments.
One quick observation: what the lefties are looking for is simply an ‘excuse’ – they can and will use anything – such as attire (MAGA hats) – for an ‘excuse’ to ‘justify’ their bad behavior..

Dr. Strangelove

Three people commented on my LGB t-shirt yesterday, “Nice shirt,” two said “Let’s go Brandon,” and two scowled at me.


Brandon came out to the Soviet of Washington Thursday and Friday. Although the press probably didn’t report it, there were hundreds of FJB, LET’S GO BRANDON signs, flags and homemade signs. There were truckades flying flags, magnetic signs, taped signs, motorcycles all honking horns, magical. This is deep, deep, deep in the heart of dimocRAT commie territory. (Seattle elected a REPUBLICAN city attorney last November, for the first time ever. Think city district attorney!) It shows what I say almost every time I post here, the worm has turned and we need to keep after it, this is what the… Read more »


Seeing open carry more in Pa.At least in my area, these days. I’m just waiting for the corporate world to infringe upon it. They had no issue pushing the mask.


A person alone openly carrying is an citation for theft of the gun by a group. You can’t draw and say ” stay back ” until the attackers do something more than approaching. By that time. they can disarm you. Carry concealed and look and be alert. Being engaged on your phone is also an invitation. A personal example from before carry was legal. Circa. 1980s in Minneapolis. I was walking in a ” nice ” neighborh[d when I saw two young men waking together. About a block distant they separated and continued to approach. I slipped my GERBER FOLDER… Read more »


I did similarly in an incident about 20 years later, with the same results, the perp remembering he had to relieve himself and left.


In 1976, (yes, I’m that old) I was in downtown San Antonio with a friend for the Annual NRA meeting. We were walking about looking for a place to eat, and I noticed a group of Hispanic teens following us from a distance. I was a cop at the time, but because we flew, we weren’t carrying. We both had suits on, though, and I’m fairly big, and people have often said I look like a cop. I squared my shoulders and started walking towards the group. They broke up and left like a covey of quail. By the way,… Read more »


vintage not old


Yep! Never leave home without at least two on my person. 3 spare mags for the G-19 and 1 spare for the .380 BUG. Always concealed but so happy we have OC in case my shirt rides up.


The argument that carrying a gun is provocation to being attacked, isn’t much different from saying a woman wearing sexy clothing is provocation to being assaulted.

Last edited 9 months ago by Ragemutt

Translation: “Brad Krause was planting a tree in his yard, bearing a holstered pistol. OATHBREAKERS charged him with ‘disorderly conduct’. He fought & won. For decades, Milwaukee OATHBREAKERS charged civilians with ‘disorderly conduct’ for mere carry. The legislature finally reformed the law to STOP the ABUSE by OATHBREAKERS.”


Check out the downvotes by the OATHBREAKER Posse. Hahaha. Over the Target.


they dont like the truth, it shows how many bad leos are out there and the few “good” ones do nothing. happily there are more fighting against the bad ,but it is an uphill battle fighting gang mentality


“This concept is contrary to common sense…” This explains the left perfectly. “Yet under Wisconsin law, adults are entitled to carry around their licensed firearms in public places.” I REALLY wish “the left” would stop perpetuating this lie. The idea that there is a requirement for a license to purchase, own, and carry a firearm is as false as the day is long. Do some localities “require” one? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Also yes. Should it be challenged in court? Also yes. In fact, SCOTUS has already addressed this issue here: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license,… Read more »

Last edited 9 months ago by Nurph

it does not matter how many times they loose in court they will still claim what they are doing is not covered by the ruling we need to start defending each other and overwhelm them and yes disarm their enforcers, and arrest said enforcers try them in a citizens court


WHEN IDIOTS ATTACK a person carrying a AR-15, they have earned the right to BE SHOT. THIN the herd of DOLTS so to speak!


idiots attack any armed person, stand your ground should be law of land no retreat no apology


I take exception to the use of “weaspn(s). This is not a military forum. The term “weapon” should not be used in these articles. “Firearm” is more appropriate for civilians to use.

Last edited 9 months ago by Bill
Knute Knute

But “weapon” is the more generic term. If you get your way, and the word “weapon” gets banned, then suppose a writer wants to say; “rifles, pistols, revolvers, autoloaders, knives, any number of sharpened lengths of steel that could escape the term “knife” by renaming them swords, rapiers, sabers, or etc”? You want to read a whole paragraph like that when the word; “weapon” would have sufficed? Well, not only do I disagree, but I take exception to your exception! Because it seems half-baked. Not thought out. So much so that you got the first downvote that I’ve cast at… Read more »

Wild Bill

Yep, it is difficult to change half of a life time’s lingual habits.

Knute Knute

Difficult to change ANY habit, full stop! Linguistic or otherwise. Once a human makes up his mind it’s incredibly difficult to get them to reexamine their position.
IMO, it’s related to the “Monte Hall Paradox”, wherein changing one’s mind will double one’s chances of winning… but yet the vast majority will refuse to do so.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain


“Bill” likes his lever action rifles and his 1911. I can smell the FUDD from here.

Last edited 9 months ago by Nurph

m14 and a 1911


florida issues a cwp concealed weapons permit includes tasers ,mace edged and guns our navy friend has heard too many times this is my weapon this is my gun ,this ones for fighting this ones for fun too many times ppplppp the jar heads know that one


gun,gun, gun. I used to say weapon and our CCW class told us not to and drilled it into our heads.

Wild Bill

My drill sergeants drilled weapon, weapon, weapon into my head and this is no time to confuse weapon and gun!! Ha!

Last edited 9 months ago by Wild Bill

this is for killing this is for fun. I know I have a hard time with it still but something about if you go to court and you refer to it as a weapon that they make you out to be a warrior rather than a civilian with a gun. Perception is the key. Just like when the news says he had an arsenal. A shot gun, a long gun a 22lr and a pistol with over 500 rounds. LOL Not even close to a good start in my books.

Wild Bill

If I have to go to court, I will be on my best behavior. I promise.


My story with the court will be the same as it was when I first encountered the police. No name rank and serial number just the Sgt. Shultz effect.


i know nothing i see nothing , sir there is a dead body in your yard….. what ???, oh you seem to be right….who is going to clean that up?do you have anything for the smell my neighbors might complain, oh and close the gate on your way out the dogs will get in the road

Last edited 9 months ago by swmft
Wild Bill

Yes, and the most important concern is the safety and welfare of …. the dog!


they would freak out at what I keep 500 rounds will feed an m14 43 seconds a ma duce less than 30 seconds

Knute Knute

30 years ago now a man named Petersen in Wolf Point, MT got arrested for some minor infraction and the papers made a big deal over the “arsenal” they found in his car trunk. A rifle, a .22 rimfire, and 500 rounds.
One of my friends (an IPSC competitor also) commented; “Arsenal? That’s barely a good start!” I always liked that one… 🙂


It’s not a weapon until you use it as such. Military needs soldiers ready and willing to use firearms as weapons – even eager to shoot and kill the enemy. In CCW class they want to encourage use of firearm as a shield. Only deployed in extremis, and then used as deterrent if possible.

Thus different terminology is entirely appropriate given emphasis of the instruction and use.

My firearms identify as paper punches. If they had consciousness, they’d probably resent that I make them look like imprecise paper punches


Translation: “He was running around with a rifle designed to deter CRIMINALS, to let them know, don’t KILL me, look what I’ve got.”


Like a cute young woman, his looks put him at risk. With his heavyset build and baby face, can you blame the miscreants for not believing his deterrence?


While I am in complete agreement with the premise and conclusions of this post, it raises the issue: Depending on where you reside, just because you can, does it mean you should?

Dr. Strangelove

I personally don’t believe in open carry, it might tempt a bold criminal to snatch your piece. I walked into a store right behind a guy who was open carrying, and I could have easily grabbed it.


On the other hand, if people grow up never seeing guns and never see good, honest, peaceable people carrying guns – why would they reject leftist teaching that only bad people have guns (except us & and our stooges)?
i don’t open carry, but think it important for broad scale normalization.


,if open the open pistol is not cocked the concealed is ready to go, and never just 1


“That sounds like a really bad idea. What time should I show up?” — T Shirt


Could have been worse. You could have left the “l” out of “split.”


sometimes to prove a point have to is there

Wild Bill

Ahhh, say again. over.

Charles Nichols

A surprisingly good article, which is unusual to read here. A correction though, the following is incorrect. “It is not legal to start a fight so the person who started the fight can kill someone who they provoked.” In California, where there is no duty to retreat, unless one is the attacker, the attacker can legally use deadly force to defend himself if he is unable to retreat or surrender. And regardless of whether or not one is the person who initiated the attack, he cannot use deadly force unless he was defending himself against great bodily injury or death.… Read more »


I was unaware that California was one of the 36 states that had applied the castle doctrine Good To Know


I’ve heard people state carrying concealed was immoral but I had no idea that misguided attitude had been codified into state statute. I find that kind of thinking radically bizarre. More evidence of the cognitive dissonance infecting many Americans, the supermajority of them being on the left. Talk to any dedicated lefty, or if that seems too offensive to you, you’ll just have to take my word for it, about the police, bail or restorative justice movements everyone of them support. One of the main tenets of their radical idea is everybody is basically good. It’s just that poor little… Read more »


yeah God forbid you should assume someone is armed. What a world we live in. Or don’t live in but hear about. lol


Actually the concept of concealing weapons being immoral is thousands of years old. This is why the handshake has descended from the forearm Shake: it proved that both parties were not holding weapons and the implied necessity was that they did not conceal weapons either. When you go back and read articles, letters, public speeches, of The luminaries of the 17th 18th and 19th centuries, regarding individuals going about armed in public, the overwhelming majority argue against individuals carrying concealed: the reason being that only individuals with nefarious intent, evil intent, would conceal their weapons. Honest people would display their… Read more »


I’m not a proponent of open carry for myself. I’m not bothered by others carrying, but I figure that if I’m somewhere that’s being robbed, I might be shot at the outset, to neutralize a threat.


Yep. Best if the criminal doesn’t know who’s carrying.


I suspect you’ve misinterpreted California law on attacker using lethal force in self defense AND on difference from other states. In general (ie in most states) if one party initiates a fight they are the “attacker.” However if they make a genuine good-faith effort to disengage (not the legal wording) – if the party who was previously the “victim” continues then they become the “attacker” and previous “attacker” becomes “victim” with right to self defense. As for Zimmerman’s case, upon discovering the firearm Travon escalated his attack. Thinking someone will be a helpless victim does not justify any sort of… Read more »