Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. That should be the law.

[Yavin4]

If you follow someone--against the advice of the police and against rules for a neighborhood watch--and then you engage in a confrontation with that person, you should not be allowed to claim self-defense. A self-defense claim should only be used when there was NO OTHER WAY to avoid the confrontation.

Otherwise, you can engage or provoke anyone and then kill them as you are getting beaten up. Literally, you're making murder legal.

Don't start shit. Won't be shit.

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Ha! That was my thought when I saw your title.

Don't start none, won't be none...

K&R

[loli phabay]

2. not sure if you mean that if you talk to someone or call them a name

Then its okay for them to give you a beating and you cant do anything about it, it seems that is what you are saying. Confrontation can mean many things.

[Yavin4]

3. If you provoke a confrontation....

then you cannot use deadly force and claim self defense. A claim of self defense should only be allowed when there was NO OTHER WAY to avoid the confrontation.

Could you walk away? Could not continue to provoke the other person? Did you have a means of escape?

Zimmerman could have driven away at any time.

[loli phabay]

4. take zimmerman out of the equation as writing for one situation makes bad law

You are saying that if you provoke someone in any way they have a right to beat you, really is that what you want for there to be no right to defend yourself when someone attacks you due to you simply asking them a question.

[Rex]

5. That's not what he meant at all.

nt.

[loli phabay]

9. i think he did, he states that if you provoke a confrontation then you lose self defence rights

Now define provoking a confrontation, is it simply approaching someone or taking their picture or shouting at them.

[darkangel218]

12. Vigilantes should lose their right to " self defence"

[Rex]

15. Funny, be definition NONE of those are confrontations.

Try again.

[rhett o rick]

24. I would hope a jury could figure it out. nm

[loli phabay]

41. hopefully, not so sure though if this thread is anything to go by.

[cali]

52. no shit. what a disappointment when it comes to critical thinking

and ironically what the op suggests is the opposite of liberal.

[pipoman]

89. Holy cow..a voice of reason....

in my experience far more republicans are prosecutors and I have only met 1 republican defense attorney that I know of..

[Yavin4]

8. No. What I am saying is...

If you provoke someone into a fight and you had the means of avoiding the fight, then you cannot use deadly force against that person.

A non-Zimmerman example, Alec Baldwin has gotten into altercations with paparazzis. Do the papis have the right to use deadly force against him if they are in a fight with him? Of course not.

[loli phabay]

11. so if he is trying to kill one of them or badly injure them then they cant defend themselves

Good luck with your campaign.

[Rex]

14. No obviously that is not it at all.

He is saying if you start a confrontation and it escalates, you don't have the right to kill someone because you started it. Makes sense if you can understand the concept.

[JVS]

23. But loli is right. The offshoot of the law would be that Alec Baldwin could...

beat the guy to death. The current law is that even though the paparazzi started the confrontation with Baldwin, they are allowed to use self-defense. If Baldwin were to use force great enough to justify a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm they'd even be allowed to shoot him. You and Yavin seem to want to open the possibility of Baldwin to include killing reporters without repercussion.

[uppityperson]

17. Sure they can. But they should then be arrested for murder/manslaughter.

[loli phabay]

39. not if it was a legitimate use of self defence, and hopefully if it went to court

Then the jury would think so to.

[uppityperson]

40. And there is the problem, defining " legitimate use "

[loli phabay]

43. yup, but we should at least have the option of getting the chance to articulate it.

[uppityperson]

53. And if the only one left alive is the instigator, they should not be told "there, there" and let go.

Like Zimmy was. And if it goes to court, it should not be assassination of the person who was killed.

[Yavin4]

19. Okay, so then you've just made murder legal.

If I want to kill someone, all that I have to do is start a fight with them, let them get the best of me in the fight, and then use deadly force against them.

Heck, I can even throw the first punch.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. but your idea makes it so you don't even have to start a fight

because the confrontation could be mere words down to someone 'following' you.

sP

[JVS]

32. If I look at you funny and you say "what are you looking at?" would you be forfeiting your self...

defense rights? Or would I forfeit my rights by looking at you funny?

[loli phabay]

34. chicken and egg comes to mind

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. under Yavin4's propsal

I would say either of those situations could be considered confrontational. The level should need to rise to physical contact...

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. so we're back to

THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS! ???

The legal limit should be who initiated first physical contact... because all I gotta do now is claim that 'dude said some confrontational words' and then it's ON!

And you thought stand your ground was bad...

sP

[loli phabay]

16. its got to be physical contact of a violent nature and then you have fear of grevious injury

[Yavin4]

20. So, if I start a fight with you and let you beat me

I can legally kill you. Is that what you're saying?

[loli phabay]

26. what your saying is that i provoke you youby doing some action then you attack me

Then regardless of my intent with the original act i am not allowed to defend myself from harm or death. Self defence should always be available and judged on a case by vase basis.

[JVS]

28. What do you plan on calling your new law? May I suggest Right to Take the Bait?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. well, i do agree if someone starts a physical confrontation

that they should at no point after be able to claim stand your ground or self defense (unless they have surrendered and stopped resisting). but Yavin4 seems to be saying that just following someone or using threatening words should be the threshold...

sP

[loli phabay]

33. thats what i take from it as well, they may mean someone different but that is how i read it

[Yavin4]

55. You continue to mis-characterize what I am saying

A self-defense claim should only be used when there is no other alternative. If you initiate a fight, you cannot use deadly force and claim self defense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

64. no... that is not what you initially said

you said 'provoke a confrontation'... that is a lot different than 'initiate a fight.' if you meant physical contact or threat of physical violence then i agree with you. but it is not what you said at first...

sP

[Yavin4]

68. From my OP

A self-defense claim should only be used when there was NO OTHER WAY to avoid the confrontation.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

92. From your OP

"Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense."

But hey... stick to your guns...

sP

[GreenStormCloud]

104. That is the way the law is.

#1 hits #2. #2 is a better fighter and starts getting the best of #1. #1 decides he doesn't want any more of it. #1 tries to run away, #2 follows him continuing to beat on him. At that point #1 is now the defender and #2 is the attacker.

Or: #1 yells out that he wants to quit. #2 continues to beat on him. #1 is now the defender.

Whatever happens, #1 can be charged with assault, as can #2 if he is still alive after #1 shoots him.

[chowder66]

49. I don't agree

It should be based on lack of restraint.

If a person can be shown that they did not use reasonable restraint in maybe more than one instance then they should not be able to claim self defense. I'm sure it would have to get deeper than that but in the case of Zimmerman ;
My opinion is that Zimmerman refused to show restraint and defied it.

He became suspicious based on fear and prejudice, which led him to follow Martin, Martin was not doing anything wrong. "Looking at houses" while talking on the phone is legal activity.

Zimmerman called the police who were on their way and probably knew how long it would take police to get there based on past calls and dispatches.

He got out of his car which led to the police dispatcher to tell him that they didn't need him to do that. Cops are on their way.

He continued to pursue Trayvon Martin knowing full well that he was carrying a firearm, he called the police, they were on their way and the police didn't need him to follow him. He defied, defied again and defied again based on fear, prejudice and obsession to pursue an innocent boy.

Of course the last bit of restraint would have been to not pull the trigger but it should have NEVER have gotten that far in the first place.

[hfojvt]

97. he called the Enterprise a garbage scow

and that's when I hit him.

I think that is from "The Trouble with Tribbles" an episode I mostly hate

but it is a very funny sequence. The Enterprise is at a space station where some Klingons are staying as well, When Kirk gives them shore leave he gives Scotty very strict instructions that there is to be no trouble.

Except a Klingon captain gets in Scotty's face trying to provoke a fight, which he eventually does, Scotty listens to several insults of Captain Kirk, which rile him up a little, but not enough to start a fight, until the Klingon says something about the Enterprise. Then Soctty pops him and then it turns into a ballroom blitz.

Then he is explaining it to Captain Kirk.

Scotty: He said that Captain Kirk was the misbegotten son of a 3 headed Cartullian (I cannot remember the exact words)
Kirk: And that's when you hit him?
Scotty: No sir, I remembered your orders.
Kirk: Oh
Scotty: Then he said that Captain Kirk was a cowardly imbecile.
Kirk: And that's when you hit him?

I may even have to buy the DVD. After all, it does have the legendary "City on the edge of Forever" episode on it too.
Scotty: No sir, I remembered your orders.

[hobbit709]

31. If you provoke a hornets nest and get the shit stung out of you that is a consequence

when you go looking for trouble. No sympathy on my part.

[heaven05]

76. he

had no right to profile TM as a 'suspect'. Follow him, facts, and confront him. If someone does that to me especially some wannabe cop, I wouldn't give him/her the time of day. That's my right. Put your hands on me or otherwise try to detain me. We go to war, and may the best Man/woman win!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because a white man says stop, does not mean a person of color automatically has to drop to their knees, hands out on supplicating position. geez

[cali]

30. but legally what constitutes a provocation?

this is the sort of thing that's not all that simple to codify.

[JVS]

37. Legally it has to be something illegal like a threat of violence or a physical assault.

DU seems to have a much broader usage.

[Kingofalldems]

22. He never said anything about name calling

The old 'not sure' dismissal.

[loli phabay]

29. well calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them

Can be called provoking a confrontation, the problem is what would set you off is different from me. Fighting words are a well recognised term in law and used in situations where someone was provoked.

[uppityperson]

54. And calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them can be fear provoking so that

person is within his/her rights to be afraid for their life and kill the one calling the name, following them, looking at them, right?

[secondvariety]

61. If some adult

neighborhood creep is chatting up my 10 year old granddaughter, that my friend is provoking a confrontation. If some asswipe screams obscenities at the before mentioned granddaughter, that is provoking a confrontation. If someone is in MY face screaming, that is provoking a confrontation and the beatings will commence.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. And you will be guilty of assault. N/T

[secondvariety]

107. Doubt it.

[Rex]

6. Agree 100%

nt.

[darkangel218]

10. wtf.. you said the exact same thing

[darkangel218]

7. I agree 100%.

[Starry Messenger]

18. Totally 100% agree.

Really disappointed with some of the things I've read here this past month. I'm looking at a couple of people with new eyes.

[cali]

48. yes, but that's so easy to say; so much harder to put into a practice

that works fairly. it's the same problem I have with SYG laws.

Say, for instance, someone on a neighborhood watch sees a man that he thinks is following a woman. Heck, let's make this even more dire: There's been a series of rapes in the neighborhood. The watch guy follows the man and subsequently the followed attacks the follower, but is on the losing end and is injured. As it turns out, he's not the rapist. (oh and they're both white) Should the follower still not be allowed to claim self-defense.

The op may make people feel good temporarily but it's a very bad idea which would make terrible law and it's about as liberal as Rick Santorum.

[Zoeisright]

27. Fuckin' A.

Anyone who doesn't get that is an idiot.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. uh... no

anyone who disagrees with that sees the pitfalls in the word 'provoke'... do just words count as a reason to use deadly force? ever flip someone the bird? ever tell someone to fuck off? how about raised your voice regardless of the words? all of those things could be considered confrontational or provocative and thus negate your right to defend yourself under Yavin4's proposal.

sP

[cali]

50. no, quite the opposite. it may make you feel righteous but it's not

liberal. it's patently unfair and it would make terrible law.

egads.

[bahrbearian]

35. That is the Law except for in. SYG States

[onenote]

78. Actually its not

I think you are referring to the duty to retreat. But the duty to retreat is not the same thing as a duty not to confront or provoke.

An example (that I've used before): A guy (much bigger and tougher and with a reputation of being a belligerent drunk) borrows some money from you. You ask him to pay it back and he tells you he doesn't have it. A couple of hours later, you get a call from a friend telling you the guy that owes you money is drunkenly buying drinks for the house at a local bar, loudly laughing about what a sap you are. Pissed, you go to the bar and "confront" him verbally, demanding that he give you your money back. He tells you to get lost. Instead of leaving, you again demand repayment. At this point, he drunkenly pulls out a gun and points it at you. You pull out a gun that you put in your pocket just in case the guy threatened you and you shoot him.

In a stand your ground state, you have a legitimate claim of self defense, even though you could have avoided the confrontation by staying home or by leaving when he refused to pay you. Even if it turns out that the "gun" he pulled was not loaded, you win.

In a duty to retreat state, the result would almost certainly be the same. That's because even in a duty to retreat state, you had no obligation to stay home and not confront the guy in the bar. When he threatened you by pulling a gun, you had a duty to retreat, but only if you could do so in complete safety to yourself and others in the bar. Since there was a strong likelihood under the circumstances (i.e., no one but the drunk may know his gun isn't loaded), it is reasonable to assume that he could shoot try to shoot you if you tried to leave the bar when he pulled his gun and that his shooting posed a threat to you and others in the bar. Now, if he had pulled a knife, it might be possible that you could have gotten away in complete safety, in which case you would lose. Every case turns on its facts. For example, the hypothetical I just described might come out differently if the guy had a knife and was 10 feet away from you vs. a case where he was only 2 feet away from you.

[dkf]

38. So if a woman makes a sassy remark to her boyfriend and the guy starts whooping her ass she can't

Shoot him?

What if she slaps him first? Punches him first? Throws a plate at this head first?

[cali]

51. bingo. there are dozens of examples along those lines.

[Yavin4]

60. In your example, if a woman baits him into a fight, she can kill him, right?

That's all that it would take. So, murder is legal then, right?

[dkf]

65. If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away) and he continues to beat her then yes.

Self defense and fear of serious bodily harm = justified homicide.

You think she should keep being beaten?

[Yavin4]

67. "If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away)"

you're introducing facts that were not present in your original post. From my OP:

A self-defense claim should only be used when there was NO OTHER WAY to avoid the confrontation.

If she had a way of avoiding the confrontation, she cannot claim self defense.

[dkf]

77. If she "has" or "had"?

Is your burden whether you can get away at the moment or if there was any time she could have avoided it? Yes the woman in this instance could have kept her mouth shut, or not slapped the guy or not thrown the plate in his direction. Once she does these things has she lost the right to self defense no matter how bad the "whoop ass"?

[Lizzie Poppet]

106. No, she shouldn't continue being beaten.

But if she started the argument, then if she uses deadly force to resist being beaten, then she bears some heavy moral responsibility for the outcome. The law would reflect that moral responsibility. Mind you, in this sort of scenario, it's probable that only she will know who started the argument, but "survivor tells the story" is a sad fact of a lot of cases.

[XemaSab]

79. +1

What is being proposed in the OP is asinine and would result in MORE black people (and people of all colors) in jail and dead.

[X_Digger]

42. You mean like the law already on the books in most states?

Ex FL -

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[JVS]

45. I think OP means getting rid of 2a and 2b

[X_Digger]

47. Yeah.. no. Somehow I don't think that's likely. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. I agree completely.

As I've said in several other threads, the law should take into account which party initiated the conflict, regardless of whether that initiation was physical or not.

[Beartracks]

56. Better: Shouldn't be able to use "Stand Your Grand" as a basis for self defense.

You'd still have the right to defend yourself even if the escalation YOU foolishly or inadvertently started gets out of hand and you wind up on the short end of the stick fearing for your life. But you shouldn't be able to root your defense in a "Stand Your Ground" claim, since it wasn't your ground you were standing on when you began behaving recklessly in the first place.

==================

[last1standing]

57. I think the problem here is not the self defense claim but the way it is used.

Let's take the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation and remove the knowledge we have that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Without that bit of information we end up exactly where we are today even if we change the law based on your suggestion.

I think the responsible change is to get rid of these repugnant Stand Your Ground laws and go back to a proportional response standard for self defense. As it stands in too many states at the moment SYG law allows a 'victim' to kill anyone so long as they can convince the police or a jury that they were afraid of death or grievous bodily harm. It makes no difference that the 'victim' could get away without either of those things happening. However, had the old law requiring a proportionate response to the threat been in place, the 'victim' would be required to remove himself from the situation if practicable and to only respond to the threat of violence with enough force to get out of the situation. That means you can't shoot a kid because he hit you but you can hit him back enough to render him incapable of hitting you again.

Would that have changed the result in the Zimmerman trial? Probably not. Zimmerman claims Martin went for his gun so he had no choice but to kill him. Besides which, despite how many times Zimmerman changed his story, the 'reasonable doubt' standard made sure that he would walk for murder or manslaughter. I believe the only charge that could have stuck would have been negligent homicide as his actions in following Martin against the advice of the 9-11 operator, with a gun, in the dark, without backup, was beyond a reasonable doubt incredibly negligent regardless of who started the physical confrontation. In other words, Zimmerman's negligence set up the conditions for a confrontation to occur whether he started the actual fight or not.

Zimmerman is free today because the laws in Florida made it impossible to convict him for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, both of which he is almost certainly guilty. As others have pointed out, these laws have a strong tendency to work against the African-American community and so should be in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Unfortunately, I doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with me so the best thing to do is to work to get Rick Scott out of office and replace the state legislature with real human beings.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. Physical violence is not an acceptable response to verbal provocation.

The most basic, fundamental definition of "Freedom of Speech" is "the right to be rude without being hit".


I have the right to be rude to you.

Even if I am rude to you, you do not have the right to hit me.

If you hit me, then even if I was rude to you, I have the right to defend myself.


Some forms of verbal provocation go beyond simple rudeness - notably, I think that both threats of violence and intentional "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" style provocation at least mitigate a physical response.

But short of that, no: if you physically attack someone who has not physically attacked you, it's OK for them to use force, potentially including lethal force, to defend themselves.

[Yavin4]

66. So, it would be okay for a photographer to kill Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn

each man struck a photographer that was rude to them, so those photographers can kill either Baldwin or Penn. Do I have that right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. I refer you to the phrase "defend yourself".

If someone has hit you, but is no longer a threat, it's not OK to shoot them, or even to hit them back.

If someone is *in the process* of launching a sustained attack on you such that you reasonably fear you are in danger of serious injury, then yes, the fact that they're a celebrity and you've been photographing them doesn't change the fact that it's OK for you to use lethal force to prevent them.

But I can't imagine that comes up very often...

On edit: one not-directly-relevant qualifier it might be worth adding for information is that, while I'm in favour of it being legal to use force, including any firearms you may be carrying, to defend yourself against someone attacking you, I don't support the right to carry firearms; I think they're too likely to be used to attack rather than defend, so that part of the question is moot. But feel free to substitute "lead pipe lying in the gutter" for "gun you brought along with you".

[JoeyT]

59. Kick and rec.

Your subject line should be on billboards.

[SoCalDem]

62. The flaw in that plan is that when one person ends up dead

and there is no video, all you end up with is, the guy who is not dead gets to tell it the way he sees it.

Witness-snuffing laws, aka stand your ground/home is my castle, only encourages armed people to kill (rather than risk that the other person's tale is more convincing)/

[Deep13]

70. It can put someone with a legitimate self defense in a tough spot.

Yeah, only one witness, but there is no guarantee the jury will believe him or her.

[SoCalDem]

71. when there is a class/race difference, it's a more predictable outcome

otherwise, it could be iffy..

[Deep13]

73. true. suburban juries will cut a white defendant some slack...

...especially if the dead guy is not white. The converse is that a jury will usually not believe a black or spanish-speaking defendant, especially if the dead guy is white.

[ileus]

63. That's the law in Virginia.

[Deep13]

69. Under Common Law, lethal self defense can only be used...

...if ones hands are clean, so to speak. And it can only be used if one reasonably believes he or she if facing a lethal threat. The rules for non-lethal self defense are a bit more flexible.

[blkmusclmachine]

72. +1.

[treestar]

74. That's why the burden should be on the defendant by a preponderance

the self defense law says an aggressor cannot claim self defense unless they clearly communicated to the person they originally attacked that they were backing off and no longer interested in violence or use of force.

How can the prosecution ever prove that was not done if there were no third party witnesses? Or if the person originally attacked is dead? Leaves it possible for too many Zimmermans and gives them a reason to kill rather than injure or use less deadly force.

[onenote]

82. Problem with putting burden on defendant by a preponderance

at the trial stage is that it means that, in the case of a tie, the defendant loses and goes to jail, even though the evidence is equally plausible that his use of self defense was legitimate under the law as it is that his use was not legitimate. No one should go to jail if the state can't at least prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your claim of self-defense is not reasonable.

Thus, the solution isn't to shift which party has the burden, its to reduce the burden on the state with regard to the defense.

BTW, in most if not all SYG states, if the defendant goes ahead with a pretrial hearing to determine whether the case should go to trial, the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

[XemaSab]

86. Zimmerman said he was walking back to his car

He's the only "witness" to this and hey, maybe he's full of shit, but there's no actual evidence either way.

Putting the burden of proof on the defendant is not how we do things in the United States.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the only thing the defense has to do is say, "Eh, maybe it happened this other way."

Throwing out hundreds of years of the American legal process because Zimmerman walked is a TERRIBLE precedent that would put tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in prison.

[treestar]

95. that is not so; traditionally the burden was on the defendant

to prove justification by a preponderance. That was the way we did things in America originally.

Where it has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant killed someone, it is on defendant to explain why it was justified.

[LuckyTheDog]

80. If you look for trouble and find it...

... then what happens is on you.

[B Stieg]

88. Walking home from the store?

[LuckyTheDog]

102. No, driving around looking for black kids to stalk (nt)

[B Stieg]

81. Damn straight. Here's the change in the Florida jury instructions, pre- and post Stand Your Ground

As former Florida Secretary of State Dan Gelber has pointed out, pre-Jeb Bush, pre- Koch Brothers, and pre-ALEC Florida law would have required the following instructions to be read to a jury in a self-defense murder trial:

"The defendant [George Zimmerman] cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant [George Zimmerman] was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

By comparison, here are the Stand Your Ground instructions that actually were read to the Zimmerman jury:

“The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

“George Zimmerman… had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself …”

Removing the duty to retreat makes us less safe and more uncivilized!

[dkf]

83. Same verdict for Zimmerman pre and post SYG.

[B Stieg]

87. How do you figure?

Or do you?

[dkf]

90. Z was pinned per testimony. No way to retreat. Ergo same verdict.

[B Stieg]

96. Pinned? By whose testimony? Zimmerman's white friend? And what about prior to that?

The "first punch" would not have been thrown if Zimmerman had not pursued. Besides, what about the incentive? You know who said "You're going to die tonight," and it wasn't Martin.

[dkf]

99. John Good was Zimmerman's friend? I didn't know they knew each other.

Was that in the testimony?

What happened prior is not relevant to the self defense argument that you have the right to self defense if you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury at that point in time you killed a person. If that was so a woman who had slapped her abusive boyfriend would have no argument if he starts wailing on her and she shoots him.

We forget that self defense laws allow women to protect themselves also. Women are the ones who most need equalizers like guns. Maybe that is why I see this case as I do. I cannot take this away from Zimmerman and expect it to be there for others.

[B Stieg]

101. Not according to...

Darling v. State, 81 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2012)

Justification for using deadly force in self defense, which includes the "stand your ground" defense, does not apply to a person who provokes the attack. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). There are only two exceptions to this rule: (1) where there is no means of escape other than the use of deadly force, or (2) if the provoking person withdraws from physical contact or unequivocally indicates his desire to withdraw from the confrontation and the alleged victim continues or resumes the use of force. Id.


Zimmerman obviously believed there was a danger (he called the police), so, under Darling, wouldn't getting out of the truck and pursuing Martin be considered provocation? Of course, if this is true, I have no argument for why the prosecution wouldn't have asserted this. (NB: I am not a lawyer or law student. The statute and case noted above were borrowed from another poster.)

[LittleBlue]

84. I would say, anyone who throws the first punch

or makes the first violent action.

Not sure what you mean by "provoke", that could mean cursing at someone.

[RomanceWritR]

85. Self-Defense and Stand your Ground are different legal concepts.

This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case. It was straight self-defense. Is the author suggesting that the act of exiting his car and following Trayvon, was enough to be considered "Provoking" the incident? Put another way, if Trayvon had a gun, would Zimmerman's following him been enough to shoot him? If the answer to this is yes, there would be justification for mass-carnage everywhere. Since it is not disputed that Zimmerman had wounds to the back of his head, where exactly, at the point that he shot Trayvon, could he have escaped to? To me, the crucial evidence was the forensic testimony that the bullet hole and trajectory clearly indicated that Trayvon was on top at the time the fatal shot was fired.

[Ecumenist]

91. IT'S COMMON SENSE but as my mom used to say, "common sense ain't all that common". nt

[Bearheim]

93. Snuff The Witness

Stand your ground is nothing more than snuff the witness. We need to say that over and over.

Anyone caught alone with a killer could wind up dead and the killer set free because of these laws. #SnuffTheWitness must be repealed everywhere it exists otherwise anyone could fall victim to these poorly written, ill conceived laws.

[Skittles]

94. I'm sure paranoid gun humping cowards will disagree

[pasto76]

98. for christs sake A DISPATCHER IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT

and 'rules of a neighborhood watch' dont count for shit in a criminal trial!!!!!!!!!!!


only the last 3 lines of your post mean anything.

dont start shit, wont be shit -my old platoon motto

[TheKentuckian]

100. I'm a strong believer in don't start nothing, won't be nothing but you must define

provoking a confrontation pretty clearly and it is probably best done in ways not using a single case as your standard unit of measurement.

I'm also against the NO OTHER WAY standard because it gets subjective and Monday Morning Quarterbacked quickly and easily. It also comes flavored with a presumption of guilt, sprinkled with an insistence on hesitation in danger for the attacked to consider the well being of the person assaulting them above their own in the heat of the moment.

That is at least somewhat to the side though, what I see as the meat here is about provocation. I agree in broad principle but it has to be well defined where that line consistently is, otherwise it is just the other side of the license to murder-just claim to be provoked and then they escalated by fighting back or apparently not even that, the other guy started and I finished it. See how well that plays in the aggregate.

You think a prejudiced jury that spends actual time out of their existence being upset at the "voter intimidation" the Faux runs with every election, powered by a picture of a black guy or two wearing black around the polling place that they call thugs but think crazy white people strapped at political You know the gambit where they start talking about Black Panthers and union thugs. Do you think a future "Zimmerman" will bother calling the cops under the proposed standard? Who are those types of jurors going to believe "provoked" in most cases?

[aikoaiko]

103. I generally agree, but defining provoked is difficult.