Wow- a literal interpretation of the self defense law could lead to disastrous consequences

[DemocratSinceBirth]

An armed person can follow an unarmed person at night, call him a blankety, blank, blank, the target of his verbal abuse punches him in the face, a fight ensues and the armed person starts losing and losing badly, and shoots and kills the person.


And all this falls under the rubric of self defense.

[Nye Bevan]

1. Which is why we need gun control.

There will always be arguments, insults, fights and road rage. But if neither party has a gun, these incidents will probably not lead to someone being killed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. The emphasis is on the word "literal"

You would need a certain perp and a certain victim for it to work.

[Jenoch]

7. What form of gun control

would lead to the absence of guns in the U.S.?

[Politicalboi]

31. Maybe not all guns

But the laws that let assholes feel real "manly" when they are carrying their guns. Most of them are Barney Fifes till confronted, then they're the Shakiest Gun in the West, and like Zimmerman, get scared, and shoot. I have a right to go out in the streets without some yahoo thinking he's going to save the world with his gun and shoot a crook at ANY cost. Casualties be damned.

[Jenoch]

35. Situations like this are

extremely rare. Of course it should never happen. But you are more likely to get hit by lighting on the 4th of July on consecutive years than to be shot by a person with a CCW. (Of course that is hyperbole to make a point, but I would not be surprised if the odds were that long.) By the way, I do not have a CCW.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. That is not "a literal interpretation of the self defense law".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Where did I err?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. First you say that there is a self-defense law in Florida which can be literally interpreted.

You did so without referring to a Florida statute, Florida case law, or even a Florida jury instruction.

Then you represent that you are literally interpreting the law of self-defense in Florida by saying,

"An armed person can follow an unarmed person at night, call him a blankety, blank, blank, the target of his verbal abuse punches him in the face, a fight ensues and the armed person starts losing and losing badly, and shoots and kills the person."

(no authority cited)

In contrast, the standard jury instruction in Florida for self-defense, in accordance with § 782.02, Fla. Stat., is as follows:

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to {himself} {herself} while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder {him} {her}, or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon {him} {her}, or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by {him} {her}.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

Note the phrase "only if the defendant reasonably believes."

No exception is applicable if a defense attorney asks questions calling for speculation without objection by a prosecutor, or if a defense attorney (or bloggers) otherwise seek to cause confusion by making assertions which are not supported facts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I was correct

Oh, I forgot... The armed person can even throw the same punch.



"No exception is applicable if a defense attorney asks questions calling for speculation without objection by a prosecutor, or if a defense attorney (or bloggers) otherwise seek to cause confusion by making assertions which are not supported facts."

Irrelevant, I was applying the law to a specific set of facts.

[jwirr]

22. Aren't the words "reasonably believe" open ended with no real definition? And while we are at it

what is stalking? It seems to me that fits in here somewhere. When someone follows a total stranger in an obvious way why isn't that stalking?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Once double jeopardy attaches, a defendant cannot be tried again even if a jury does not follow the

judge's instructions and decides that the phrase "reasonably believe" is an open ended one with no real definition.

The phrase "reasonably believe" is one that has been defined by case law over the centuries. This has been distilled down to the definition that the judge will give near the end of the trial. The attorneys may argue over it. And the defense attorney may try to put his own spin on it. He may even try to give the false impression that the phrase means whatever the jury wants it to mean.

The defense attorney, or anyone else supporting Zimmerman, may also want to bring up issues which are not part of the elements which must be proved in order to support a conviction for murder in the second degree. A second degree murder conviction does not require proof of stalking, although the Zimmerman defenders may imply that it does. By then getting into the nuances of stalking, they can claim to disbelieve that stalking was proved, and disbelieve that second degree murder was proved.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

3. don't be a violent person and punch someone in the face. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Under the law I can punch someone in the face

Under the law I can punch someone in the face, start losing the fight, reasonably feel I am in danger of great bodily harm or imminent death, and shoot the person I started the fight with.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

17. if you don't start a fight then you wont be in that predicament...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The person starting the fight can invoke a claim of self defense.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

21. not if you don't punch or fight back...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. So somebody can start punching me and I can't protect myself?

[HeroInAHalfShell]

25. call 911... or make sure you win the fight...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Not to beat a dead horse.

But if I'm fighting for my life I don't have the opportunity to call 9-11 and if I'm winning the fight to where the person who punched me reasonably believes death or great bodily harm is imminent he can legally shoot me.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

32. exactly.

[Azathoth]

27. Not true

If you punch someone in the face, you lose the right to assert self-defense. The only way to restore it is to show that the reaction was completely and unreasonably disproportionate. This might work if, for instance, you shoved someone while waiting in line at the grocery store and he responded by throwing you to the ground and pounding your face in. But it's pretty well established that if you initiate a fist fight, you aren't going to be able to claim self defense.

[X_Digger]

29. Not true. See below.

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.

The classic example of this is two guys in a bar..

One taps the other on the shoulder and says, "My pecker's bigger'n yours, wanna fight about it?" They go outside to engage in 'fisticuffs' and the first guy starts to get his ass kicked. He throws his hands up and says, "Fine, yours is bigger'n mine! I give up!"

The second guy continues to pound on the purported-pecker-fight-picker, making him (or a reasonable person in that situation) think that he's going to be killed or grievously wounded. After having tried to get away and being unable to do so, and having clearly communicated his intent to disengage, he would be justified in using deadly force in response.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. The best bar fight I ever saw in a bar and I was a bouncer at that time

The best bar fight I ever saw in a bar and I was a bouncer at that time, but not at that establishment went down as thus:

In DeBary of all places which is immediately north and contiguous to Sanford I was there when a friend of mine brought a black friend of his into a bar. This is 1978. And someone said "who brought this N word into the bar?" My friend and him got into a fight that spilled out into the parking lot.

[Azathoth]

57. Yes, that is the second part of the exception

But it only applies when the aggressor makes an honest and unambiguous attempt to withdraw from the confrontation. I didn't get the impression that was what the poster was asserting. I can't just walk up to you, punch you in the face, and then pull a gun while you're whooping my ass and shoot you because I don't like the way the fight is going.

[X_Digger]

58. I don't think the poster addressed it one way or another..

I was responding to your absolute, "If you punch someone in the face, you lose the right to assert self-defense. "

[Hoyt]

5. That's what those who worship/tote/promote guns believe.

[DearAbby]

8. The law sucks and should be repealed.

But for those who claim the Prosecution isn't objecting enough regarding injuries needed to require deadly force...think of it this way. Trayvon Martin also fit the criteria of Florida Stand your Ground law.

Martin first observes Zimmerman following him in his vehicle, then he parks are watches Martin from within his car. Zimmerman would appear suspicious to Martin. When he followed Martin on foot, he became a person up to NO good...If it had happened to me, I would be thinking sexual pervert. Martin being a 17 yr old had to been told about STRANGER DANGER. He was unarmed, and faced with a possible sexual assault and death. Did he need to be raped or killed before he could throw his first punch?

You see this also benefits the prosecutions case. People see this as a sports event, when each witness has a piece of the puzzle that could benefit both sides.

[Duckwraps]

11. I may be mistaken

but I don't think the law requires you to have any sort of injury at all before you can use deadly force. For example, a person comes up to me with a knife in her hand and says I hate you and am going to kill you. A person takes a shot at you and misses. A person much bigger than you says he is going to beat you to within an inch of your life and break every bone in your body. Do I have to wait to be stabbed, shot or beaten before I can use deadly force? Not really as long as I believe those attackers are going to actually hurt or kill me and have the means eg knife, gun or superior size/strength to do so.

[Duer 157099]

9. And since you don't need any evidence of injury whatsoever

just that you reasonably thought that it might happen, and let's say the other person's weapon is their car as in a road rage incident... an armed person can shoot a driver because they felt threatened by them. After all, the car is the dangerous weapon, and you don't need to show evidence of injury. Just your suspicion of intent.

How does it not extrapolate there? Slippery slope and all.

[Duckwraps]

14. Yes and the police do this more often than you would think. nt

[mick063]

13. I will never set foot in the state.

Those folks chose to live in the wild West. They think it is 1865.

Good for them.

Now let Disney World tank because of it.

[Duckwraps]

16. Well mick..

there are 49 other states with very, very similar laws regarding self-defense and the use of deadly force. I don't know where you are from but I would wager your state has very similar laws.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I get that

It just seems a literal interpretation could lead to some unpalatable results.

[Duckwraps]

20. Yes and it probably has. Here is something

that you may find as hard to believe. In my state there is a law on the books that states that if you are a first hand witness to a felony in progress you are justified in the use of deadly force. This was recently tested about 3-4 years ago and was upheld by out state supreme court. I can give you more detail if you like.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. It has nothing to do with this particular case

A jury would hopefully use common sense or else a guy who is packing can start a fight with an unarmed guy, start losing the fight to where he reasonably believed his life was in danger, and shoot the unarmed guy he started the fight with.

[Duckwraps]

38. See rrneck's responce below. Most states probably have sorts of exemptions. nt

[NCTraveler]

37. Florida is nothing like the wild west.

Much to your dismay, Disney and its thousands of employees is not tanking.

[Duckwraps]

40. Yes, and if you

compare the murder rates in the "old wild west" to those of today you would find it was no so wild after all.

[NCTraveler]

42. I kind of got a laugh out of it.

I will be hanging out in the wild west tonight. Going to Clearwater Beach for a beer and fresh Grouper sandwich. There will be over a thousand people on the beach and strip. People from all backgrounds and ethnicities. Chances are very good that the only guns that will be seen will be on the hips of law enforcement. One or two drunks might get into a scuffle.

Can't wait to get off work, put on my jeans and chaps, mount my horse, and ride down to the beach with my rifle loaded.

[Duckwraps]

46. Well just

make sure Wyatt, Virgil or Morgan don't see you with that rifle or you will get buffaloed by them.

[mick063]

43. Don't worry about my dismay

After my visit to Great Britain, I must conclude that Disney does not maximize profit due to Florida gun law. Almost every person I talked to believes that Florida is the wild West.

Perhaps to your angst, I did my very best to reinforce that British view of Florida gun law. Being American certainly led to a small measure of credibility.

No debating that Disney can do just fine without my money. Then again, I don't live in a vacuum. If I can cost them a few hundred dollars, then I'll just call that a good day's work.

Why pick on Disney? Well, Disney is simply symbolic of the huge tourism trade in Florida. When I say Disney, I actually mean the whole enchilada.

They have political clout. If the stupid law hurts their bottom line, they will do something about it.

[NCTraveler]

44. You knowledge about Florida is extremely limited.

"Why pick on Disney? Well, Disney is simply symbolic of the huge tourism trade in Florida."

You mean a trade that gainfully employees millions of people?

"After my visit to Great Britain, I must conclude that Disney does not maximize profit due to Florida gun law. Almost every person I talked to believes that Florida is the wild West."

I do not believe that almost every person you talked to in Great Britain believes that Florida is the wild west. If that is the case, you were surrounded by ignorance.

[mick063]

45. Believe what you wish to believe

Perhaps those millions of gainfully employed folks will wish to improve the State's image.

Honestly, the Brits I personally know are down right afraid to visit the US. Whether you believe it or not.

[CokeMachine]

41. I'm sure they will miss you.

You may want to check your state's (assume it's WA by your avatar) self defense laws. Will you move and where will you move to?

Have a great Holiday!!

[X_Digger]

28. You might want to actually read the law..

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.

So no, your assertion falls flat on it's face. If you sucker punch me at a bar, and I pull out a knife, back you into a corner and act in such a manner to give a person reasonable belief that I'm going to kill you or do great bodily harm to you, you are justified in using deadly force to stop me.

[rrneck]

34. Beat me to it. Sometimes I forget to read the thread. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I don't think I said "self defense" wouldn't apply in that situation. I didn't address it.

I just gave one example of where a literal interpretation of self defense leads to a result many would find unjust.

[HiPointDem]

49. supports the op's argument. initiate a confrontation & then say "but i was scared for my life"

& kill the person you aggressed against.

good way to get away with murder.

[X_Digger]

50. Saying 'but I was scared for my life' isn't what the law says, now is it?

*snort*

[HiPointDem]

55. actually it is.

"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"

[X_Digger]

56. That's the 'reasonable man' standard. You might want to read up on it.

Just saying that you're scared doesn't cut the mustard.

Nice try.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. So as it relates to the Zimmerman case

Where was Trayvon's knife? Where was his gun?

Or was it only the "concrete sidewalk" that Trayvon was armed with?

[X_Digger]

52. Continuing to pound on an aggressor who's tried to disengage would qualify, yes.

The typical application of this law is the 'bar fight' scenario I outlined above in #29.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. And you would expect physical evidence to support this, correct? nt

[X_Digger]

54. First the state has to prove that the person charged is the aggressor, 'who swung first'..

.. then if the defense stipulated being the aggressor, the defendant would have to prove that they tried to disengage, or that the violence done them would leave a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Let's say X starts the fight

And Y gets the better of him and refuses to stop beating X, X would be justified in shooting Y.

The problem is Y has to accept X's word he wants to disengage. Fist fights rarely end with a "I quit" or "Uncle".

[X_Digger]

62. That's "Y"'s problem, according to the law.

The law in FL dates from 1976, and is mirrored in many other states, going back 30-80 years. If it were a terrible problem, I think it would have been highlighted before now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I get it. I turned the law on its head.

I expect the jury to use common sense.

[X_Digger]

65. Come up with a silly interpretation, then bemoan "disastrous consequences". I get it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. It happened to me.

Some guy started a fight with me. I was able to get on top of him in the infamous "ground and pound" position but I lacked the heart to pound him. The biggest difference between a lot of "thugs" and average guys is not that they are stronger than the average guy but they have no compunctions about administering pain to others, but i digress...

Any way he signaled he want to quit and when I got off him I got the worst beating of my life. I have no doubt that if my friend didn't pull him off I was going to the hospital; a scary prospect for a fifteen year old kid.

So my interpretation is grounded in real life experience.

[X_Digger]

68. So the next time someone takes a poke at you, you're going to kill them?

Good luck with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Where did I say that?

My point is that fist fights are not sanctioned events and don't end with a referee declaring a winner or one of the combatants crying "Uncle"

They usually go on until they are broken up or one of the combatants is beaten silly...

And given the fact I'm 6'2 210 and work out four times a week I'm not especially worried about someone taking a "poke at" me. It could happen as it once did , but it hasn't happened again, and I don't think it will...

[Azathoth]

59. The burden would be on him to prove that you acted disproportionately

or that he clearly tried to withdraw.

[X_Digger]

60. Well, first the prosecution would have to prove him the aggressor, then yes, as you say. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Unless he withdrew and literally tried to run way how did the decedent know that was his intention?

He might have appeared to quit to gain a momentary advantage.

It happened to me and I got a broken nose as a result.

Some miscreant started a fight with me, it didn't go well for him at first as my bull rush was successful, signaled he had enough, and when I got off him, he resumed the fight and gave me a broken nose. I have no doubt ,if my friend didn't pull him off it would have been much worse.

[Azathoth]

70. That's why it is an extremely difficult defense to assert

He would need really solid evidence. Highly credible, objective witnesses, or maybe a video recording. And even then, it would be problematic. If I have a concealed gun on me and I punch you, you pull a knife and back me into a corner, I pull my gun and repeatedly shout "Leave me alone or I'll shoot!"... I still haven't crossed the threshold since I'm still brandishing a deadly weapon and you reasonably believe that you cannot retreat in safety.

It's almost impossible to initiate a fist fight while armed with a gun and then claim self-defense when you end up shooting the other guy. And even if you did manage it, you probably wouldn't get off since you'd still be guilty of lesser included charges like battery.

[rrneck]

33. I think this is the relevant part of the statute...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by getting out of his car and confronting Martin and probably by stalking him with the car before the confrontation. It was a bad combination: an idiot with delusions of grandeur and a hot headed kid.

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. This is why things shouldn't be based on who threw the first blow.

Responsibility should be based on who started the confrontation, not necessarily on who began the violence. In this case, I believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and placed Martin in fear of violence by continued to follow him after Martin made it clear that he wanted no part of it. Martin had the right, at that point, to defend himself, and in my view was under no obligation to let Zimmerman get in the first blow. Unlike Hollywood "fights," where people pound on each other for several minutes, getting in the first blow often decides the outcome in a real fight, or at least greatly improves the odds of the person landing it. If Martin swung first, I don't blame him. As it turned out, his fear for his life was tragically justified.

[HiPointDem]

48. +1

[ileus]

67. You never start trouble as a cc'er

You just carry the device to protect your and your loved ones lives and go about your own business.

Something tells me your idea of self defense would end badly.

Stay safe and carry on...