Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FarLeftFist

(6,161 posts)
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:45 PM Mar 2012

A quick question about the law.

Can you claim that you're acting in self-defense if you pick a fight with someone and then start to lose?

Also, if a FISTFIGHT did occur than wouldn't that rule out the need for lethal force? Even cops get canned when shooting unarmed people.

I don't necessarily even believe a fight took place at all, but if it did could anyone really blame a scared 17yr old for fighting back against a man obviously stalking him? I remember a story a month or 2 back where a 9 yr old girl fought back against her alleged kidnapper and no one is blaming the girl.

If a fight took place it was probably because Trayvon ran, Zimmerman pursued him, possibly catching up to him (against police/911 orders), grabbed him, Trayvon fought back unarmed, Zimmerman shot and killed him. KILLER on the loose.

(Yet, person who flour-bombed Kim Kardashian at press conference arrested.)





11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A quick question about the law. (Original Post) FarLeftFist Mar 2012 OP
No obxhead Mar 2012 #1
Generally, no. X_Digger Mar 2012 #2
"great bodily harm" is pretty vague. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #4
It might be vague to you- we're talking about reasonable people. X_Digger Mar 2012 #5
How about 6 reasonable people? safeinOhio Mar 2012 #7
The 'reasonableness' will be evaluated by everyone up the chain.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #8
In the Zimmerman's case. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #10
No, they wouldn't have been forced to do anything. *sigh* X_Digger Mar 2012 #11
What may cause a bloody nose is a matter of degrees from potentially TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #9
I hear a fight took place. Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #3
One witness said the shooting took place well after the fight Quixote1818 Mar 2012 #6
 

obxhead

(8,434 posts)
1. No
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 01:53 PM
Mar 2012

You may not start a fight, get your ass kicked, then kill the other person claiming self defense.

Self defense is also usually limited to enough force to escape.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
2. Generally, no.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 01:58 PM
Mar 2012

The only exception is if you tried to disengage from the fight, clearly communicated your intentions and your opponent kept up the confrontation, then yes.

The example would be a fight in a bar parking lot.

Florida has these stipulations:

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html
[div class='excerpt']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.


In Martin's case, I would think a case could be made for both (1) and (2). My best guess is that Zimmerman tried to detain or grab Martin, which would be a forcible felony in this case.

safeinOhio

(32,727 posts)
4. "great bodily harm" is pretty vague.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:28 PM
Mar 2012

A bloody nose?
A good faith withdrawal, does that have to be in writing?
Is one witness, the one that lives, sufficient evidence?
Could a reasonable person sometimes be unreasonable?

I think the many cartoons posted on the subject on DU, pretty much say it all.

safeinOhio

(32,727 posts)
7. How about 6 reasonable people?
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:18 PM
Mar 2012

I trust a jury of my peers over a single paranoid individual.

Just define a "reasonable person". I have a degree in psychology and I don't think there is a definition of a reasonable person as everyone has a different life experience and each incident is different from another one. Some proponents of SYG are afraid of jury decision in a duty to retreat case. They want the decision to be only their own. How do we know that one persons view is more reasonable than that of 6 people.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
8. The 'reasonableness' will be evaluated by everyone up the chain..
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:26 PM
Mar 2012

If the police feel that the fear was unreasonable, they'll arrest and seek charges. If the DA / Prosecutor / State's Attorney agrees, they'll go before a grand jury or the like. If a trial judge doesn't dismiss, it goes to a jury to decide.

At each step in that process, prosecution can halt. (Generally- it's rare that the police will buck a DA and refuse to cooperate.)

If you're advocating that every case of self-defense go to a jury- that's a perversion of our legal system that I can't get behind.

safeinOhio

(32,727 posts)
10. In the Zimmerman's case.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:48 PM
Mar 2012

the new law gave an excuse to not go to a jury. Under the old DTR law the police would have been forced to go to court.
You may, and I agree, that the police failed, however the SYG law allowed them to fail.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
11. No, they wouldn't have been forced to do anything. *sigh*
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:53 PM
Mar 2012

Zimmerman's story would have changed- he would have claimed that he tried to retreat, and couldn't.

With this department's history? They'd buy it, and wash their hands of it, just as they have in the past.

There's nothing that *forces* a police department to arrest. If they were inclined to take Zimmerman's defense at face value (or actively assist in covering it up), there's no reason to believe that absent SYG, we'd be in any different place.

TheKentuckian

(25,029 posts)
9. What may cause a bloody nose is a matter of degrees from potentially
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:30 PM
Mar 2012

being a killing blow.

We are not and should not be under any obligation to be anybody's punching bag.

If you assault someone, you SHOULD be on your own legally. If you come out breathing you should count your blessings and learn from a deadly error that you dodged the full brunt of.

I do not even begin to get the mentality that encourages the attacker, demanding the assaulted demonstrate greater concern for a fucking predator in a situation where you are the prey.

You attack people they damn well should be WELL within their rights to make you fried chicken.
Don't want to run that risk? Scared of "over reaction", hoping for "equal force"? Keep your hands and/or weapons to yourself and act like you respect the next person, whether you actually do or not.

An attacker should be taking their chances, at best.

 

Life Long Dem

(8,582 posts)
3. I hear a fight took place.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:10 PM
Mar 2012

Zimmerman received a bloody nose. Trayvon takes off. Zimmerman is pissed from the beating and chases Trayvon a few houses away (I believe the witness said 3 houses away) shooting him. Possibly in the back.

Quixote1818

(28,979 posts)
6. One witness said the shooting took place well after the fight
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:05 PM
Mar 2012

If this can be backed up by other witnesses and it's shown the gun was fired when Zimmerman was several feet away from Martin then Zimmerman is in big trouble.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A quick question about th...