Florida legalizes murder: Trayvon Martin

[JohnnyCache]

If you read almost any state's defense of justification statute, the legal basis for using deadly force is pretty much EXACTLY that.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

True enough, but there are standards of reason applied to the circumstance to short circuit an infinite paradox of self defense (the castle doctrine is an example, one party being in the act of committing a crime another ).

Obviously, for example, if two people are involved in an altercation, they are both going to have fear of bodily harm throughout, so when two mutual combatants fight in Florida, which of them has the right to self defense?

And when does an "attack" take place? When you're stalked? When you're detained? Or not until you're actually harmed?

[tgace]

Go upthread and read the link to the lawyers blog I posted...he explains it well.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[It is Fake]

True enough, but there are standards of reason applied to the circumstance to short circuit an infinite paradox of self defense (the castle doctrine is an example, one party being in the act of committing a crime another ).

Obviously, for example, if two people are involved in an altercation, they are both going to have fear of bodily harm throughout, so when two mutual combatants fight in Florida, which of them has the right to self defense?

And when does an "attack" take place? When you're stalked? When you're detained? Or not until you're actually harmed?

Interesting. This hasn't been deemed a mutual combat situation as of yet.

[JohnnyCache]

What else could it be? I mean, one of them initiated - it wasn't a case of "let's settle this like men" - but self defense is predicated on one party committing a crime that would diminish their right to the space. Here, neither party did so until they argued - even the survivor admits that.

What I've been getting at is, "a guy followed me through my neighborhood, i asked him what the **** he was doing and he reached for a gun, so i punched him, was it self defense" is something most bullshido posters would answer in the affirmative.

Any time in my life that I defend myself, its going to fail or make the other person in fear for their life. If i drop someone, they could well cut their head when they hit the ground.

So i require a platform of initial justification - catching them in my house, for example - to kill them. If i lack that platform, and i kill someone, i should expect some legal trouble.

[tgace]

What I've been getting at is, "a guy followed me through my neighborhood, i asked him what the **** he was doing and he reached for a gun, so i punched him, was it self defense" is something most bullshido posters would answer in the affirmative.

And the evidence that this is the actual sequence of events is?

..granted it is a possibility, but so is Z's version of events at this point.

[tgace]

And when does an "attack" take place? When you're stalked? When you're detained? Or not until you're actually harmed?

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/...rst-aggressor/

The First Aggressor Rule

The First Aggressor Rule is a rather simple common law rule that says “a defendant who provokes an encounter as a result of which he finds it necessary to use deadly force to defend himself, is guilty of an unlawful homicide and cannot claim that he acted in self-defense.” Wharton’s Criminal Law, Sec. 136 Provocation by Defendant. See also Wallace v. United States, 162 US 466 (1896).

Florida has codified the First Aggressor Rule into Florida Statute 776.041(2) (Use of force by aggressor), which states: “The justification [to use self defense] is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself.”

So if George Zimmerman is to be the aggressor, and thus forfeit his right to self defense, it must be shown that he “provoked” Trayvon Martin to attack him in someway.

This begs the question though, what would constitute sufficient provocation by George Zimmerman such that he would forfeit right to self-defense?

Sufficient Provocation

According to Wharton’s Criminal Law treatise, an encounter is provoked, thereby branding the defendant as an aggressor and stripping him of his right to self-defense, where the defendant:

Assaulted the deceased;
Unlawfully arrested the deceased;
Fires the first shot in a standoff;
Leaves a fight, only to return with a weapon; and
Is caught sleeping with the deceased’s wife.
Insufficient Provocation

On the other hand, Wharton’s Criminal Law states that a defendant does not become an aggressor where the defendant:

Demands an explanation of offensive words or conduct;
Discusses settlement of a claim;
Discusses a sensitive subject;
Hurls inappropriate language and insulting epithets;
Engages in an inconsiderate act;
Travels near a neighbor who has previously threatened him;
Arms himself to repel an anticipated attack, while going about normal business;
Provides an opportunity for conflict, but does not cause it; and
Arms himself with the intent to cause a conflict with the deceased, but does not perform an act manifesting his subjective intent to cause the conflict.
Legally, who was the Aggressor?

With examples of sufficient and insufficient provocation as a backdrop, the question turns to what evidence does the State have that George Zimmerman legally provoked the altercation between he and Trayvon Martin?

Noticeably absent from the Probable Cause affidavit was any evidence of who provoked the fight; but we do know that George Zimmerman claims that it was Trayvon Martin who not only followed him back to his car, but who also threw the first punch. If that is true, or goes un-rebutted by the State, then Trayvon Martin was clearly the first aggressor as a matter of law.

And while we have not had an opportunity to review George Zimmerman’s statement in its entirety, based upon what we do know, there does not appear to be any evidence that would contradict his account of Trayvon Martin throwing the first punch.

Thus there would seem to be no evidence that George Zimmerman legally provoked the fight. And if he did not legally provoke the fight, then he cannot be considered the First Aggressor.

Assuming George was the First Aggressor

Although it is my opinion that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that George Zimmerman was the aggressor as a matter of law. Let’s assume for the minute that Trayvon Martin was lawfully defending himself because he was provoked by George Zimmerman’s “pursuing” of him; the questions then need to be asked:

Did George Zimmerman forfeit his right to self defense entirely; and
Could Trayvon Martin respond with disproportional force to the initial “confrontation.”
The answer to both of these question is No. George Zimmerman did not forfeit his right to defend himself entirely and Trayvon Martin could not resort to Deadly Force simply because he was being “pursued” or was subsequently “confronted” by George Zimmerman.

[Jim_Jude]

I heard that Trayvon's toxicology came back positive for THC & PCP.
Apparently Skittles liked to get wet.

[Tranquil Suit]

For real? Well then






(couldn't resist)

[bobyclumsyninja]

I heard that Trayvon's toxicology came back positive for THC & PCP.
Apparently Skittles liked to get wet.

Link?

[JohnnyCache]

My issue with that blog is I'm personally rather certain Zimmerman reached for his gun.

I also hang up on the notion that if Zimmerman was assaulted, he was not out of line for shooting, but if martin was assaulted, he very quickly lost his right to self defense, and Zimmerman was not out of line for shooting.