Any legal precedent for this?

[240 is Back]

And yes, you can provoke a fight and still defend yourself. 

This might be what the entire Trayvon shooting boils down to - Can you start a fight, begin losing, then legally shoot the other person?

Aside from opinion, can anyone post some actual legal cases where a person chased and/or started the fight, started losing, and used his weapon - and was not charged, or found not guilty?  Or cases that show the opposite?  Thanks!

[garebear]

One of the more absurd sentences I've ever read, that's for sure.

It essentially means that anyone that defends themselves from your attacks can be killed.

[Shockwave]

I dont agree with that.
I dont believe any jury would say its ok to initiate a physical confrontation and then kill the guy defending himself.

However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.

[240 is Back]

I dont agree with that.
I dont believe any jury would say its ok to initiate a physical confrontation and then kill the guy defending himself.

However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.

Do you have any evidence Trayvon attacked?  Do you haev any evidence zimmerman was headed back to his truck?

We do have lots of evidence zimm was armed, angry, motivated, and pursuing a minor who was fleeing him, though.

Let's put the evidences in 2 piles and see  which is stronger.

[Shockwave]

Do you have any evidence Trayvon attacked?  Do you haev any evidence zimmerman was headed back to his truck?

We do have lots of evidence zimm was armed, angry, motivated, and pursuing a minor who was fleeing him, though.

Let's put the evidences in 2 piles and see  which is stronger.

Sigh.
You are the fucking one that has to have the proof that Zimmerman attacked 1st, not the other way around.

You have zero evidence he was angry, zero evidence he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, and zero evidence that Zimmerman wasnt confronted and attacked after he gave up pursuit.

Sorry broseph, but your on the wrong side of the law with this one. Try thinking logically, and how the system works, and you may actually understand.

But in order to do that, youre going to have to take your blinders off, which I dont see happening.

[240 is Back]

Sigh.
You are the fucking one that has to have the proof that Zimmerman attacked 1st, not the other way around.

You have zero evidence he was angry, zero evidence he didnt turn around and head back to his truck, and zero evidence that Zimmerman wasnt confronted and attacked after he gave up pursuit.

Zero evidence he as angry?  He called them fcking punks and assholes.   He said they always get away. 

i dont understand why the prosecutor isn't following your belief - we can't prove the ghost of abe lincoln didn't attack zimmerman either.   maybe that happened too.

[Shockwave]

Zero evidence he as angry?  He called them fcking punks and assholes.   He said they always get away.  

i dont understand why the prosecutor isn't following your belief - we can't prove the ghost of abe lincoln didn't attack zimmerman either.   maybe that happened too.

Youre bassackwards on how the criminal system works. Period.

Youve taken the prosecutions stance and are trying to shift the burden of proof on the defense. Thats not how it works.

[Butterbean]

Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm

5.      Defendant is initial aggressor

A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation.  For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.  

There are two exceptions to this rule.  The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor.  Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.

[OzmO]

Just a thought...


What if a person "A" starts a fight with "B" and during the fight "B" pulls out a knife and tries to stab "A" and then "A" pulls out a gun and shoots "B" ?

[Butterbean]

Just a thought...


What if a person "A" starts a fight with "B" and during the fight "B" pulls out a knife and tries to stab "A" and then "A" pulls out a gun and shoots "B" ?

Ozmo are you saying Hoyt Axton is a jealous man?

[Hugo Chavez]

This might be what the entire Trayvon shooting boils down to - Can you start a fight, begin losing, then legally shoot the other person?

Aside from opinion, can anyone post some actual legal cases where a person chased and/or started the fight, started losing, and used his weapon - and was not charged, or found not guilty?  Or cases that show the opposite?  Thanks!

The law doesn't give a fucking rats ass and in general they are fucking retards and just arrest both parties.  they all get hauled in no matter who the fuck started it and it comes down to how good/bad your lawyer is.

[240 is Back]

Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm

5.      Defendant is initial aggressor

A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation.  For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing. 

There are two exceptions to this rule.  The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor.  Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.

Excellent, thank you for sharing.

[Shockwave]

Excellent, thank you for sharing.

Unfortunatley for Trayvon, they cant prove that Trayvon didnt start the fight, as Zimmermans story goes. Plus, with the eyewitness' who saw Trayvon on top of him beating him down...

There is WELL beyond a reasonable doubt.

[240 is Back]

Unfortunatley for Trayvon, they cant prove that Trayvon didnt start the fight, as Zimmermans story goes. Plus, with the eyewitness' who saw Trayvon on top of him beating him down...

There is WELL beyond a reasonable doubt.

They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.

I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time.  There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit".   Is there?

[Shockwave]

They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.

I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time.  There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit".   Is there?

Really?
OJ's glove ring a bell?

REALLY?!

[240 is Back]

Really?
OJ's glove ring a bell?

REALLY?!

and it could have gone either way with that OJ jury, right?  Nobody would have been surprised if OJ was convicted.

And looking at that case - Fuhrman lied about using the N-word, Fuhrman was the first one over the wall, and OJ had a legal dream team - and it was still a toss up. 

So nothing is guaranteed either way.  This absolute "you can't disprove so you must acquit" is silly.

[Dos Equis]

lol.  Good thread.   

[Dos Equis]

One of the more absurd sentences I've ever read, that's for sure.

It essentially means that anyone that defends themselves from your attacks can be killed.

Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm

5.      Defendant is initial aggressor

A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation.  For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing. 

There are two exceptions to this rule.  The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor.  Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.

[Fury]

lol.  Good thread.   

Good for showing just how fucking stupid lynch mob member 240 is. The guy, with his Cracker Jack MBA and college degree, somehow missed every single class on civics and the US justice system. 

[Dos Equis]

Good for showing just how fucking stupid lynch mob member 240 is. The guy, with his Cracker Jack MBA and college degree, somehow missed every single class on civics and the US justice system. 

Definitely not the sharpest pencil.   

[garebear]

Definitely not the sharpest pencil.   

In the shed?

[Dos Equis]

In the shed?

[tonymctones]

They can't prove a 3-tittied woman didn't hypnotize them and shoot trayvon while zimmerman was under spell.

I don't buy into the "they can't prove" - cause defense attorneys introduce all sorts of THEORIES all the time, and jurors see thru the bullshit all the time.  There is no legal precedent for "If you cannot disprove a defense claim, you have to acquit".   Is there?

good thing nobody will be arguing that in the trial then huh?

so what proof do you have again supposition 240?

[tonymctones]

hah, I like that one

[Dos Equis]

hah, I like that one