# Can I claim self-defense if.......



## IcemanSK (Mar 27, 2012)

Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.

Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?

We've got a few lawyers here. I'd love to hear their thoughts as well as everyone else's.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, this is just Theoretical, Im not a Lawyer. 

But wouldnt it be Manslaughter?
Since it _was_ Self Defense, but it was also Lethal Force. I cant remember if something can be Self Defense as well as Criminal, or if it has to slide right over to Manslaughter, or if Im saying Manslaughter and meaning something else.
But Id be leaning toward Manslaughter.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think a claim of self defense is likely to be convincing when, by your own statement, you started the fight.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 27, 2012)

IcemanSK said:


> Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.
> 
> Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?
> 
> We've got a few lawyers here. I'd love to hear their thoughts as well as everyone else's.


Non-legal pov: I think it also depends upon _how _you "initiated" the fight.  If this was done by verbal affront or a push or shove and your opponent responded with disproportionate force then I guess that is mitigation. Or if he were verbally abusive and you punched him then that is a different matter. However, I think (I am sure I will be corrected) and but the proportion of the force used is of utmost importance also.  If the level of force used in response to an aggressive action is deemed excessive then I think there is less mitigation for such an act.  If you believe he has a gun, or a weapon, or you believe your life or safety is endangered then I think that is also mitigation.  Also, what was your mental state.  And that of your opponent.  I think these things are also considerations.  Interested to hear what the actual legal position is.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd say it depended on whether there were any witnesses. If not you can claim anything you want. If there were it will be left to whoever decides on prosecutions ideas on what the situation was. _Here_, just having a gun, whether licenced or not, would have you charged for a start, I'd say it was than likely you would be also charged with murder as you wouldn't have used reasonable force to defend yourself.


----------



## chinto (Mar 27, 2012)

I would say it depends on how your states self defense laws are written and the level of force the other person was using... not a lawyer... but my best guess.

In my state I would say NO, Unless he escalated to deadly force...choking or strangles or other deadly force.  then... maybe.. but would be hard I think


----------



## MJS (Mar 27, 2012)

IcemanSK said:


> Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.
> 
> Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?
> 
> We've got a few lawyers here. I'd love to hear their thoughts as well as everyone else's.



I'm no lawyer, however, I'd say that no, you would not be able to claim SD.  Had the other guy attacked you first, and only if he was doing something that warranted you drawing a gun, then I might be able to see a cause, but otherwise, no.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 27, 2012)

You started the fight. You brought the gun.
In most states I belive you are guilty of both assult and battery as well as manslauter at the least,  being the one who started it all i would think that most jurys would find you quilty.
I also am not a lawler


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 27, 2012)

why do i think this is about the Martin shooting.....


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 27, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> why do i think this is about the Martin shooting.....



It probably isn't since there was no fight in that case.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

IcemanSK said:


> Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.
> 
> Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?
> 
> We've got a few lawyers here. I'd love to hear their thoughts as well as everyone else's.



IANAL, this is not legal advice.

Let us first say that one can _'claim' _self-defense in court if one wishes, regardless of the circumstances.  Self-defense is a legal defense to mount.  That does not mean it will be accepted by a grand jury, a jury, a judge, or a court.  The accused can claim whatever they wish.  It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is untrue.

As to whether or not one has a case, the issue then revolve around both the intent of the shooter and the actual actions taken by both parties, I think.

For example; if the shooter intended to confront the victim, and a fight ensued, I would opine that the shooter would still have the right of self-defense.  They may have initiated the contact, but they did not intend to fight the victim.

If the shooter intended to fight the victim, but found themselves in a situation in which they were legitimately in fear of being killed, I would opine that they might still have the right of self-defense, but it becomes much more complicated.  Was the motive of the shooter to cause the victim to put the shooter in fear of his life and therefore give him a 'legal excuse' to kill?  In other words, was he luring the victim into a fight so that he could kill him, intended that outcome all along?  That might be the case, but I suspect it would be hard to prove.

It could also be hard to prove that the shooter started the altercation.  Without eyewitnesses, it is one man's word against another.  When one of the men is dead, there is little but forensic evidence to challenge the statement made by the shooter, which would tend to have to be taken at face value.

But getting back to the issue of self-defense...

There are too many variables to say that yes or no, a person engaged in a physical altercation still has the right of self-defense in general.

Suppose you get into an argument a person who appears to be of lesser ability than you and you start to fight.  You are confident that you can win, but suddenly he begins to get the upper hand.  He gets you on the ground, and begins to bash your head against the pavement, and you realize you're about to lose consciousness.  You legitimately fear that once you are unconscious, the person you are fighting intended to continue bashing your head on the ground until you are dead.  If you happen to have a weapon in your pocket, which you were not planning to use, are you allowed to do so in your own defense?  I would argue that you can; you don't give up the right to defend your own life, even if you are engaged in a risky and foolhardy fight.  You still have the right to defend yourself.  However, others may see it differently.

Let's just turn the situation around and see if it makes sense looking at it from the point of view of the victim.  Let's say you are approached by a much larger man and he begins to fight you; let's even say he throws the first punch.  You defend yourself, and you begin to get the upper hand.  You get him on the ground and begin to bash his head into the concrete.  You're afraid that if you stop, he'll get up and do the same to you, so you keep going.  You have no idea he is armed.  Now, from the point of view of the victim, if you bash his head on the pavement until he dies, are you guilty of any crime?  If he takes action to stop you from killing him, is he guilty of any crime?  What if the victim threw the first punch instead of the shooter, does that change anything?

But let's twist it a bit more.  Suppose that you're at home and someone kicks in the door and attempts to rob you.  You have a gun in your pocket, but are loathe to kill anyone.  But you also do not want to be tied up and robbed, so you attack the man physically.  However, he's stronger than you and soon you fear he is going to kill you.  So you draw your weapon and shoot him as a last resort.  Self-defense, or did you give up the right to self-defense when you choose to hit him instead of just shooting him?

I see lots of gray area here.

In general, and in my opinion, when a physical altercation ensues, self-defense claims become a lot more difficult to prove.  However, that does not mean that a person who engages in a fight voluntarily no longer has the right of self-defense to keep themselves from being killed; it just means it is much more difficult to demonstrate that was the case.

What makes it even murkier is that conviction of a criminal offense in the USA requires what is called _'beyond a reasonable doubt'_.  What that means in practice is that a judge or jury must believe that there is little to no chance, almost zero, that a person accused of a crime might actually be innocent of it.  When two men offer conflicting testimony and there is no other evidence, one of them might well be lying, but there is no way to determine by legal means who is lying and who is telling the truth; the accused may well go free whether they are guilty or not.  There are other factors that might be considered, such as the reputation of the men; say one is a police officer and one is a convicted felon.  Or there may be eyewitness testimony or other evidence such as statements made and legally recorded by police by one of the men, or forensic evidence that would tend to prove that events could not have transpired the way one of the men claimed.  But absent all of that, if it is my word against yours, there will not be a criminal conviction in general terms.  And if one of the men is dead and therefore cannot testify, then there is not much the police can do to disprove the statements of the shooter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> It probably isn't since there was no fight in that case.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk




How do you know that?  I don't know if there was or if there was not, but the latest news reports state that the shooter is claiming there was a fight, and the police have agreed that the news accounts are correct that there was blood on the forehead and back of the head of the shooter, consistent with his statements that his head was being pounded into the ground by the victim.  Again, I do not know; but I am curious how you can be certain.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 27, 2012)

so i guess zimmerman's nose broke on it's own? and the back of his head just...........exploded?

come on Josh, learn to google....




Josh Oakley said:


> It probably isn't since there was no fight in that case.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

tshadowchaser said:


> You started the fight. You brought the gun.
> In most states I belive you are guilty of both assult and battery as well as manslauter at the least,  being the one who started it all i would think that most jurys would find you quilty.
> I also am not a lawler



That would not be a correct assumption.

Let us take this situation as an example:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/12dc3f512670476aa8248b39ee781343/FL--Self-Defense-Slaying/



> POMPANO BEACH, Fla. &#8212; Investigators say a South Florida father shot and killed a man who was swinging a piece of wood at his wife and children.
> 
> Broward Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Veda Coleman-Wright says all indications are that 37-year-old Emiliano Arellano was defending his family Sunday evening when the man confronted Arellano's wife and two children.



Now, the shooter obviously had a gun.  The man he shot was swinging a piece of wood at his wife and children.  Sounds like self-defense to me, right?

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that the two men knew each other.  Let us suppose that the man with the piece of wood had just been punched in the nose by the man with the gun, whereupon he picked up the wood and began swinging.  Is it still self-defense?  Should the man with the gun have permitted the man with the wood to hit his wife and children, since he had started the fight in the first place?

I would argue it would still be self-defense.

Most state laws on self-defense that I have read, including my own state, do not give a mitigating circumstance to self-defense if the person claiming was a) in a place they were legally permitted to be and b) legitimately in fear of their life.  They just don't say anything about _'who started it'._

Fighting is one thing; dying is another.  A person generally has the right to defend their own life, even if they are engaging in voluntary fighting at the time.

It is, however, much more difficult to successfully claim self-defense if you started the fight.  That does not mean you do not have the right to defend yourself, it just means it is harder to prove it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 27, 2012)

good lord, he had a broken friggin nose....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...artin-incident/story?id=15999256#.T3HEnjEgfFI

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

the police have verified his injuries, how does anyone NOT know this?


​


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> IANAL, this is not legal advice.
> 
> Let us first say that one can _'claim' _self-defense in court if one wishes, regardless of the circumstances. Self-defense is a legal defense to mount. That does not mean it will be accepted by a grand jury, a jury, a judge, or a court. The accused can claim whatever they wish. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is untrue.
> 
> ...




Spot on post.  Can't add anything, but wanted to acknowledge that it pretty much sums it up on how things work with self-defense and the law in many states.


----------



## rframe (Mar 27, 2012)

I think the DA would feel like a kid on Christmas morning when your case comes across his desk.
You start a fight.
You shoot someone.
You "claim" self-defense.
Yeah, my money is that the jury would hang you with about 5 minutes of deliberation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

rframe said:


> I think the DA would feel like a kid on Christmas morning when your case comes across his desk.
> You start a fight.
> You shoot someone.
> You "claim" self-defense.
> Yeah, my money is that the jury would hang you with about 5 minutes of deliberation.



Do you understand how the law works in the USA?

A person accused of a crime is *presumed to be innocent* until proven guilty.  The *burden of proof is on the prosecution* and not the defense; the defense is not require to prove innocence.  And to be convicted a person must be considered guilty _'*beyond a reasonable doubt*'_ by the judge or jury hearing the case.

So let's break it down.  _"You start a fight."_  First of all, is it clear that you started the fight?  What if you say the other person swung first?   But let's say for the sake of argument that a person starts a fight.  They are certainly guilty of a crime in that case - assault and battery.  But again, it's up to the prosecution to prove that you started the fight; and if you say you didn't and there are no living witnesses, how will they prove you started it?
_
"You shoot someone."_  Well, that certainly sounds like a bad thing; but the law allows people to defend themselves using deadly force under several circumstances, most of which revolve around a legitimate fear of death and the legal right to be where they are.  Most self-defense laws that I'm familiar with have no provision for _'unless you are fighting with someone'._  It's simply not a requirement, it's irrelevant.  I will grant you that it makes it much harder to establish that you were legitimately in fear of your life if you started a fight, but see the above; it's hard to prove who started it when there is only one witness.
_
"You ''claim'' self-defense."_  Well, yes.  And you can dismissively sneer at the the 'claim' all you want; if a person claims self-defense, it's legal to make the claim.  And the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't.  So how will the prosecution do that, based on the evidence available?  If I understand correctly, there is one witness living; the shooter.  And that person claims self-defense.  There are no eye-witnesses who claim differently.  There is little in the way of forensic evidence, beyond injuries suffered by the shooter which would tend to corroborate this statement that he was the one attacked (broken nose, bloody back of head).

I fail to see how you can logically arrive at your conclusion, unless you have a serious lack of knowledge about how our legal system works.


----------



## rframe (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do you understand how the law works in the USA?



Clearly not, until being educated by bold font...so now all is well.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I fail to see how you can logically arrive at your conclusion, unless you have a serious lack of knowledge about how our legal system works.



Well, you're making assumptions in your hypothetical case that the original poster never stated.  I could make just as many assumptions which would make it a breeze for a prosecutor to persuade a jury that the shooter was a dangerous person looking for a reason to shoot someone.  Such is the nature of imaginary fights with non-existent people, I guess...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

rframe said:


> Clearly not, until being educated by bold font...so now all is well.



Happy to be of service.



> Well, you're making assumptions in your hypothetical case that the original poster never stated.  I could make just as many assumptions which would make it a breeze for a prosecutor to persuade a jury that the shooter was a dangerous person looking for a reason to shoot someone.  Such is the nature of imaginary fights with non-existent people, I guess...



Then let's return to the original queries and not make assumptions.
_
"Can I claim self defense in a court of law later?"_

Yes, anyone can claim 'self-defense' in court.  There is no law prohibiting a person from so claiming.

_"Do I have a case?"_

It depends upon many things.  There is little reason to believe, given the circumstances the O/P described, to think the issue would be clear-cut either way.

However, I really was responding to you and not the O/P, so let's take that on and not make assumptions there either.
_
"You start a fight."_  That's assault and battery.  You could be charged and possibly convicted of it.
_"You shoot someone."_  That may or may not be self-defense, depending upon circumstances.
_"You "claim" self-defense." _ Anyone is allowed to claim self-defense.  It does not mean it will be accepted by the judge or jury, but they can claim it.
_"Yeah, my money is that the jury would hang you with about 5 minutes of deliberation."_  If you have a logical reason for believing that, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Just a couple of clarifications, bearing in mind that one needs to know the law in the jurisdiction where they live.  It may be different from what I say.

First, as stated, if you start a fight, striking the person you start the fight with, that becomes assault and battery.  You can indeed be charged with that offense, regardless of anything else that happens.

If for whatever reason you decide to withdraw from the fight, and clearly demonstrate that vocally and/or by attempting to withdraw, but the original 'victim' now continues to fight, that person has now become the assailant.  If he puts the original assailant (you) in fear of his (your) life, the law allows one to defend their life by whatever means is needed to overcome the person assaulting them (you).  If both persons are using their fists to begin with, the second person is going to have to show justification for using a weapon.

OK, so now you are charged with homicide and are in court.  The prosecution must indeed prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Until you decide to claim self defense.  Self defense is an affirmative defense.  It means you are going to admit you killed the person, but attempt to show that you had a right to defend yourself in a manner that resulted in the death of the dead person.  That opens you up to having to testify under oath, and admit under oath that you killed the person.  Of course that ups the ante.  So the fact you killed the person is no longer in doubt.  Now you must prove you were required to use the force you did to save yourself.  The burden of proof is now on you to prove you are innocent by reason of self defense.  EDIT:  Naturally, the prosecution is going to try to show you didn't have reason to act as you did, meaning you were not justified in killing the person.  But once you assert self defense, you have eased the burden on the prosecutor.  He doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed the person.  Only that you lacked legal justification for doing so.

In the situation given by the OP, you have no witnesses.  If the prosecution can show a long history of you and the dead person arguing about something, or many things, perhaps fighting, and if you have told witnesses you want to kill the dead person, naturally you aren't going to look good in the eyes of a jury.  Even if that is not the way it happened, if for instance the dead person simply angered you and you decided to strike first, then found yourself in fear of your life, what if you are known to be a person who likes to fight, and has a reputation of liking to hurt people you fight?  Again, you won't look so innocent.  But of course none of those things were part of the supposition from the OP.  Nonetheless, as the original instigator, your burden of proof will probably be higher in the jury's mind.

Another minor clarification, if you kill in defense of your family, being able to articulate a good reason for fearing for their life, it is not self defense.  It will likely be considered justifiable homicide, as you have a legal right to defend your family from deadly force, and can use deadly force to do it.  But it isn't self defense unless you were also under attack.  In fact, you may remember Bill correctly making that same point in another thread some time ago.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 27, 2012)

A person can have injuries due to his own stupidity.  Injury does not indicate self defense.  It just means someone got hit.  Why he got hit is the important part, not that he got hit.

As far as starting a fight then claiming self-defense after shooting the person you attacked, it would not fly in my state.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible in another state.  I think the best line of self defense would be not to start any fights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> A person can have injuries due to his own stupidity.  Injury does not indicate self defense.  It just means someone got hit.  Why he got hit is the important part, not that he got hit.
> 
> As far as starting a fight then claiming self-defense after shooting the person you attacked, it would not fly in my state.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible in another state.  I think the best line of self defense would be not to start any fights.



I agree; it appears that it would not fly in Missouri:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm



> 563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed *through no fault of the actor*, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged.



Of course, the state would still have the burden, even in Missouri, of proving that the shooter started the fight.  If the shooter says the victim started it, and there is no other evidence to disprove that claim, then self-defense by deadly force would appear to be justified even under Missouri law.

I also agree with your conclusion; don't start fights.  Or, as Will Smith in Men in Black put it, _"Don't start nuffin', won't be nuffin'."_


----------



## Big Don (Mar 27, 2012)

You can CLAIM you're the King of Siam...


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Mar 27, 2012)

IcemanSK said:


> Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.
> 
> Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?



Pretty sure the correct legal phrase is toast. Burnt crispy toast! 

If you got lots of money you can buy a different outcome a high percentage of the time, otherwise......bring the jelly.

MJ


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

Mark Jakabcsin said:


> Pretty sure the correct legal phrase is toast. Burnt crispy toast!
> 
> If you got lots of money you can buy a different outcome a high percentage of the time, otherwise......bring the jelly.
> 
> MJ



Please explain why you think this is so.  I'm interested in your logic.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 27, 2012)

In many states, if a person is killed during the commision of a crime, all parties commiting the crime can be charged with murder.  Wouldn't that take effect?  If you start a fight you are committing assault.  If the person you are assaulting starts to get the better of you, it does not nullify the assault.  So if you shoot the person you assaulted, would it not qualify as a death while committing a crime?  I know get away drivers have been charged with murders commited during roberies gone by.  Seems to me, a man committing assault is more culpable than a get away driver.  I also know the law does not always make sense.


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Apr 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please explain why you think this is so. I'm interested in your logic.



WC_Iun spelled it out fairly well. The original concept was the person started the fight. Hence they will be held accountable for the outcome. The state will argue that the person killed was attempting to protect himself against an aggressor. The aggressor was not required to defend himself, he had the option to not start the fight, he could have simply left, then there is no death. He chose not to hence he began a chain of events that ended in a death, he will bear a large portion of responsibility for that death. 

A district attorney will see this as an opportunity to pad his statistics and put one more murderer behind bars. Whether you agree with that or not that is how the system works and how many decisions are made. With enough money just about outcome can be purchased and if a DA sees at the beginning a prosecution will be difficult then he might look at other options.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 2, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> In many states, if a person is killed during the commision of a crime, all parties commiting the crime can be charged with murder.  Wouldn't that take effect?  If you start a fight you are committing assault.  If the person you are assaulting starts to get the better of you, it does not nullify the assault.  So if you shoot the person you assaulted, would it not qualify as a death while committing a crime?  I know get away drivers have been charged with murders commited during roberies gone by.  Seems to me, a man committing assault is more culpable than a get away driver.  I also know the law does not always make sense.



It depends upon the state's self-defense laws.  In some states, you cannot successfully use a self-defense claim if you are engaging in an illegal act (such as assaulting the person whom you later kill).  In other states, there is such requirement.  In other words, it depends on where you live.

For example, in Michigan:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(x1...eg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-780-972




> SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
> Act 309 of 2006
> 
> 
> ...



Colorado, by contrast, is kind of wonky:

http://jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm



> Colorado Revised Statutes:
> 
> Use of Physical Force and Use of Deadly Physical Force
> 
> ...



OK, so in Colorado, a person can not successfully claim self-defense if they are the initial aggressor, unless they try to disengage and make it clear to the other person that they don't want to fight anymore!  How weird is that?

Arizona, on the other hand, has no such prohibition:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm



> 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
> 
> A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
> 
> ...



So in Arizona, if you start a fight, and the person you're fighting starts to get the better of you, and you *reasonably* believe you're in grave bodily danger, you still have the right of self-defense, including the use of deadly force.  The key word is 'reasonably', but still there is no actual prohibition on you starting the fight.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 2, 2012)

Mark Jakabcsin said:


> WC_Iun spelled it out fairly well. The original concept was the person started the fight. Hence they will be held accountable for the outcome. The state will argue that the person killed was attempting to protect himself against an aggressor. The aggressor was not required to defend himself, he had the option to not start the fight, he could have simply left, then there is no death. He chose not to hence he began a chain of events that ended in a death, he will bear a large portion of responsibility for that death.




Depends upon the state, in the first place - see my above post.  And in the second place, the state has the burden proof that the person claiming self-defense was in fact the aggressor.  When there is only one survivor no evidence to disprove the shooter's story, if he says he was attacked first, that's more than likely the way it will go; regardless of what actually happened.

I think a lot of people are reading newspaper stories and inserting their opinion as fact.  They believe Zimmerman started the fight, and that therefore the police will accept their opinion as fact.  At the moment, there is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.



> A district attorney will see this as an opportunity to pad his statistics and put one more murderer behind bars. Whether you agree with that or not that is how the system works and how many decisions are made. With enough money just about outcome can be purchased and if a DA sees at the beginning a prosecution will be difficult then he might look at other options.



No, that's not how the system works.  DA's do not want to spend money on cases they cannot win.


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Apr 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, that's not how the system works. DA's do not want to spend money on cases they cannot win.



You are making a huge assumption that there are no witnesses, that is not in the original post nor overly likely. Unless it is a truly random act the state has a good chance of proving motive. While this is not proof it is a step in that direction.

I recall a case in Georgia several years back where two neighbors shared a round about driveway. One of the neighbors due to no traffic flow would go the 20 or so feet in the wrong direction. This drove the other neighbor nuts who eventually staged an accident, while filming the entire thing, so he could take his neighbor to court. Unfortunately it all went bad and ended in gun battle with the death of the driver going the wrong way. The guy that staged it was charged with murder and reckless driving. I do not recall if it end up as manslaughter or not but since he started the events he held a great deal of responsibility. 

It is very nice that you think the burden of proof is on the state and that ones word is all he needs but that is frankly not reality. We say guilty until proven innocent but that is rarely the case. Once charged you darn well better have the money to defend yourself, regardless of actual guilt.

Our legal system is built on the assumption that the righteous will win in a contest. Not overly different than a two knights fighting to the death to determine who is right and who is wrong. The outcome has little to do with reality. Choosing jurors, hiring expects, court room consultants, etc. have far more to do with the outcome. 

Bottom line it is far better to not start fights.

Mark J.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

Mark Jakabcsin said:


> Our legal system is built on the assumption that the righteous will win in a contest.



Our criminal legal system is built upon the protections contained in the US Constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Basically, you are innocent until proven guilty, that search warrants shall be issued only upon a showing of probable cause, you have a right against self incrimination, you are entitled to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel, that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2012)

puunui said:


> Our criminal legal system is built upon the protections contained in the US Constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Basically, you are innocent until proven guilty, that search warrants shall be issued only upon a showing of probable cause, you have a right against self incrimination, you are entitled to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel, that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.



I'm just going to +1 and QFT instead of trotting out all the reasons the post you responded to is wrong.  Thank you!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm just going to +1 and QFT instead of trotting out all the reasons the post you responded to is wrong.  Thank you!




I second the motion

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Apr 3, 2012)

A court trial is a contest. Plain and simple. I understand you might find that offensive, you may not want to admit that but at the end of the day it is a contest, not unlike a sporting event. It simply uses atributes other than physical skills, but at the end of the day it is a contest with the belief that the winner, the one with the best argument, is right. Problem is the best argument, regardless of the Constitution, can be and is purchased on a regular basis.

Sorry if this offends, I hang out with too many folks at all levels of our 'justice' system to have the 'guilty until proven innocent' blinders on. When it is your day in court you best have an A game on and a good A game costs. 

But again we go afield from the original post. The premise is #1 starts a fight, the defender pulls a weapon to defend himself from an attacker, the attacker eventually kills the defender and tries to claim self defense. ....... Good luck with that. 

As I said before, best to not to start fights.

Take care,

Mark J.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm just walking away before I say something I'll regret.


----------



## puunui (Apr 3, 2012)

Mark Jakabcsin said:


> A court trial is a contest. Plain and simple. I understand you might find that offensive, you may not want to admit that but at the end of the day it is a contest, not unlike a sporting event. It simply uses atributes other than physical skills, but at the end of the day it is a contest with the belief that the winner, the one with the best argument, is right. Problem is the best argument, regardless of the Constitution, can be and is purchased on a regular basis.



Can a good attorney as well as financial resources tip the scales of justice to one side? Sure. Often times that scale is tipped towards the side of the prosecution, especially the federal government, who will throw huge sums of money if they wish to convict someone. Someone in the mafia for example, years of wiretapping, surveillance, cultivating informants, the witness protection program, all of the resources brought to bear by the FBI and their specialized task forces cannot even compare to what a criminal defendant can put up. So you are right in that regard.

But that doesn't change the fact of what our criminal justice system is based on, which is the United States Constitution. I don't know if you have ever read the Constitution, but I believe it is one of those things that every American should read from start to finish.


----------



## Grasshopper22 (Apr 11, 2012)

Probably not, especially if you initiated the fight. Also if the fight was getting the better of you, to shoot the opponent would be extremely unnecessary.


----------

