Can an aggressor act in self defense?

[Steve]

Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me. Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not. You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you. What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?

I just don't get it. Can someone explain this to me?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Cyriacus]

Well, in my opinion, we have person A and B.

Person A assaults Person B. Person B fights back. Person A runs away. Person B enters pursuit of Person A and assaults them. Person A now defends themself, and kills Person B.

Thats how.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me. Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not. You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you. What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?

I just don't get it. Can someone explain this to me?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Steve,

I am not a lawyer nor am I person who gives guidance for a living. So take what I say with a grain of salt and lots of water.

If Person A assaults Person B. B then defends themselves. They disarm the weapon and now they have the weapon so now Person A is the defender and can use deadly force ( in many states and depending upon rulings and judgement etcetera so see my first line I am not a lawyer ) .

If Person B defends and person A is on the ground. Person B now has the advantage and the person A on the ground is at the disadvantage.


If Person B's friends show up and now Person A is out numbered, cornered or trapped.


In no way am I justifying any actions.

In no way am I condoning any actions.



I am only commenting on Steve's thread.

 

[jks9199]

It's complicated, but not really.

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying that you did something that would ordinarily be wrong -- but you had a good reason or good justification. The Zimmerman case, based on a lot of coverage is not the situation you've described. Manslaughter is, I think, a more viable charge here than murder. Manslaughter is death by misadventure; the defendant gets into a situation where they could and should have recognized the danger, and done something else, but they ended up killing someone. Murder requires malice aforethought -- an evil intent to do harm, even it if only formed a few instants before the attack. That's where most drunken driving killings aren't murder; the defendant can't form the required intent -- but they could and should have known that they shouldn't have been driving. Honestly -- it doesn't even seem that Zimmerman initiated the contact or started the fight.

So... how could an aggressor become a victim, and be justified in using force, especially lethal force? Basically, the original defender has to become an attacker. One simple way, that happens too damn often, is the homeowner who defends his house or the cashier at a stop & rob who defends himself against a robbery -- but then goes in chase when the bad guy runs away after being thwarted. Suddenly, the bad guy is fleeing from a guy with a gun -- who has now become the attacker, and could easily find himself in a jam. Another slight variation that's just especially relevant to martial arts instructors is a student who defends himself from an attack. The defense is successful, and the attacker is down, helpless, and the student throws in another shot, or just carries that wonderful self defense combination through to the head stomp, throat rip... and finds himself arrested.

 

[Tgace]

Paying passing attention to this Zimmerman trial, one thing just confuses me. Lets say I'm armed with a handgun, and you are not. You haven't done anything wrong, and I assault you. What would need to happen in order for me to kill you in self defense?

I just don't get it. Can someone explain this to me?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I can be armed and punch you. If you pull a knife and try to kill me you don't think I can now legally defend my life because I "started it"? If I approach you and flash my gun that changes things but I don't know that this is a fact in play.

I could still be charged with assault for the initial blows yet be justified in using deadly force if you elevated the encounter.

 

[Tgace]

It's complicated, but not really.

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying that you did something that would ordinarily be wrong -- but you had a good reason or good justification. The Zimmerman case, based on a lot of coverage is not the situation you've described. Manslaughter is, I think, a more viable charge here than murder. Manslaughter is death by misadventure; the defendant gets into a situation where they could and should have recognized the danger, and done something else, but they ended up killing someone. Murder requires malice aforethought -- an evil intent to do harm, even it if only formed a few instants before the attack. That's where most drunken driving killings aren't murder; the defendant can't form the required intent -- but they could and should have known that they shouldn't have been driving. Honestly -- it doesn't even seem that Zimmerman initiated the contact or started the fight.

So... how could an aggressor become a victim, and be justified in using force, especially lethal force? Basically, the original defender has to become an attacker. One simple way, that happens too damn often, is the homeowner who defends his house or the cashier at a stop & rob who defends himself against a robbery -- but then goes in chase when the bad guy runs away after being thwarted. Suddenly, the bad guy is fleeing from a guy with a gun -- who has now become the attacker, and could easily find himself in a jam. Another slight variation that's just especially relevant to martial arts instructors is a student who defends himself from an attack. The defense is successful, and the attacker is down, helpless, and the student throws in another shot, or just carries that wonderful self defense combination through to the head stomp, throat rip... and finds himself arrested.

I think that if Zimmerman approached Martin and flashed his gun or threatened/stated he had a gun than sure manslaughter...but approaching a person isn't in and of itself a reckless act. If Z approached M and was summarily ground and pounded and/or his gun was now exposed and in play..that changes things IMO. Of course with no independent witness to verify who knows what REALLY happened?

 

[Tames D]

I think someone pounding their fists relentlessly into my face while on top of me would justify me doing whatever it takes to save my life.

 

[arnisador]

We talk about this all the time w.r.t. knives. If someone tries to stab me and I disarm them then I have to consider the current threat to me in deciding whether I can stab them. I can't just do it from revenge; if they try to run, I can't chase them; I have to believe I'm still in serious danger.

 

[elder999]

Can an aggressor act in self defense?

Sure. If the aggressor is an unarmed 17 year old boy being accosted by a strange man with a gun, and he attacks the man who approached him-regardless of race, or "ground and pound," -he's acted in self-defense. Throw in a few social factors, and it gets even more "self-defense-y"

 

[Tgace]

Sure. If the aggressor is an unarmed 17 year old boy being accosted by a strange man with a gun, and he attacks the man who approached him-regardless of race, or "ground and pound," -he's acted in self-defense. Throw in a few social factors, and it gets even more "self-defense-y"

Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?

Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tames D]

Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?

Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

This is obviously a race thing.

 

[elder999]

Is there any evidence that Martin knew Z had a gun prior to being shot with it?

Is attacking someone who is following you considered a justified use of force minus any overt threat...raised fist, weapon displayed, grab, etc?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Is there any evidence that he didn't?

More to the point, at what point is a minor, being followed by an adult, in the dark of night, not to consider that adult's mere following them "an overt threat?" Questions of race aside, for the nonce....

 

[Tgace]

Is there any evidence that he didn't?

More to the point, at what point is a minor, being followed by an adult, in the dark of night, not to consider that adult's mere following them "an overt threat?" Questions of race aside, for the nonce....

There isnt..which makes proving Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt problematic....manslaughter would have been the better charge, but that wouldn't have played well with some factions.

The "minor" thing doesn't really play with me...seen far too many violent crimes perpetrated by "minors" to believe that youth tips the innocence scale one way or the other....if he was that scared of the big mean adult why didn't he run?

IMO there's probably "fault" enough to go around here, but Murder 2 seems like a political charge vs a provable one.

 

[elder999]

There isnt..which makes proving Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt problematic....manslaughter would have been the better charge, but that wouldn't have played well with some factions.

With this, I agree...

The "minor" thing doesn't really play with me...seen far too many violent crimes perpetrated by "minors" to believe that youth tips the innocence scale one way or the other....if he was that scared of the big mean adult why didn't he run?

Maybe running wasn't an option? He was advised to run by the girl he was on the phone with-some sort of confrontation clearly occurred before it got violent-he was heard asking, "Why are you following me? " Don't know or think that anyone was "innocent," just know that I spent 6 hrs. in a Florida jail for being-as the policeman put it " a nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day,, and that-even if that was nearly 35 years ago, some attitudes just don't change that quickly.....frankly, if I were a black kid in Florida being followed by a white-man (or what I thought was a "white man") after dark, I'd be scared-"in fear for my life," the so-called "gold standard" for self-defense.

Of course, that's just me. Some might argue that Zimmerman isn't "white," but "Hispanic," disregarding, of course, that our completely arbitrary mandated standards of ethnicity have separate categories for "Black, Hispanic, " and "Black, not Hispanic," and "White, Hispanic," and "White, not Hispanic."

In any case, in most places, barring any other evidence, the guy with the gun would really have to prove he wasn't the aggressor, what with following his victim and all.....

IMO there's probably "fault" enough to go around here, but Murder 2 seems like a political charge vs a provable one.

And I agree all around-though I think Zimmerman probably wasn't initially charged with anything at all in part because of the whole, "nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day" attitude that one can find with Florida law-enforcement-and I say "law enforcement" to include the ADA and DA-I think the original investigating officer is on record as wanting Zimmerman charged with "something" from the onset....

 

[billc]

What we know...Martin is the one who initiated the face to face contact...how do we know...the 18 year old girl he was on the phone with stated, under oath, that Martin said something to Zimmerman first...Then Zimmerman responded. This matches what Zimmerman said in court on all of the video they have played of his recounting the encounter with the Sanford Police dept.

Again, following someone in a public area is not against the law and if what Zimmerman says is true, does not warrant a physical response. The only one we know made race an issue...Martin...how do we know, again the sworn testimony of his friend on the phone.

Also, thought it hasn't been introduced in court yet, Martin had a history of interest in the MMA, if no formal training in it.

 

[Tgace]

Maybe running wasn't an option? He was advised to run by the girl he was on the phone with-some sort of confrontation clearly occurred before it got violent-he was heard asking, "Why are you following me? " Don't know or think that anyone was "innocent," just know that I spent 6 hrs. in a Florida jail for being-as the policeman put it " a nigg#r on the sidewalk on a sunny day,, and that-even if that was nearly 35 years ago, some attitudes just don't change that quickly.....frankly, if I were a black kid in Florida being followed by a white-man (or what I thought was a "white man") after dark, I'd be scared-"in fear for my life," the so-called "gold standard" for self-defense.

Quite a bit of assumption there...were you jailed by this particular PD? The whole broadbrushing of an entire States LEO's based on your 35 yo incident is proof of nothing...is my entire PD suspect if the NYPD stop and frisks minorities? We don't do that. If we applied the logic people use on cops to race we would start a huge row.

I cant comment on the shooting investigation ..to be honest this is in Florida...I only have a passing interest. But the whole "why didn't cops arrest Zimmerman on the spot" is a bit of TV inspired armchair policing.

Excepting outright murderer/robbery/Rape etc, if you have a suspect ID'd who is a local not going anywhere; and its possible it was a self defense shoot, it can help an investigation to NOT immediately arrest. An arrest starts prosecutorial clocks ticking and rights are applied that can hinder questioning. Most times the LEO's have to call the DA before making an arrest in a felony crime to assure that the arrest wont hinder the prosecution at that stage.

All immediate arrest would have been good for would have been to appease the masses....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[elder999]

is my entire PD suspect if the NYPD stop and frisks minorities?

Yes.

 

[Tgace]

Yes.

How is that? They are on the other end of the state. They have tens of thousands of officers....we have 132.

Hell..our policies, proceedures and disciplinary process is vastly different even from the major city adjacent to me.

I think your trolling now...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[elder999]

What we know...Martin is the one who initiated the face to face contact...how do we know...the 18 year old girl he was on the phone with stated, under oath, that Martin said something to Zimmerman first...Then Zimmerman responded. This matches what Zimmerman said in court on all of the video they have played of his recounting the encounter with the Sanford Police dept.

Again, following someone in a public area is not against the law and if what Zimmerman says is true, does not warrant a physical response. The only one we know made race an issue...Martin...how do we know, again the sworn testimony of his friend on the phone.

Also, thought it hasn't been introduced in court yet, Martin had a history of interest in the MMA, if no formal training in it.

First off, we're dealing in hypotheticals here-as per the original post. What we think we know, what the facts are, and what's "proven" in court may all be separate, entirely different things. I offered an instance in which a young man in what we think may have been Trayvon Martin's situation, might be the "aggressor" as well as the "defender."

As for being followed not being illegal or even confrontational, that's debatable-especially since Zimmerman did so in direct contravention of law-enforcement advisement. In any case, while we "know" that Trayvon Martin initiated face-to-face contact by confronting Zimmerman, we don't know-and may never know-just what Zimmerman's response to that was, and whether that response in any way prompted Martin's "ground and pound" in legitimate self-defense.

Likewise, the fact of his MMA interest or training, is immaterial in this hypothetical situation. The only one where Zimmerman is justified in shooting is where Trayvon Martin attacked him-and the only one saying as much in court so far is Zimmerman's attorney.

He may be the only one to ever say as much in court.

 

[Tgace]

Does a dispatcher telling you to do something make it "illegal" to ignore them?

I don't know about this agency, but most police dispatchers are not sworn LE.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2