General Discussion

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

47. This is why things shouldn't be based on who threw the first blow.

Reply to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:53 PM

Jul 2013

Responsibility should be based on who started the confrontation, not necessarily on who began the violence. In this case, I believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and placed Martin in fear of violence by continued to follow him after Martin made it clear that he wanted no part of it. Martin had the right, at that point, to defend himself, and in my view was under no obligation to let Zimmerman get in the first blow. Unlike Hollywood "fights," where people pound on each other for several minutes, getting in the first blow often decides the outcome in a real fight, or at least greatly improves the odds of the person landing it. If Martin swung first, I don't blame him. As it turned out, his fear for his life was tragically justified.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wow- a literal interpretation of the self defense law could lead to disastrous consequences [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 OP

Which is why we need gun control. Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #1

The emphasis is on the word "literal" DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #4

What form of gun control Jenoch Jul 2013 #7

Maybe not all guns Politicalboi Jul 2013 #31

Situations like this are Jenoch Jul 2013 #35

That is not "a literal interpretation of the self defense law". AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #2

Where did I err? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #6

First you say that there is a self-defense law in Florida which can be literally interpreted. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #10

I was correct DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #12

Aren't the words "reasonably believe" open ended with no real definition? And while we are at it jwirr Jul 2013 #22

Once double jeopardy attaches, a defendant cannot be tried again even if a jury does not follow the AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #26

don't be a violent person and punch someone in the face. n/t HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #3

Under the law I can punch someone in the face DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #15

if you don't start a fight then you wont be in that predicament... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #17

The person starting the fight can invoke a claim of self defense. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #19

not if you don't punch or fight back... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #21

So somebody can start punching me and I can't protect myself? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #23

call 911... or make sure you win the fight... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #25

Not to beat a dead horse. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #30

exactly. HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #32

Not true Azathoth Jul 2013 #27

Not true. See below. X_Digger Jul 2013 #29

The best bar fight I ever saw in a bar and I was a bouncer at that time DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #36

Yes, that is the second part of the exception Azathoth Jul 2013 #57

I don't think the poster addressed it one way or another.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #58

That's what those who worship/tote/promote guns believe. Hoyt Jul 2013 #5

The law sucks and should be repealed. DearAbby Jul 2013 #8

I may be mistaken Duckwraps Jul 2013 #11

And since you don't need any evidence of injury whatsoever Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #9

Yes and the police do this more often than you would think. nt Duckwraps Jul 2013 #14

I will never set foot in the state. mick063 Jul 2013 #13

Well mick.. Duckwraps Jul 2013 #16

I get that DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #18

Yes and it probably has. Here is something Duckwraps Jul 2013 #20

It has nothing to do with this particular case DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #24

See rrneck's responce below. Most states probably have sorts of exemptions. nt Duckwraps Jul 2013 #38

Florida is nothing like the wild west. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #37

Yes, and if you Duckwraps Jul 2013 #40

I kind of got a laugh out of it. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #42

Well just Duckwraps Jul 2013 #46

Don't worry about my dismay mick063 Jul 2013 #43

You knowledge about Florida is extremely limited. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #44

Believe what you wish to believe mick063 Jul 2013 #45

I'm sure they will miss you. CokeMachine Jul 2013 #41

You might want to actually read the law.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #28

Beat me to it. Sometimes I forget to read the thread. nt rrneck Jul 2013 #34

I don't think I said "self defense" wouldn't apply in that situation. I didn't address it. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #39

supports the op's argument. initiate a confrontation & then say "but i was scared for my life" HiPointDem Jul 2013 #49

Saying 'but I was scared for my life' isn't what the law says, now is it? X_Digger Jul 2013 #50

actually it is. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #55

That's the 'reasonable man' standard. You might want to read up on it. X_Digger Jul 2013 #56

So as it relates to the Zimmerman case Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #51

Continuing to pound on an aggressor who's tried to disengage would qualify, yes. X_Digger Jul 2013 #52

And you would expect physical evidence to support this, correct? nt Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #53

First the state has to prove that the person charged is the aggressor, 'who swung first'.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #54

Let's say X starts the fight DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #61

That's "Y"'s problem, according to the law. X_Digger Jul 2013 #62

I get it. I turned the law on its head. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #64

Come up with a silly interpretation, then bemoan "disastrous consequences". I get it. X_Digger Jul 2013 #65

It happened to me. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #66

So the next time someone takes a poke at you, you're going to kill them? X_Digger Jul 2013 #68

Where did I say that? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #69

The burden would be on him to prove that you acted disproportionately Azathoth Jul 2013 #59

Well, first the prosecution would have to prove him the aggressor, then yes, as you say. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #60

Unless he withdrew and literally tried to run way how did the decedent know that was his intention? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #63

That's why it is an extremely difficult defense to assert Azathoth Jul 2013 #70

I think this is the relevant part of the statute... rrneck Jul 2013 #33

This is why things shouldn't be based on who threw the first blow. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #47

+1 HiPointDem Jul 2013 #48

You never start trouble as a cc'er ileus Jul 2013 #67