I see a lot of straw men being immolated this morning.

[Igel]

23. So is the alternative.

It's no less silly.

So I don't know you. We meet, exchange words, and I throw a punch.

You respond with reasonably proportionate force. Now, you could leave, so you have no valid self-defense claim. But let's say you don't leave. We fight. That's okay. I assaulted you and there was a fist fight. Perhaps public disorder for both of us. Nobody dies. Bloody noses all around, perhaps. Perhaps one side wins.

If I escalate the force level to where you're reasonably in fear of your life and I've blocked your exit and you kill me you have a valid self-defense claim. Assuming that this can't be disproven. Okay. So far this is Florida. Or most states.

But what happens if instead you block my exit and escalate the level of force to where I'm reasonably in fear of my life but I don't return the same level of force? Now, you'd clearly be subject to sanctions. No self-defense claim, and it's going to manslaughter or 2nd murder. Still, you'd claim you're the victim and I'm the aggressor. The terms are a bit funny.

Under that last scenario, though, I have no valid self-defense claim. I threw the first punch--I am forever the aggressor. If I'm blocked and in fear for my life, even though at no point until then did I use lethal force or make you fear for your life, I'm still the aggressor. If I stop you by using lethal force, I'm the aggressor and have no self-defense claim.

Notice the asymmetry. You're punishing the person who started it and saying that under some circumstances his only choice is death or a murder charge. It doesn't matter who escalated the violence, who's in charge of the fight, who can escape. That first blow dictates guilt.

Nope. I've seen this scenario. My best friend snapped and if the floor he was pounding his brother's head against hadn't been carpeted hardwood over wood joists but instead vinyl on concrete or even a cast iron grate, he'd have killed his brother. The brother threw the first punch. It was the only punch he threw. A few minutes later his mother managed to stop it, but the kid was curled up, sobbing, clutching his head and moaning, "He was going to kill me."

Had my friend killed his brother, it would have been manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. He had an escape. He was in no reasonable fear of his life. He had escalated the violence to lethal force disproportionately. He had no escuse.

Had his reached out, grabbed a knife, and killed my best friend I'd have mourned my friend but said that his brother (a smart-ass pothead punk) was perfectly justified. It wasn't a fair fight--and the aggressor was clearly the victim after the first, oh, 3 seconds. The punk had no escape route, hadn't escalated the force, and was in more than reasonable fear for his life. He may have been an idiot--most 15-year-old boys are--but he didn't deserve the choice of being killed or facing murder charges for his one limp-wristed punch.

A bad case make bad law. Trying to punish a person by rewriting the law because an indecisive case isn't decided the way somebody prejudged it makes even worse law.