General Discussion

Ruby the Liberal

(26,618 posts)

1. Ha! That was my thought when I saw your title.

Reply to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:58 PM

Jul 2013

Don't start none, won't be none...

K&R

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. That should be the law. [View all] Yavin4 Jul 2013 OP

Ha! That was my thought when I saw your title. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #1

not sure if you mean that if you talk to someone or call them a name loli phabay Jul 2013 #2

If you provoke a confrontation.... Yavin4 Jul 2013 #3

take zimmerman out of the equation as writing for one situation makes bad law loli phabay Jul 2013 #4

That's not what he meant at all. Rex Jul 2013 #5

i think he did, he states that if you provoke a confrontation then you lose self defence rights loli phabay Jul 2013 #9

Vigilantes should lose their right to " self defence" darkangel218 Jul 2013 #12

Funny, be definition NONE of those are confrontations. Rex Jul 2013 #15

I would hope a jury could figure it out. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #24

hopefully, not so sure though if this thread is anything to go by. loli phabay Jul 2013 #41

no shit. what a disappointment when it comes to critical thinking cali Jul 2013 #52

Holy cow..a voice of reason.... pipoman Jul 2013 #89

No. What I am saying is... Yavin4 Jul 2013 #8

so if he is trying to kill one of them or badly injure them then they cant defend themselves loli phabay Jul 2013 #11

No obviously that is not it at all. Rex Jul 2013 #14

But loli is right. The offshoot of the law would be that Alec Baldwin could... JVS Jul 2013 #23

Sure they can. But they should then be arrested for murder/manslaughter. uppityperson Jul 2013 #17

not if it was a legitimate use of self defence, and hopefully if it went to court loli phabay Jul 2013 #39

And there is the problem, defining " legitimate use " uppityperson Jul 2013 #40

yup, but we should at least have the option of getting the chance to articulate it. loli phabay Jul 2013 #43

And if the only one left alive is the instigator, they should not be told "there, there" and let go. uppityperson Jul 2013 #53

Okay, so then you've just made murder legal. Yavin4 Jul 2013 #19

but your idea makes it so you don't even have to start a fight ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #25

If I look at you funny and you say "what are you looking at?" would you be forfeiting your self... JVS Jul 2013 #32

chicken and egg comes to mind loli phabay Jul 2013 #34

under Yavin4's propsal ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #44

so we're back to ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #13

its got to be physical contact of a violent nature and then you have fear of grevious injury loli phabay Jul 2013 #16

So, if I start a fight with you and let you beat me Yavin4 Jul 2013 #20

what your saying is that i provoke you youby doing some action then you attack me loli phabay Jul 2013 #26

What do you plan on calling your new law? May I suggest Right to Take the Bait? JVS Jul 2013 #28

well, i do agree if someone starts a physical confrontation ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #21

thats what i take from it as well, they may mean someone different but that is how i read it loli phabay Jul 2013 #33

You continue to mis-characterize what I am saying Yavin4 Jul 2013 #55

no... that is not what you initially said ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #64

From my OP Yavin4 Jul 2013 #68

From your OP ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #92

That is the way the law is. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #104

I don't agree chowder66 Jul 2013 #49

he called the Enterprise a garbage scow hfojvt Jul 2013 #97

If you provoke a hornets nest and get the shit stung out of you that is a consequence hobbit709 Jul 2013 #31

he heaven05 Jul 2013 #76

but legally what constitutes a provocation? cali Jul 2013 #30

Legally it has to be something illegal like a threat of violence or a physical assault. JVS Jul 2013 #37

He never said anything about name calling Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #22

well calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them loli phabay Jul 2013 #29

And calling someone a name or following them or just looking at them can be fear provoking so that uppityperson Jul 2013 #54

If some adult secondvariety Jul 2013 #61

And you will be guilty of assault. N/T GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #105

Doubt it. secondvariety Jul 2013 #107

Agree 100% Rex Jul 2013 #6

wtf.. you said the exact same thing darkangel218 Jul 2013 #10

I agree 100%. darkangel218 Jul 2013 #7

Totally 100% agree. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #18

yes, but that's so easy to say; so much harder to put into a practice cali Jul 2013 #48

Fuckin' A. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #27

uh... no ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #36

no, quite the opposite. it may make you feel righteous but it's not cali Jul 2013 #50

That is the Law except for in. SYG States bahrbearian Jul 2013 #35

Actually its not onenote Jul 2013 #78

So if a woman makes a sassy remark to her boyfriend and the guy starts whooping her ass she can't dkf Jul 2013 #38

bingo. there are dozens of examples along those lines. cali Jul 2013 #51

In your example, if a woman baits him into a fight, she can kill him, right? Yavin4 Jul 2013 #60

If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away) and he continues to beat her then yes. dkf Jul 2013 #65

"If she has no other avenue (tries and can't get away)" Yavin4 Jul 2013 #67

If she "has" or "had"? dkf Jul 2013 #77

No, she shouldn't continue being beaten. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #106

+1 XemaSab Jul 2013 #79

You mean like the law already on the books in most states? X_Digger Jul 2013 #42

I think OP means getting rid of 2a and 2b JVS Jul 2013 #45

Yeah.. no. Somehow I don't think that's likely. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #47

I agree completely. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #46

Better: Shouldn't be able to use "Stand Your Grand" as a basis for self defense. Beartracks Jul 2013 #56

I think the problem here is not the self defense claim but the way it is used. last1standing Jul 2013 #57

Physical violence is not an acceptable response to verbal provocation. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #58

So, it would be okay for a photographer to kill Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn Yavin4 Jul 2013 #66

I refer you to the phrase "defend yourself". Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #75

Kick and rec. JoeyT Jul 2013 #59

The flaw in that plan is that when one person ends up dead SoCalDem Jul 2013 #62

It can put someone with a legitimate self defense in a tough spot. Deep13 Jul 2013 #70

when there is a class/race difference, it's a more predictable outcome SoCalDem Jul 2013 #71

true. suburban juries will cut a white defendant some slack... Deep13 Jul 2013 #73

That's the law in Virginia. ileus Jul 2013 #63

Under Common Law, lethal self defense can only be used... Deep13 Jul 2013 #69

+1. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #72

That's why the burden should be on the defendant by a preponderance treestar Jul 2013 #74

Problem with putting burden on defendant by a preponderance onenote Jul 2013 #82

Zimmerman said he was walking back to his car XemaSab Jul 2013 #86

that is not so; traditionally the burden was on the defendant treestar Jul 2013 #95

If you look for trouble and find it... LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #80

Walking home from the store? B Stieg Jul 2013 #88

No, driving around looking for black kids to stalk (nt) LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #102

Damn straight. Here's the change in the Florida jury instructions, pre- and post Stand Your Ground B Stieg Jul 2013 #81

Same verdict for Zimmerman pre and post SYG. dkf Jul 2013 #83

How do you figure? B Stieg Jul 2013 #87

Z was pinned per testimony. No way to retreat. Ergo same verdict. dkf Jul 2013 #90

Pinned? By whose testimony? Zimmerman's white friend? And what about prior to that? B Stieg Jul 2013 #96

John Good was Zimmerman's friend? I didn't know they knew each other. dkf Jul 2013 #99

Not according to... B Stieg Jul 2013 #101

I would say, anyone who throws the first punch LittleBlue Jul 2013 #84

Self-Defense and Stand your Ground are different legal concepts. RomanceWritR Jul 2013 #85

IT'S COMMON SENSE but as my mom used to say, "common sense ain't all that common". nt Ecumenist Jul 2013 #91

Snuff The Witness Bearheim Jul 2013 #93

I'm sure paranoid gun humping cowards will disagree Skittles Jul 2013 #94

for christs sake A DISPATCHER IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT pasto76 Jul 2013 #98

I'm a strong believer in don't start nothing, won't be nothing but you must define TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #100

I generally agree, but defining provoked is difficult. aikoaiko Jul 2013 #103