Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. That should be the law.

[TheKentuckian]

100. I'm a strong believer in don't start nothing, won't be nothing but you must define

provoking a confrontation pretty clearly and it is probably best done in ways not using a single case as your standard unit of measurement.

I'm also against the NO OTHER WAY standard because it gets subjective and Monday Morning Quarterbacked quickly and easily. It also comes flavored with a presumption of guilt, sprinkled with an insistence on hesitation in danger for the attacked to consider the well being of the person assaulting them above their own in the heat of the moment.

That is at least somewhat to the side though, what I see as the meat here is about provocation. I agree in broad principle but it has to be well defined where that line consistently is, otherwise it is just the other side of the license to murder-just claim to be provoked and then they escalated by fighting back or apparently not even that, the other guy started and I finished it. See how well that plays in the aggregate.

You think a prejudiced jury that spends actual time out of their existence being upset at the "voter intimidation" the Faux runs with every election, powered by a picture of a black guy or two wearing black around the polling place that they call thugs but think crazy white people strapped at political You know the gambit where they start talking about Black Panthers and union thugs. Do you think a future "Zimmerman" will bother calling the cops under the proposed standard? Who are those types of jurors going to believe "provoked" in most cases?