Different state, and a different situation. This wasn’t one on one, nor is self defence based on damage inflicted to yourself.
I would say it is much less likely than not, but that’s for a jury to decide.
Dumb, teenage boy would be the correct label, IMO.
1 Like
But you repeat yourself.
3 Likes
The problem is it is based on reasonableness - and the question is was he is a defensive posture…not simply when the guy comes up to him, but under the totality of the circumstances. This kid has the appearance of someone who traveled a great distance to look for some trouble - he wasn’t a homeowner standing his yard. The latter gets the benefit of the doubt.
The former? If you come put a knife under my throat and I physically react to try and take the knife away and cut me, were you acting to defend yourself?
Going to be hard to credibly argue self-defense when you have the look of aggressor, a la the knife wielder above. It’s hard to argue reasonableness of your actions when you show up looking to provocate and you were more heavily armed than the people you “defended” yourself against.
2 Likes
The only reason he was charged with a crime was because of public outrage.
That’s the point of having a gun for self-defense.
Nonsense.
Agreed.
But it’s also harder to argue actions taken were unreasonable with multiple aggressors. A riot also offers greater latitude to the reasonableness of the accused in this situation than say, walking down a random street.
This is why I’m not staking a claim either way. I think the defence is arguable based on what I have seen, and will await a jury determination.
I have no strong dog in this fight.
2 Likes
There is video of the sex offender screaming racial slurs at the kid and daring him to shoot him. If you were that kid and you later saw that same guy coming at you, you wouldn’t reasonably think he was going to assault you?
You do know that Zimmerman was not arrested until later?
This is the joy of common law, everyone! We all get to look at a term like ‘reasonable’ and tear bloody strips out of each other as to our own determination of it.
Luckily we just nominate 12 people to tear strips out of themselves in our stead.
1 Like
Which will be different for a 17 year old than a 30 year old.
I believe the law says he should be tried as an adult… would that actually hold true? He could argue that in his hormone addled, still forming brain his actions were in fact reasonable? Or do the jurors use their own version of reasonable?
If his actions were found reasonable it would appear to open the doors to any tacticool Joe off the street walking into a crowd they hate and baiting folks to grab for their gun before opening fire.
The jurors decide whether the defence is proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to their own version? That’s a complicated question. OJ got off and that was with a Jury that well aware it was bullshit to let him go free.
Would the same standard of reasonableness for self-defense for a 6 foot 6, 280 pound man apply to a 5 foot 2, 120 pound woman?
Wonder why we are at a point where perpetrators are relatively ignored while a person defending themself must worry about prosecution.
Not thinking this case, just in general.
Id guess it has to do with the sheer numbers of perpetrators, and the generally low level of violence or “victimless” crimes they commit (simple assault, vandalism, theft, etc) as compared to someone “defending” themselves who will likely have used deadly force as defense.
What?
1 Like
Not to make to fine a point of it, but people who have had this done to them don’t typically consider it minor.
My mother was worried for months after a cold burglary, and she’s hardly alone in that.
I know, its why i put it in “quotes”. The emphasis didnt come through in text. My bad.
1 Like
No worries on that front! I was merely making the point.