- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 8,768
- Location
- Houston
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Come to think of it, all lawyers operate out of armchairs. Oh well...
The question is, does a person lose the right to self defense if he initiates a violent encounter?
The prosecution's tac seems to be to try to paint Z as the aggressor who started the fight between himself and M.
In other words, if in the process of melee combat one combatant gains lethal advantage over the other, and the other person fears for his or her life, is that person only allowed to respond with deadly force if he or she had not initiated the encounter in the first place?
I don't think so. As I understand it, if at some point either combatant genuinely fears that he or she is going to die at the hands of his opponent then he or she has the right to use whatever means necessary to neutralize that threat.
This means that, apropos the Z-M case, none of the stuff that people are debating -- whether it was Z or M who started it; whether Z was a racist who was profiling; whether Z slapped his girlfriend around; etc. -- is relevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether M was on top of Z beating on him and Z could have reasonably feared for his life, Z pulled out the gun but M would not relent or went for the gun.
If, on the other hand, Z pulled out a gun and M immediately stopped and/or retreated but Z shot him then Z is guilty of murder.
What say you? Does the prosecution's approach make any sense?
The question is, does a person lose the right to self defense if he initiates a violent encounter?
The prosecution's tac seems to be to try to paint Z as the aggressor who started the fight between himself and M.
In other words, if in the process of melee combat one combatant gains lethal advantage over the other, and the other person fears for his or her life, is that person only allowed to respond with deadly force if he or she had not initiated the encounter in the first place?
I don't think so. As I understand it, if at some point either combatant genuinely fears that he or she is going to die at the hands of his opponent then he or she has the right to use whatever means necessary to neutralize that threat.
This means that, apropos the Z-M case, none of the stuff that people are debating -- whether it was Z or M who started it; whether Z was a racist who was profiling; whether Z slapped his girlfriend around; etc. -- is relevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether M was on top of Z beating on him and Z could have reasonably feared for his life, Z pulled out the gun but M would not relent or went for the gun.
If, on the other hand, Z pulled out a gun and M immediately stopped and/or retreated but Z shot him then Z is guilty of murder.
What say you? Does the prosecution's approach make any sense?