• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question mostly for the "justice for Trayvon" folks........

That doesn't mean you can just start a fight. If you start the fight...you better have. GOOD reason. You may dislike the wording, but the instigator of the fight isn't going to win by saying, "I tried to retreat," if they started it over a spilled juice box.

You "know" this how? The law makes no mention of reasons for the aggression, simply that the initial aggressor, by his own declaration/actions can later become the legal defender.
 
You "know" this how? The law makes no mention of reasons for the aggression, simply that the initial aggressor, by his own declaration/actions can later become the legal defender.

The Trayvon/Zimmerman case is an excellent example. If the prosecution could have proven that Zimmerman was the instigator of the conflict...he would have gone to jail. They couldn't prove that though.

Anyway. Murder in the Third Degree would apply if you instigated the fight. As would manslaughter charges.

Instigation of the fight is the important portion here. If you do it...you can't claim self defense.
 
The Trayvon/Zimmerman case is an excellent example. If the prosecution could have proven that Zimmerman was the instigator of the conflict...he would have gone to jail. They couldn't prove that though.

Anyway. Murder in the Third Degree would apply if you instigated the fight. As would manslaughter charges.

Instigation of the fight is the important portion here. If you do it...you can't claim self defense.

WRONG. Under Floriduh law, unlike under Texas law, the initial aggressor may still qualify for use of deadly in their self defense using basically the same conditions. The only added burden is that the initial aggressor must show that escape was not possible or that they had clearly ceased their aggression yet the other party did not.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

EDIT: This is not to say that I agree with the Floriduh law, it should be ammended to limit the use of "defensive" force by the initial aggressor to non-lethal force, as does Texas law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom