Quote:
Originally Posted by Trayderjoe
I went back to the post from where your pulled your quote, and what I had written was:
"I hate "what ifs", but for the purposes of this distinction only, had the "loudmouth" (my words) physically assaulted the girlfriend, then the "loudmouth" would have committed a crime. The boyfriend, immediately pushing away the "loudmouth" would be justified in protecting her. Had the "loudmouth" then pulled a gun and shot the boyfriend, the "loudmouth" would not be able to claim self defense and would be charged with murder since his criminal act initiated the sequence of events."
Since in this example, the "loudmouth" committed a crime, he could not claim self defense and would therefore face prosecution.
What crime did George Zimmerman commit involving Trayvon Martin, that would link to the quote above? He was acquitted at trial as he was found to have acted in self defense.
|
Zimmerman was found not guilty because, even though he was the instigator, it did not matter. Nothing mattered except the few seconds prior to pulling his gun. So, in the new case, even if "loudmouth" is found to have committed crimes that led to the shooting, it will not matter. He was in fear and legally able to pull and shoot. He could be charged with other crimes, but I don't see any on the video. And apparently neither did police.
It's one of the reasons many people want to get rid of SYG. You can create the problem and end up claiming self defense.