Poll: What is self defense?

[HomerJS]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

Nope, I don't think so. You aren't being assaulted if you started the assault.

 

[soundforbjt]

Nope, Zimmerman already proved that scenario.

 

[ivwshane]

Well your first mistake was not carrying a gun, your second mistake was not shooting him the minute he approached you. You see, so long as you claim you thought your life was in danger then killing someone in cold blood is totally ok.

Instead, in your scenario if you happened to not die, because you beat him up that makes you the aggressor, no matter what led to the altercation in the first place, plus you are black so you’d be looking at 10-20 years.

 

[Sunburn74]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

Absolutely not.
But unfortunately I think in the eyes of a jury or a DA it'll pass. We need to have states immediately pass laws to get rid of this sort of loophole in self defense laws.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think it depends who you ask.

Liberals: Nope. He started it.
Conservatives: Good shot, since you're black.

Also, did he kill or wound you? If killed and no witnesses his white privilege will kick in and he will get away with it. If wounded, then it's he said vs he said in trial.

But it shouldn't be allowed if you are the one who initiated the confrontation and aggression.

 

[gothuevos]

Whoever is the last one standing gets dibs.

 

[MrSquished]

As a defender of democracy, and based on the Rittenhouse verdict, shooting any current Trump supporter, who is anti democracy, is self defense. The defense against an attack on our democracy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

Wait, tell me again who attacked who? That determines guilt. We have precious little evidence of that exact moment. Besides Martin's newfound love of fighting, and hanging up the phone to go turn around and commit to said fight. And apparently picking a fight with the wrong person.


The scenario as I recall from the available evidence:

You are walking down the street through your neighborhood. Some guy is acting strange. Staring at and following you. You ditch him in the alley between homes. But this won't stand, this is your neighborhood. Your turf. You are going back to confront, likely attack him. After all, you've made posts saying how you like to make people bleed. So you hang up the phone with Dee Dee, turn around and go back to where the man is. You are winning the fight, bashing his head in. He pulls out a gun and shoots claiming he feared for his life.


Do I know for an absolute fact that it occurred this way? No.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have occurred this way? No.
Lacking evidence otherwise, self defense stands.

 

[zinfamous]

In this country self defense = white republicans get to kill anyone for any reason.

 

[K1052]

Is that a valid self defense claim?

Quite possibly. Depends on the state.

My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting?

See above.

Should that be allowed in this country?

I'm not of the opinion it should be. However assuming you are dead and no other evidence exists to contradict their story the assailant would almost definitely get away with murdering you.

 

[HomerJS]

Wait, tell me again who attacked who? That determines guilt. We have precious little evidence of that exact moment. Besides Martin's newfound love of fighting, and hanging up the phone to go turn around and commit to said fight. And apparently picking a fight with the wrong person.


The scenario as I recall from the available evidence:

You are walking down the street through your neighborhood. Some guy is acting strange. Staring at and following you. You ditch him in the alley between homes. But this won't stand, this is your neighborhood. Your turf. You are going back to confront, likely attack him. After all, you've made posts saying how you like to make people bleed. So you hang up the phone with Dee Dee, turn around and go back to where the man is. You are winning the fight, bashing his head in. He pulls out a gun and shoots claiming he feared for his life.


Do I know for an absolute fact that it occurred this way? No.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have occurred this way? No.
Lacking evidence otherwise, self defense stands.

I asked for the answer based on the scenario I posed. Is that legitimate self defense? I used myself being a black man walking through a white neighborhood. It is unrelated to Treyvon Martin.

 

[Vic]

Wait, tell me again who attacked who? That determines guilt. We have precious little evidence of that exact moment. Besides Martin's newfound love of fighting, and hanging up the phone to go turn around and commit to said fight. And apparently picking a fight with the wrong person.


The scenario as I recall from the available evidence:

You are walking down the street through your neighborhood. Some guy is acting strange. Staring at and following you. You ditch him in the alley between homes. But this won't stand, this is your neighborhood. Your turf. You are going back to confront, likely attack him. After all, you've made posts saying how you like to make people bleed. So you hang up the phone with Dee Dee, turn around and go back to where the man is. You are winning the fight, bashing his head in. He pulls out a gun and shoots claiming he feared for his life.


Do I know for an absolute fact that it occurred this way? No.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have occurred this way? No.
Lacking evidence otherwise, self defense stands.

So according to you, as long as you kill the only other witness, it's self-defense.

 

[Leeea]

Firstly, he is white. The protagonist is implied as not white.

So yes, in the US legal system this is valid self defense. In this scenario the white guy was actually for more reasonable and responsible then required.

He could have just pulled up in his truck, and executed protagonist with a shotgun at close range. That would have also been self defense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ahmaud_Arbery


The important thing to understand is in the United States of America executing a non-white person will always be self defense. A clear majority of the decision makers in that apartheid state have decided that when a non-white person breaths, they contaminate the air with their impurity and commit serious bodily injury or death on any white person who might possibly breath that same air.

Thereby, in the USA it is clearly always legal for a white person to kill any non-white person.

 

[Amol S.]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

The moment they start jumping you, do not resist, but then again why use the F word when you could have said the words "something private" instead? On a side note, how would you not even see that person carrying a gun. I would not cursing in front of someone who has a gun. What would you do if some rando out of no where came up to you and started using the F word on you or your family?

However, the situation should not be considered self-defence because he was the one who jumped on you first. The injury marks on you but not on them if you not resisted would litterally imply that person whas not touched but jumped and shot you, autopsies can never lie. All states allow families to redo autopsies and it is illegal for police to dispose of or cremate any victims body untill the families come and see the body in front of them.

For those who are going to scream whitey at me, I am not white, I am South Asian Hindu.

 

[brandonbull]

Firstly, he is white. The protagonist is implied as not white.

So yes, in the US legal system this is valid self defense. In this scenario the white guy was actually for more reasonable and responsible then required.

He could have just pulled up in his truck, and executed protagonist with a shotgun at close range. That would have also been self defense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ahmaud_Arbery


The important thing to understand is in the United States of America executing a non-white person will always be self defense. A clear majority of the decision makers in that apartheid state have decided that when a non-white person breaths, they contaminate the air with their impurity and commit serious bodily injury or death on any white person who might possibly breath that same air.

Thereby, in the USA it is clearly always legal for a white person to kill any non-white person.

https://sports.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html

Zimmerman was attacked first, that was a case of a violent encounter by two people of color.

Rittenhouse shot 3 white people and was attacked by a black man.

 

[ivwshane]

This just in; if you have a gun you can attack first and call it self defense because you feared for your life but if you don’t have a gun and you attack first, welp now you can’t say you were in fear of your life.

More brilliant hypocritical logic from the right!

 

[Paratus]

So according to you, as long as you kill the only other witness, it's self-defense.

Exactly what they are pushing for whether they realize it or not.

It’s going to take a number of conservatives “good guys” with guns losing these Wild West shootouts before sanity reasserts itself.

If it’s only liberals and minorities dying then it will be working as intended.

 

[Paratus]

This just in; if you have a gun you can attack first and call it self defense because you feared for your life but if you don’t have a gun and you attack first, welp now you can’t say you were in fear of your life.

More brilliant hypocritical logic from the right!

Well as the logic goes since you brought a gun to fight it could be used to kill either combatant therefore you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself because there’s a weapons involved.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Scenario: I'm walking down the street through a neighborhood. A white man approaches me asking who I am and what I'm doing here. I respond "none of your fucking business". I keep walking, he gets in my path blocks me, tries to turn me around and puts his hands on me. A fight breaks out I start to beat his ass he has cuts and bruises. He pulls out a gun and shoots me claiming he feared for his life.

Let's make some small modifications to this scenario. Call it a "hypo".

After the white guy questions your identity, you run off and reach the back of your father's girlfriend's condo. You even called your girlfriend on the phone who later says at trial, "I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his Daddy fiance house." You could walk inside the condo and call the police or just stay in the condo and not have to worry about this white guy you think is a potential rapist.

Instead you decide to walk around the neighborhood in search of the "creepy-ass cracka." You find him and a confrontation ensues. You sucker punch him in the nose and the two of you wrestle to the ground. You start punching him and pounding his head into the concrete. A witness even testifies that he saw you raining down blows on the guy "MMA style." You are at this moment, attempting to murder the guy who approached you. So he shoots and kills you, but had he not shot you, you probably would have been the one being put on trial for murder.

Given that scenario, was the guy who questioned you now acting in self defense?

 

[HomerJS]

Let's make some small modifications to this scenario. Call it a "hypo".

After the white guy questions your identity, you run off and reach the back of your father's girlfriend's condo. You even called your girlfriend on the phone who later says at trial, "I asked him where he at and he said he at the back of his Daddy fiance house." You could walk inside the condo and call the police or just stay in the condo and not have to worry about this white guy you think is a potential rapist.

Instead you decide to walk around the neighborhood in search of the "creepy-ass cracka." You find him and a confrontation ensues. You sucker punch him in the nose and the two of you wrestle to the ground. You start punching him and pounding his head into the concrete. A witness even testifies that he saw you raining down blows on the guy "MMA style." You are at this moment, attempting to murder the guy who approached you. So he shoots and kills you, but had he not shot you, you probably would have been the one being put on trial for murder.

Given that scenario, was the guy who questioned you now acting in self defense?

This is not about Trayvon Martin. Answer based on my scenario.

 

[HomerJS]

https://sports.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html

Zimmerman was attacked first, that was a case of a violent encounter by two people of color.

Rittenhouse shot 3 white people and was attacked by a black man.

Again, this is not about Trayvon Martin. Answer based on my scenario

 

[nOOky]

Sorry man, even if it's all on video you're screwed because you are black. That's just the way it is here in 'merica. Ask again making everyone involved white, and we can make reasonable assumptions. And white folks wonder why BLM even exists.

 

[TheVrolok]

So according to you, as long as you kill the only other witness, it's self-defense.

It's certainly much more likely to come out that way. The system is currently set up to err on the side of self defense, making sure the only other witness is dead is a good way to move the needle in your favor. Unintended consequences, perhaps.

 

[HomerJS]

The moment they start jumping you, do not resist, but then again why use the F word when you could have said the words "something private" instead? On a side note, how would you not even see that person carrying a gun. I would not cursing in front of someone who has a gun. What would you do if some rando out of no where came up to you and started using the F word on you or your family?

However, the situation should not be considered self-defence because he was the one who jumped on you first. The injury marks on you but not on them if you not resisted would litterally imply that person whas not touched but jumped and shot you, autopsies can never lie. All states allow families to redo autopsies and it is illegal for police to dispose of or cremate any victims body untill the families come and see the body in front of them.

For those who are going to scream whitey at me, I am not white, I am South Asian Hindu.

In the year 2021 to have a white person tell me I don't have the right to walk down the street will not garner a pleasant response. Should it? I guess I should just smile say yes massa and leave the neighborhood?

Not snapping at you but my anger is showing.