Since when is self defense a crime?

[Rye Catcher]

California law? Did I miss something? I thought we were in a thread about an event that happened in Wisconsin. Is California now allowed to make laws for other states? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????????

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know all the Penal Codes in all 50 states; I'm very familiar that CA Codes are not very different.

 

[BluesLegend]

No & congrats on that GED. Must've been rough on ya.

My left pinky earns more money than you kid.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know all the Penal Codes in all 50 states; I'm very familiar that CA Codes are not very different.

That does not really make the statement any more correct. For instance, if this guy:

Slaps this girl:

Then she shots and kills him it very well may be ruled self defense in CA depending on a few other factors.

 

[j-mac]

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know all the Penal Codes in all 50 states; I'm very familiar that CA Codes are not very different.

If we only had something like the internet....Wouldn't that be wonderful?

 

[Rye Catcher]

If we only had something like the internet....Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Yep, but I won't do you homework.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Hold on. If I call you a loser and you come after me with a knife, I cannot defend myself? Since when?

This is what I'm a little unclear on.

"Self-defense is designed to protect people who don’t start trouble. It fundamentally doesn’t apply to 'aggressors.'

The most basic definition of 'aggressor' would include someone who illegally attacks another. Some state definitions include under the 'aggressor' umbrella a person who threatens to attack another or intentionally provokes a fight.

But the aggressor limitation to self-defense doesn’t mean that you can never use force if you did anything to contribute to a fight. If one man insults the fit of another’s suit, and the insulted party retrieves a revolver and points it as if to shoot the insulter, the insulter is likely legally justified in using deadly force to prevent the shot."

Criminal Law Defenses: Self-Defense

Self-defense can be used to justify the use of force against another when the use of such force was reasonably necessary to protect oneself.

www.lawyers.com

I think self-defense is pretty easy to define, but "intentionally provoking a fight" isn't so clear to me.

I think it could have been argued that George Zimmerman was "intentionally provoking a fight", but that seems gray at best to me.

 

[j-mac]

Yep, but I won't do you homework.

I don't do homework for claims made by others...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is what I'm a little unclear on.

"Self-defense is designed to protect people who don’t start trouble. It fundamentally doesn’t apply to 'aggressors.'

The most basic definition of 'aggressor' would include someone who illegally attacks another. Some state definitions include under the 'aggressor' umbrella a person who threatens to attack another or intentionally provokes a fight.

But the aggressor limitation to self-defense doesn’t mean that you can never use force if you did anything to contribute to a fight. If one man insults the fit of another’s suit, and the insulted party retrieves a revolver and points it as if to shoot the insulter, the insulter is likely legally justified in using deadly force to prevent the shot."

Criminal Law Defenses: Self-Defense

Self-defense can be used to justify the use of force against another when the use of such force was reasonably necessary to protect oneself.

www.lawyers.com

I think self-defense is pretty easy to define, but "intentionally provoking a fight" isn't so clear to me.

I think it could have been argued that George Zimmerman was "intentionally provoking a fight", but that seems gray at best to me.

Sounds like we need to amend the law to make it more clear. Maybe the old sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? If I put my hands on you, then you should have carte blanche in retaliation. If I just verbally insult you then you cannot unless the insult is a threat of violence. Fair?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Sounds like we need to amend the law to make it more clear. Maybe the old sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? If I put my hands on you, then you should have carte blanche in retaliation. If I just verbally insult you then you cannot unless the insult is a threat of violence. Fair?

That would be fair and easier to uphold, but it’s not the way the law is currently written and I can understand why they have the provocation line there. Morally, I have a problem with that too.

I think back to the George Zimmerman trial. Legally, I believed he should be found innocent. However, I still see something wrong with his behavior in causing that entire thing to happen.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That would be fair and easier to uphold, but it’s not the way the law is currently written and I can understand why they have the provocation line there. Morally, I have a problem with that too.

I think back to the George Zimmerman trial. Legally, I believed he should be found innocent. However, I still see something wrong with his behavior in causing that entire thing to happen.

So then let’s change the laws? You and I actually agree. We also need to stop the defund the police rhetoric and allow the police to do their jobs so that Zimmerman and Rittenhouse don’t feel like they have to.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So then let’s change the laws? You and I actually agree. We also need to stop the defund the police rhetoric and allow the police to do their jobs so that Zimmerman and Rittenhouse don’t feel like they have to.

I think it’s eventually going to need to come down to changing the laws. It’s too gray in my opinion and I think Zimmerman, McMichaels, and Rittenhouse situations are going to keep happening until something is changed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I think it’s eventually going to need to come down to changing the laws. It’s too gray in my opinion and I think Zimmerman, McMichaels, and Rittenhouse situations are going to keep happening until something is changed.

So we agree. Excellent. Pleasure doing business with you