[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

[erik]

The law completely allows for stupid situations where both participants could legally say they felt that they were being attacked and thus can 'stand their ground'.

Actually it doesn't. You can't chase someone down the street and still be standing your ground.

I believe he starts "standing his ground" once he is in fear for his life or great bodily harm. Zimmerman can say he wasn't afraid until he started getting beaten up. Before that point he was simply walking/driving through his neighborhood. Following a guy sure, but that's not illegal is it?

From Martin's perspective he could have said he was in fear for his personal safety when a guy is following him, possibly poorly concealing that he is carrying a gun.

[Kaelik]

Before that point he was simply walking/driving through his neighborhood. Following a guy sure, but that's not illegal is it?

It is not illegal in and of itself. But it still legally deprives you of the ability to claim self defense.

It isn't illegal to own a gun. It isn't illegal to point that gun at someone. But if in doing so you frighten them enough that they pull out their own gun, you are still the aggressor, so if you shoot them it wasn't self defense.

Florida's stupid stand ground law slightly changes which actions count as aggression, but legally, in any conflict, only one party has a valid self defense claim. In finding Zimmerman not guilty because of self defense the jury is claiming that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, it would have not been in self defense because he was the aggressor.

Obviously that is wrong in this case, but whatever. It is a legal fact that only one of two parties could have a self defense claim.

EDIT: Technically, actually, both parties could have a self defense claim in the case of reasonably believing things that are false. If you reasonably believe they are pulling a gun, and they aren't, you would have self defense, as would they, but at no point does tracking someone down and cornering them count as not being the aggressor, even under the stupid Florida law.

[MGuy]

Before that point he was simply walking/driving through his neighborhood. Following a guy sure, but that's not illegal is it?

It is not illegal in and of itself. But it still legally deprives you of the ability to claim self defense.

It isn't illegal to own a gun. It isn't illegal to point that gun at someone. But if in doing so you frighten them enough that they pull out their own gun, you are still the aggressor, so if you shoot them it wasn't self defense.

Florida's stupid stand ground law slightly changes which actions count as aggression, but legally, in any conflict, only one party has a valid self defense claim. In finding Zimmerman not guilty because of self defense the jury is claiming that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, it would have not been in self defense because he was the aggressor.

Obviously that is wrong in this case, but whatever. It is a legal fact that only one of two parties could have a self defense claim.

EDIT: Technically, actually, both parties could have a self defense claim in the case of reasonably believing things that are false. If you reasonably believe they are pulling a gun, and they aren't, you would have self defense, as would they, but at no point does tracking someone down and cornering them count as not being the aggressor, even under the stupid Florida law.

You know, before this verdict, that's exactly what I thought.

[Drolyt]

The law completely allows for stupid situations where both participants could legally say they felt that they were being attacked and thus can 'stand their ground'.

Actually it doesn't. You can't chase someone down the street and still be standing your ground.

Actually you basically can, that is what is so fucked up.

Florida's stupid stand ground law slightly changes which actions count as aggression

That is not what it does. This is the relevant statute:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The whole thing has absolutely fuck all to do with who was the "aggressor". The thing is, in common law jurisdictions that do not have a stand your ground law you cannot use deadly force unless there are zero other options to save your life or someone else's, there has to be no other way to escape the situation. The Florida law basically says that if you merely think ("reasonably believes") someone might be trying to hurt someone ("death or great bodily harm.. commission of a forcible felony") you can murder them.

As in he absolutely should have been found guilty under their law? Or that their stupid "stand your ground" law harbors these situations?

I'll totally go with the second. The first, however, I'm not getting.

Let me help you. In the United States you are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did this, that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin was never in doubt. The issue is the claim of self defense. This is what is known as an affirmative defense, and the key part is this, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that the defense applies to the situation. I cannot conceive how anyone could construe the defense as having met this requirement. Even under Florida's insane law he should have been found guilty.

As I understand it, Martin actually did have violent incidents in his recent past where he was the aggressor, his cell phone contained a text pertaining to an illegal gun sale, and his phone contained a picture of him with an illegal gun.

None of which warrants the death penalty.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think of Zimmerman as some kind of monster. I think in his own fucked up mind he thought he was doing the right thing. That doesn't change the fact that an innocent kid is dead because of him.

[Kaelik]

You know, before this verdict, that's exactly what I thought.

Juries are stupid. That doesn't change the law.

Actually it doesn't. You can't chase someone down the street and still be standing your ground.

Actually you basically can, that is what is so fucked up.

No, you can't.

Florida's stupid stand ground law slightly changes which actions count as aggression

That is not what it does. This is the relevant statute:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The whole thing has absolutely fuck all to do with who was the "aggressor".

No, that exactly has to do with who is the aggressor. Absent that law, using lethal force to prevent the commission of a felony is murder, because you are the aggressor. Absent that law, using lethal force when you could have escaped makes you the aggressor. The law very specifically takes some situations in which using lethal force deprives you of a self defense claim by making you the aggressor and gives you the claim back.

But one of the situations it does not change is any situation in which you deliberately seek out confrontation. If you chase someone down, you are not standing your ground under that law.

The Florida law basically says that if you merely think ("reasonably believes") someone might be trying to hurt someone ("death or great bodily harm.. commission of a forcible felony") you can murder them.

You can already shoot someone under the "common law" if you just reasonably believe they are going to cause you great bodily harm and that retreating would be hard. But nothing about the law absolves you of the duty to not chase someone down a street and engage them in combat in the first place.

[Drolyt]

You know, before this verdict, that's exactly what I thought.

Juries are stupid. That doesn't change the law.

Except that juries get to interpret the law. If the jury's interpretation differs from yours whose interpretation counts?

Actually it doesn't. You can't chase someone down the street and still be standing your ground.

Actually you basically can, that is what is so fucked up.

No, you can't.

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

Florida's stupid stand ground law slightly changes which actions count as aggression

That is not what it does. This is the relevant statute:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The whole thing has absolutely fuck all to do with who was the "aggressor".

No, that exactly has to do with who is the aggressor. Absent that law, using lethal force to prevent the commission of a felony is murder, because you are the aggressor. Absent that law, using lethal force when you could have escaped makes you the aggressor. The law very specifically takes some situations in which using lethal force deprives you of a self defense claim by making you the aggressor and gives you the claim back.

That is not what the law does. The entire point of the duty to retreat is that even though you aren't the aggressor you can be found guilty of murder because you had alternatives. The Florida law absolves you of the duty to retreat, but it doesn't change the facts of who the aggressor was.

The Florida law basically says that if you merely think ("reasonably believes") someone might be trying to hurt someone ("death or great bodily harm.. commission of a forcible felony") you can murder them.

You can already shoot someone under the "common law" if you just reasonably believe they are going to cause you great bodily harm and that retreating would be hard. But nothing about the law absolves you of the duty to not chase someone down a street and engage them in combat in the first place.

Except for the part where without a witness you can just tell everyone it was actually self defense and because the definition of self defense has become so wide and vague they basically have to let you go.

[Kaelik]

Except that juries get to interpret the law. If the jury's interpretation differs from yours whose interpretation counts?

You are an idiot. Juries do not get to interpret the law. Juries are very carefully instructed on what the law is, and told that they are not allowed to interpret the law. Juries decide the facts of the case.

So if a Jury disagrees with my interpretation of the law, they are wrong, because I am the one writing the jury instructions, and they are the jury.

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

Martin was dead before any of this mattered. He didn't and doesn't care whether the law allowed it to happen, because it happened anyway.

Now, as before, what the jury decides are facts. So the jury can decide that Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down a street and grab him, but they can't decide whether or not doing that is acting as the aggressor.

That is not what the law does. The entire point of the duty to retreat is that even though you aren't the aggressor you can be found guilty of murder because you had alternatives. The Florida law absolves you of the duty to retreat, but it doesn't change the facts of who the aggressor was.

Yes it does. By changing the law about what actions are or are not permissible, it changes who is the aggressor in certain circumstances. The law does not just effect the duty to retreat, a duty which is completely irrelevant in the case of Zimmerman.

Except for the part where without a witness you can just tell everyone it was actually self defense and because the definition of self defense has become so wide and vague they basically have to let you go.

Yes, you can lie to juries. So what. You could lie to juries without this law.

[DSMatticus]

Firstly, you can't actually answer a law discussion by appealling to decisions juries made. Juries are dumb and wildly inconsistent and do not actually set law interpretations, because no other jury will ever be even informally bound by the decision of this jury.

Secondly, this wasn't a stand-your-ground case. Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him first and he "totally wasn't looking for Martin at the time, I swear", and Martin is too busy being dead to contest that. That may or may not be bullshit. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman bare minimum continued to look around for Martin, and that eventually prompted the fight. But according to the Defense, it's just a standard self-defense case.

Thirdly, this really wasn't (as far as we know) a case about obligation to retreat. It might have been, if we had more facts about the case, but based on what we "know" what actually happened is Zimmerman stalked and then chased a 17-year-old boy for no reason other than "he was black and I didn't recognize him," clearly already considering him a criminal in his call to police. He managed to convince Martin he was a threat, but Zimmerman was not acting under the belief he was in danger until the fight occurred (which makes him an idiot, but it's essentially his claim), and Zimmmerman was losing the fight badly enough that he pulled out a gun and shot Martin.

What these 12 jurors actually decided was that if you intimidate someone into believing (perfectly reasonably) that you are a threat to their safety through overtly aggressive and completely unprovoked actions and as a result they attack you, you can fucking shoot them and walk away a free man.

[Maxus]

Six jurors, as an aside.

[PoliteNewb]

It isn't illegal to own a gun. It isn't illegal to point that gun at someone.

Actually, in many cases yes it is. Pointing a weapon at someone (in many places) is at least menacing (the crime, not just the verb) and may be considered assault.

[Kaelik]

It isn't illegal to own a gun. It isn't illegal to point that gun at someone.

Actually, in many cases yes it is. Pointing a weapon at someone (in many places) is at least menacing (the crime, not just the verb) and may be considered assault.

Yes, it could be that you are threatening someone, on the other hand, you could not be. My point is that even if you aren't menacing someone (which requires a specific mens rea) you would be still lose the ability to claim self defense.

[Drolyt]

Except that juries get to interpret the law. If the jury's interpretation differs from yours whose interpretation counts?

You are an idiot. Juries do not get to interpret the law. Juries are very carefully instructed on what the law is, and told that they are not allowed to interpret the law. Juries decide the facts of the case.

I am aware of the instructions juries are given. They still decide who is innocent and who is guilty.

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

Martin was dead before any of this mattered. He didn't and doesn't care whether the law allowed it to happen, because it happened anyway.

Except for the part where Zimmerman actually studied the relevant laws, including Florida's stand your ground law. Laws do not exist in a vacuum, and this particular law exists in a culture of vigilantism.

Now, as before, what the jury decides are facts. So the jury can decide that Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down a street and grab him, but they can't decide whether or not doing that is acting as the aggressor.

You have a frankly baffling idea of how our legal system works. Who do you think decides whether self-defense applies given the facts? It isn't like the jury decides the facts and then inputs the results into some formula, the jury renders the guilty or not guilty verdict.

That is not what the law does. The entire point of the duty to retreat is that even though you aren't the aggressor you can be found guilty of murder because you had alternatives. The Florida law absolves you of the duty to retreat, but it doesn't change the facts of who the aggressor was.

Yes it does. By changing the law about what actions are or are not permissible, it changes who is the aggressor in certain circumstances. The law does not just effect the duty to retreat, a duty which is completely irrelevant in the case of Zimmerman.

Actually the only thing Florida's stand your ground law affects is the duty to retreat. That is why it is called "stand your ground".

Except for the part where without a witness you can just tell everyone it was actually self defense and because the definition of self defense has become so wide and vague they basically have to let you go.

Yes, you can lie to juries. So what. You could lie to juries without this law.

The law makes it easier is the point.

Firstly, you can't actually answer a law discussion by appealling to decisions juries made. Juries are dumb and wildly inconsistent and do not actually set law interpretations, because no other jury will ever be even informally bound by the decision of this jury.

That's not the point. If a law causes juries to rule in a certain way then that becomes the effective result of the law regardless of the law's original intent or literal meaning.

Secondly, this wasn't a stand-your-ground case. Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him first and he "totally wasn't looking for Martin at the time, I swear", and Martin is too busy being dead to contest that. That may or may not be bullshit. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman bare minimum continued to look around for Martin, and that eventually prompted the fight. But according to the Defense, it's just a standard self-defense case.

But that just makes it more confusing, how the hell can he claim self defense when even in his version of the story he was stalking Trayvon? For goodness sakes Zimmerman had to leave his truck for the confrontation to even happen.

Thirdly, this really wasn't (as far as we know) a case about obligation to retreat. It might have been, if we had more facts about the case, but based on what we "know" what actually happened is Zimmerman stalked and then chased a 17-year-old boy for no reason other than "he was black and I didn't recognize him," clearly already considering him a criminal in his call to police. He managed to convince Martin he was a threat, but Zimmerman was not acting under the belief he was in danger until the fight occurred (which makes him an idiot, but it's essentially his claim), and Zimmmerman was losing the fight badly enough that he pulled out a gun and shot Martin.

Again, this is just confusing. Even under Zimmerman's version of the story that wasn't self defense. If the jury didn't acquit him because of the stand your ground law I'm really at a loss as to why the hell they acquitted him.

What these 12 jurors actually decided was that if you intimidate someone into believing (perfectly reasonably) that you are a threat to their safety through overtly aggressive and completely unprovoked actions and as a result they attack you, you can fucking shoot them and walk away a free man.

Which is just scary.

[Kaelik]

I am aware of the instructions juries are given. They still decide who is innocent and who is guilty.

By determining what happened they make that adjudication. And then apply the law as they are told to. Obviously they can not do that, jury nullification is a thing, but it doesn't change the law.

Except for the part where Zimmerman actually studied the relevant laws, including Florida's stand your ground law. Laws do not exist in a vacuum, and this particular law exists in a culture of vigilantism.

The law doesn't allow what Zimmerman did. He ignored the relevant law and/or misinterpreted it. He would have done the same thing with any other law.

You have a frankly baffling idea of how our legal system works. Who do you think decides whether self-defense applies given the facts? It isn't like the jury decides the facts and then inputs the results into some formula, the jury renders the guilty or not guilty verdict.

You have absolutely no idea how the legal system works. The jury does input the facts into a formula. The one established by the instructions. The jury looks to the instructions to determine whether or not the party claiming self defense was the aggressor. That is how the law works.

Actually the only thing Florida's stand your ground law affects is the duty to retreat. That is why it is called "stand your ground".

The law also changes other things. For starters, without that law, you wouldn't be able to claim "self" defense to shoot someone to prevent a forcible felony. It is called the stand ground law because people have short hand that does not accurately describe the entire law.

The law makes it easier is the point.

No it doesn't. It is just as easy to say that you believed you couldn't escape as it is to say that you stood your ground. Those are equally easy to lie about.

That's not the point. If a law causes juries to rule in a certain way then that becomes the effective result of the law regardless of the law's original intent or literal meaning.

And the point is that the law doesn't cause juries to rule that way. One jury happened to rule that way when being approached by a very expensive attorney and very little in the way of evidence. It makes a certain limited amount of sense to believe that in this case what probably happened is that Zimmerman committed murder, but it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is still a statement about the facts of this case, the thing juries actually get to decided, and not about the law, the thing that juries don't get to decide.

[DSMatticus]

But that just makes it more confusing, how the hell can he claim self defense when even in his version of the story he was stalking Trayvon? For goodness sakes Zimmerman had to leave his truck for the confrontation to even happen.
...
Again, this is just confusing. Even under Zimmerman's version of the story that wasn't self defense. If the jury didn't acquit him because of the stand your ground law I'm really at a loss as to why the hell they acquitted him.

Zimmerman's version of the story is that after the call to the police ended, he went to get the street address on foot so he could tell the police where to meet him, and then Martin jumped him and started the fight. It is Zimmerman's claim that he was not in the process of looking for Martin when the fight occurred and he did not throw the first punch.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, he took intimidating and unprovoked ("he's black and I don't recognize him, that's suspicious") action against someone who was essentially just a random dude off the street and those actions culminated in a physical fight and death. And these six (apparently) jurors decided that Zimmerman is not at fault for the part his stupid and reckless actions played in leading to the conflict. They have failed to convict a man who is clearly guilty of at least manslaughter of manslaughter, and declared that they think it is totally okay to threaten innocent people and then shoot them if they attack you because self-defense. They are wrong, but they are not wrong in a way that has anything to do with stand-your-ground. They are wrong because being a stupid vigilante and doing stupid vigilante things puts lives in danger, and in this case someone died as a result, and that is manslaughter.

If Zimmerman is lying and searched for Martin until he found him and confronted him or Martin felt cornered enough to confront his pursuer, then the reality is Zimmerman chased down and cornered a random boy off the street and then shot and murdered that boy when he tried to defend himself from a man he legitimately perceived as threatening him. This is a very clear cut case of murder. And while it is likely that this is what happened, there is reasonable doubt and erring on the side of manslaughter isn't out of line.

[talozin]

I hate politics, but I love hypotheticals -- law being one of the two places other than philosophy where you can routinely deploy them and not immediately get laughed out of the room. And this trial raises interesting and meaningful questions about the law that do not depend on the facts of the specific case. So:

Albert Aardvark is walking home from the store on a rainy night when he notices someone who appears to be following him. Although Albert doesn't recognize Bruno Bobcat, he does identify him as a bobcat, and he reasonably believes that a bobcat who is following him home constitutes a threat to his safety. Despite making several turns, Bruno remains on his trail, although Bruno never speaks with Albert or approaches to within twice Tueller distance (~45 feet total). Albert then turns back to confront Bruno and attacks him barehanded. He knocks him to the ground, gets on top of him and proceeds to beat him until Bruno is unconscious. Unfortunately, Albert either doesn't realize that it's actually kind of hard to knock someone unconscious without doing them serious injury, has forgotten about it in the heat of the moment, or doesn't care (there is no compelling evidence either way). After three days in the hospital, Bruno dies without ever regaining consciousness.

Which, if any, crime should Albert be convicted of, bearing in mind that there's always a chance he may get a jury of six aardvarks or six bobcats?

- Murder in the second degree. If you answered "yes", why is Albert's action not legal self-defense? What action would Bruno have to have taken to make a self-defense claim plausible? What actions on Albert's part demonstrate the "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" required for a conviction on this charge? Does your answer differ if Albert has called someone on the phone shortly before the fight and described Bruno with a racial epithet?

- Manslaughter (or, in this case, bobcatslaughter). If you answered "yes", why is Albert's action not legal self-defense? What action would Bruno have to have taken to make a self-defense claim plausible? What actions might Albert have taken that would permit him to claim self-defense?

- Some lesser criminal charge (aggravated assault, battery, etc.) If you answered "yes", why is Albert guilty of this crime but not manslaughter (at least)? If he is not guilty of manslaughter (presumably by reason of self-defense), why is this also not an effective defense to those crimes that led directly to Bruno's death?

- Albert should be acquitted because he acted in self-defense. If you answered "yes", what actions could Albert have taken that would not have been consistent with a self-defense claim? If Albert had, instead of attacking Bruno with his fists, drawn a gun and shot him, would that still be self-defense? Does your answer change if Bruno is known to have been deliberately following Albert, or if the appearance of pursuit is known to have been coincidental? If so, how can we capture this distinction in law? What prevents a hypothetical person of ill will (Chester Cheetah, perhaps) from assaulting Albert in turn, possibly fatally, and escaping conviction on the grounds that he believed Albert was threatening him, even if Chester did not genuinely believe this? Articulate your standards for the justifiable use of physical and (if separate) lethal force in self-defense.

Having been acquitted by a jury of his peers (or, at any rate, aardvarks), Albert returns to his home. That evening, he gets into a heated argument with his girlfriend, Ann Aardvark, over the very questions discussed above. At some point during the argument, Ann slaps Albert across the face. Albert then physically attacks Ann, breaking her nose and rendering her bruised and bloody, and backs her into a corner of the kitchen. Ann then takes a handgun from her kitchen drawer (we assume for the sake of argument that concealing a handgun in one's kitchen drawer is not itself a crime) and fires one shot into Albert's chest. Albert dies before an ambulance can arrive.

Ann should be convicted of:

- Murder in the second degree. Questions as above.

- Manslaughter (aardvarkslaughter?) As above.

- Some lesser crime. As above.

- Ann acted in self-defense and should be acquitted. As above (except that obviously asking whether the claim would be legal if Ann had used a firearm is redundant).

Bonus questions:

If either Ann or Albert is guilty, and the other is not, what standard do you use to distinguish these situations? Articulate it in as generally applicable a manner as possible.

If both Albert and Ann are guilty of at least manslaughter, under what circumstances would you permit a claim of self-defense?

If both Ann and Albert are not guilty by reason of self-defense, under what circumstances would you deny such a claim?

[Whatever]

Although Albert doesn't recognize Bruno Bobcat, he does identify him as a bobcat, and he reasonably believes that a bobcat who is following him home constitutes a threat to his safety.

Fuck you, you racist asshole.

[DSMatticus]

Despite making several turns, Bruno remains on his trail, although Bruno never speaks with Albert or approaches to within twice Tueller distance (~45 feet total). Albert then turns back to confront Bruno and attacks him barehanded. He knocks him to the ground, gets on top of him and proceeds to beat him until Bruno is unconscious. Unfortunately, Albert either doesn't realize that it's actually kind of hard to knock someone unconscious without doing them serious injury, has forgotten about it in the heat of the moment, or doesn't care (there is no compelling evidence either way). After three days in the hospital, Bruno dies without ever regaining consciousness.

Firstly, it's worth noting that Martin attempted to run away before confronting Zimmerman, and Zimmerman responded by upgrading his tail to a brief foot chase (he loses Martin in 10-15 seconds and the police subtly tell him to knock it out - one of those two ends the chase). So since the purpose of this hypothetical is to judge how reasonable Martin's actions were by the removal of context, it's actually fairly important to capture the extent to which Zimmerman's behavior is threatening. Secondly, the reason we "know" Martin confronted Zimmerman and not the other way around is because witnesses didn't show up until after the fact and Martin is dead and Zimmerman is not - we got the version of events that is most favorable to Zimmerman. If Martin had been the survivor, we would have instead heard that Martin hid until Zimmerman found and cornered him, and then Martin either attacked preemptively or Zimmerman grabbed him or something. And honestly, I have no idea which is true. I am not adverse to the idea that a 17-year-old boy made a stupid decision, but at the same time Zimmerman has already demonstrated that he is an overzealous idiot. I'm going to ignore the second (grant that "Albert" is the aggressor), but stress the first (because it emphasizes exactly how reasonable it was to consider "Bruno" a threat).

In which case, Albert has a decent case under Florida's absolutely retarded "stand your ground" law, which states that Albert is under no obligation to retreat in a place he is legally allowed to be (i.e. a public street). But there are actual cases of judges in Florida throwing out "stand your ground" claims specifically because the person had the opportunity to retreat and did not do so. Translating the legalese into common vernacular, I believe the argument those judges made goes a little something like this: "NUH-UH."

In an ideal world, both parties are under an obligation to retreat, because if two innocent parties are suspicious one another may be a potentially dangerous criminal and both have an obligation to retreat and act on that obligation to retreat, no one gets hurt. In which case, if Bruno chased a suspected criminal through the streets and Albert turned unnecessarily to confront his pursuer, both are failing to meet that obligation and whoever isn't dead by the end of their fight is guilty of both stupidity and some crime. I would like to see Albert convicted of manslaughter or aggravated assault depending on the specifics of his attempt to retreat and his return to confront - Albert is far less culpable for this tragic outcome than Bruno, but self-defense is still not a license to go after people you think mean you harm. If Albert reasonably felt his attempt to flee had failed (being outran, cornered in a hiding spot) and threw the first punch as a result, then standard self-defense, no charges. But Bruno's behavior is at no point provoked, reasonable, or excusable.

[Kaelik]

- Murder in the second degree. If you answered "yes", why is Albert's action not legal self-defense? What action would Bruno have to have taken to make a self-defense claim plausible? What actions on Albert's part demonstrate the "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" required for a conviction on this charge? Does your answer differ if Albert has called someone on the phone shortly before the fight and described Bruno with a racial epithet?

All of this would depend slightly on the laws of the state, and I'm not going to look up Florida law on Murder v Manslaughter. But I doubt you did when asking these questions anyway.

It is second degree murder. It is not legal self defense because it is not reasonable to believe that you can't escape someone who has never approached within 45ft of you or tried to or done anything to make you think they will.

It is also second degree murder because "a bobcat following me is reasonable grounds to believe I will be killed" is either false, or bobcats aren't people and it isn't a crime at all. If someone is a legally recognized person it is because they are not a species that it is reasonable to believe will kill you on sight.

I mean, I know you used animals to avoid having to use races, so bobcats could be either black or white, but try to imagine a moment someone saying "I thought the X person would kill me because he was X." If someone's race is the only or primary reason you think they are going to kill you, then you are fucking wrong and a reasonable person would not be in fear for their life.

Killing someone who hasn't approached them and is not a threat to them without even trying other options like walking into a house and locking the door demonstrates whatever mens rea is necessary for second degree murder in the hypothetical state.

- Ann acted in self-defense and should be acquitted. As above (except that obviously asking whether the claim would be legal if Ann had used a firearm is redundant).

She was reasonably in fear for her life. It is reasonable to be afraid someone who is beating the shit out of you might kill you. She also couldn't retreat, because she was cornered.

If either Ann or Albert is guilty, and the other is not, what standard do you use to distinguish these situations? Articulate it in as generally applicable a manner as possible.

People who are reasonably in fear for their life and who can't escape get to use self defense. People who are unreasonably in fear for their and don't even attempt very obvious methods of escape do not get to use self defense.

[talozin]

Fuck you, you racist asshole.

If "an insectivore being followed by a carnivore is reasonable in believing that he may be in danger" is unacceptably racist, then please feel free to substitute any other characterization that you feel would permit the jury to unequivocally accept that Albert's belief that he is in danger is reasonable. Even if only because AardvarkBobcatWorld is composed of a bunch of racist assholes who all firmly believe that bobcats are all thugs and murderers.

Also, because it's only fair, I should answer my own questions.

Which, if any, crime should Albert be convicted of?

If Albert's claim that he felt threatened with death or severe bodily harm by Bruno is implausible, I would vote to convict Albert for Murder 2. By "implausible", I'm thinking of a situation where Albert is a 6' 6", muscular Marine combat veteran who played college football, and Bruno is a short, wispy, bespectacled accountant; under those circumstances I would probably opt for Murder 2 unless the defense managed to come up with an incredibly compelling explanation why he might have felt threatened despite this.

If it seems plausible, even though perhaps unlikely, that Albert felt threatened, I would vote to convict on Manslaughter.

Why is Albert's action not legal self-defense?

His response to the perceived threat was not proportionate. Assaulting someone with your fists can be regarded as the use of deadly force (it obviously was in this case), and requires more justification than Albert can present.

What action would Bruno have to have taken to make a self-defense claim plausible?

If Bruno had approached within Tueller distance in the face of a verbal warning from Albert to back off, self-defense would have been appropriate. If Bruno had made a verbal threat or presented a weapon (knife, gun, clenched fist, etc.) or even the plausible threat of a weapon, self-defense would be a plausible claim. Obviously the claim would also be plausible if Bruno had actually attacked Albert.

What actions might Albert have taken that would permit him to claim self-defense?

Verbally warning Bruno to stay away; informing Bruno that he was calling the police (and then doing so); use of less-lethal means of defense (pepper spray, etc.) or warning that he was prepared to do so. This is obviously not a complete list.

Ann should be convicted of:

Ann might be guilty of misdemeanor battery or, depending on wording of the statutes involved, some form of domestic abuse. It would take a pretty tendentious prosecutor to go after these, though, and it's hard to say how I would vote without knowing the details. I would, however, vote to acquit her on charges of murder or manslaughter; while it is not disputed that Ann initiated a physical conflict (by slapping Albert), Albert's response is so disproportionate that her claim of self-defense remains plausible.

What actions could Ann have taken that would not have been consistent with a self-defense claim?

Ann's situation seems to me to be much more serious (by the reasonable person test) than Albert's in the previous example, so I would allow her considerable leeway. If, having shot and disabled Albert (i.e., he no longer presents a threat, is prone on the floor, etc.) she were to shoot him a second time a la Bernhard Goetz, that would cease to be self-defense. If she had to go all the way through the house to get her shotgun and then walk back to the kitchen, with Albert not having followed her or continued to attack her during this process, I would no longer consider her to be acting in self-defense.

Articulate your standards for the justifiable use of physical and (if separate) lethal force in self-defense.

Generally, force used in self defense should be reserved for the perceived danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm. When someone pulls a knife and asks for your wallet, you are entitled to use force to defend yourself (though it would probably be smarter to just throw down your wallet and run like hell -- if he then pursues you, your self-defense claim will be pretty ironclad).

Use of force in self-defense should be proportionate; you don't shoot someone for asking for your wallet (unless, e.g., he has a knife and is threatening you with it when he asks), and you don't shoot someone for slapping you across the face (unless, e.g., he slaps you repeatedly or with extreme force, to the point where you are sustaining serious injury).

What standard do you use to distinguish these situations?

See above. Ann's use of force was both proportionate and occurred in a context where she had already been harmed (she didn't shoot Albert until after he had already seriously injured her). Furthermore, retreating from the conflict was not realistically possible under the circumstances. Albert used disproportionate force in a situation when it was not clear whether the threat was actual or merely perceived, and did so in a situation where he had the opportunity to retreat. (The "Stand Your Ground" law might help him with the latter issue, but the first two would still be problematic.)

[talozin]

So since the purpose of this hypothetical is to judge how reasonable Martin's actions were by the removal of context, it's actually fairly important to capture the extent to which Zimmerman's behavior is threatening.

That's actually not really the purpose of the hypo. Although it's obviously adapted from the case at hand, so I completely understand that, the real purpose is to examine two aspects of self-defense under the law that I find interesting: When is it appropriate to use force in one's own defense, and how much? (The second hypo addresses a different question, but you can probably deduce that one on your own.) The real-world case has way too many factors for me to feel comfortable addressing it even in the context of a hypo.

And honestly, I have no idea which is true. I am not adverse to the idea that a 17-year-old boy made a stupid decision, but at the same time Zimmerman has already demonstrated that he is an overzealous idiot.

I agree with you on all three points, and appreciate your clarity in addressing how they affect your response to the hypos.

Translating the legalese into common vernacular, I believe the argument those judges made goes a little something like this: "NUH-UH."

Heh. It just goes to show: it doesn't matter who casts the ballots, what matters is who counts the ballots. Or, in this case, "who writes the law" and "who interprets the law".

In an ideal world, both parties are under an obligation to retreat, because if two innocent parties are suspicious one another may be a potentially dangerous criminal and both have an obligation to retreat and act on that obligation to retreat, no one gets hurt.

This would be the ideal outcome. Well, ideal among the sucky possible outcomes we have to deal with here, anyway.

I would like to see Albert convicted of manslaughter or aggravated assault depending on the specifics of his attempt to retreat and his return to confront - Albert is far less culpable for this tragic outcome than Bruno, but self-defense is still not a license to go after people you think mean you harm.

In the context in which you're addressing these, where Bruno is definitely pursuing Albert and there is no equivocation over whether his pursuit was coincidence or not, I think this is a reasonable conclusion.

All of this would depend slightly on the laws of the state, and I'm not going to look up Florida law on Murder v Manslaughter. But I doubt you did when asking these questions anyway.

I actually did consult FL 776.013 et seq. and also FL 782.02, but IANAL and even if I were, I didn't cite them, quote them or even specify that we were operating under them. I'm more interested in your opinion of what the law should say than what it does say, in this case.

I mean, I know you used animals to avoid having to use races, so bobcats could be either black or white, but try to imagine a moment someone saying "I thought the X person would kill me because he was X." If someone's race is the only or primary reason you think they are going to kill you, then you are fucking wrong and a reasonable person would not be in fear for their life.

See above note to Whatever. I felt bad about putting it so baldly, but I wanted the hypo to focus on the reasonability of Albert's response rather than the reasonability of the fear per se. I could have said something like "Bruno has a concealed handgun that Albert noticed", but I felt that would take the discussion toward points I wasn't especially interested in. Chalk it up to my lack of creativity.

Your responses also seem reasonable to me, given context.

[Kaelik]

See above note to Whatever. I felt bad about putting it so baldly, but I wanted the hypo to focus on the reasonability of Albert's response rather than the reasonability of the fear per se. I could have said something like "Bruno has a concealed handgun that Albert noticed", but I felt that would take the discussion toward points I wasn't especially interested in. Chalk it up to my lack of creativity.

Your responses also seem reasonable to me, given context.

Having a concealed handgun is also not grounds to believe someone will murder you.

You keep ignoring the main problem, which is that either Bob is a person, in which case it cannot be presumed that his mere presence and ability to kill will result in your death, or he is not a person, and you can presume that, but it doesn't matter because he isn't a person.

A man with a gun, a big scary man with a gun, a big scary man with a gun who looks like he doesn't like me, but who I have never met before, none of those people following me at 45ft is justification for lethal force, and never could be. It can never ever be acceptable for you to presume a stranger who has made no overt threatening words or gestures and who you have not spoken to is ever enough of a threat to deserve lethal force.

[talozin]

A man with a gun, a big scary man with a gun, a big scary man with a gun who looks like he doesn't like me, but who I have never met before, none of those people following me at 45ft is justification for lethal force, and never could be. It can never ever be acceptable for you to presume a stranger who has made no overt threatening words or gestures and who you have not spoken to is ever enough of a threat to deserve lethal force.

I agree that this is not justification for lethal force (see my own answers above); I doubt if it would even suffice as justification to Taser the guy (assuming that all he did is appear to follow you at a distance of about 45 feet).

What I'm trying for here is a situation where it is reasonable but not necessarily accurate for Albert to believe that Bruno may present a threat, rather than believing that Bruno presents an immediate danger to his life. The hypo deals with the issue of appropriate, proportional response to threats. If Albert doesn't reasonably believe Bruno is a threat, then there's no response to make. If he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of his life from Bruno, then he is justified in employing lethal force. I'm trying to specify an in-between case, where Albert reasonably believes that he may be in danger but that danger is not direct and immediate. In this case it would be reasonable (my opinion) for Albert to take defensive actions that are not confrontational (getting his pepper spray in hand and flipping off the safety, calling the police, etc.), but not to employ force against Bruno until and unless Bruno takes some overtly aggressive action.

So yeah. I'm not suggesting that it's reasonable for Albert to shoot Bruno; I am actually explicitly stating the opposite.

[sabs]

Well, if Bruno is following Albert at 45 feet, and Albert thinks all Bruno has is his fists. That's a different situation, than if Albert knows that Bruno has a hand gun.

If Bruno is carrying an unconcealed Hand Gun, or has flashes his gun at Albert, then the threat becomes more pronounced and more immediate.

If Albert has no weapons, and Bruno has a handgun, then Albert has 3 options.
1) run/get to the police/hope Bruno doesn't shoot him.
2) Take the fight to Bruno and disarm/beat him unconcious.
3) Do nothing and hope it's all a big misunderstanding.

None of those are really good options if you think Bruno is likely to shoot you in the back.

[Whipstitch]

It feels different, but I would argue that the parameters haven't changed in any way that should particularly impact how you handle the situation, since starting a shoot out at 40+ feet isn't a guarantee of anything either.

[Kaelik]

Maybe it is just having been in the state of Texas, but I cannot get over this "If someone has a gun, that means they are going to murder you" thing. Having the capability to kill you is not particularly compelling evidence that they have the intent of killing you.