Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So confused about being able to claim self-defense. Is WW saying that in certain circumstances a non-physical provocation can be termed aggressive and therefore negate the provoker/aggressor's ability to assert self-defense?
Where in any of this does it say Zimmerman grabbed anyone?
It didn't, it said: "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?"
Did you not read what I'd read the post to which I'd responded to understand context?
Let me explain it for you. He said "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm..." I'm assuming he's not Zimmerman and I know I'm not Zimmerman, so I assume Zimmerman is not in the context of the hypothetical testarosa posited.
>>>>
We were having a hypothetical so I could understand the law without the legaleze.
Test,
On cell now for commute. BBL.
>>>
Thanks Tess. I thought I made myself clear.
So, in a nutshell, if it's proven GZ was the initial aggressor, then he cannot claim self-defense - that he was justified in killing TM. And apparently aggression does not need to be physical in order to qualify or be classified as provocative or aggressive. From what I get out of these legal minds is that words or threats could be considered aggression. I guess it will depend on the testimony of TM's girlfriend on the phone at the time GZ and TM had their initial interaction.
Oops...sorry. We've moved on. LOL
I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.
Grey area.
And that's why have that thing called a "trial".
Sort of like masturbation?
Similar, but more people are involved.
I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.
Grey area.
And that's why have that thing called a "trial".
Sort of like masturbation?
IOU a neg in <30 min.
Thanks Tess. I thought I made myself clear.
So, in a nutshell, if it's proven GZ was the initial aggressor, then he cannot claim self-defense - that he was justified in killing TM. And apparently aggression does not need to be physical in order to qualify or be classified as provocative or aggressive. From what I get out of these legal minds is that words or threats could be considered aggression. I guess it will depend on the testimony of TM's girlfriend on the phone at the time GZ and TM had their initial interaction.
Snook showed up and the whole thing went to hell.
Trials rock.
Snook showed up and the whole thing went to hell.
Trials rock.
Comic relief. Ass clowns are necessary.
OT: DH says the hot dog vendors are set up outside the courthouse, he's mad because there's no snow cones or funnel cakes.
#tequila trial
#funnel cake trial
Snook showed up and the whole thing went to hell.
Trials rock.
The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.
In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.
