Skip to main content

View Diary: Verdict in George Zimmerman Trial (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is that True (7+ / 0-)

    When the defense was not SYG (I agree that under SYG no civil suit is allowed), but just common law self-defense? I'm not a Florida lawyer so I don't know but that would be a triply-bitter pill to swallow if that is true.

    •  SYG (10+ / 0-)

      which was not used as you noted, shanikka, originates from common law self defense in FL.  the most bitter pill i can remember.  

      The common law recognized two kinds of self-defense. Justifiable homicide protected a defendant who was, without any fault of his own, attacked by another. The doctrine evolved from questions about the legal guilt of an executioner. After all, the hangman or the axman intentionally takes a life. But he was “justified,” medieval courts held, because the king ordered him to do it. What then of the innocent victim who fights back against an attacker and kills? Well, the fiction grew up that the victim was also the king’s executioner—a “true man” in the legal sense—meaning not a manly man but, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, “an honest man (as distinguished from a thief or other criminal).”

      But there was another offense at common law, called “chance-medley.” That offense occurred when two people got into an avoidable quarrel—in a pub, say—that graduated to violence. These quarrels could easily escalate. If one party to a chance-medley attacked the other, the person attacked might end up with the choice of killing or being killed. When the party attacked killed the attacker, he or she might claim self-defense—but only when the evidence showed that the eventual killer had tried to break off the encounter, or “retreat.” Even then, the killer was not justified but merely “excused.” Sir William Blackstone, writing in the 1770s, explained that “the law sets so high a value upon the life of a man that it always intends some misbehavior in the person who takes it away, unless by the command or express permission of the law.” Under that rule, a defendant who provoked and pursued a quarrel until it became violent couldn’t then claim “self-defense”—that was not being “true” in the legal sense.

    •  I hope I'm wrong... I was going by a comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, Mary Mike, shanikka

      and reference by a lawyer type from earlier today.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:42:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site