"Pre-emptive self-defense" can be legal in Florida.

[pnwmom]

So IF Trayvon threw the first punch, after being chased around the complex by an armed looney-tune, he was justified by pre-emptive self-defense.

Zimmerman, since he clearly provoked Trayvon, shouldn't be protected by self-defense laws.

http://www.thecompletelawyer.com/?p=919

This post discusses in detail the self-defense laws in the state of Florida. Touches on the history, importance and implication of the law.

SNIP

Even in the event of an intrusion at home or at the workplace, under the original Castle Doctrine, the use of deadly force is limited. Use of force must be equal to the attack, with deadly force allowed only during extreme situations, or at the very least to cases where a clear physical hazard is present. Pre-emptive attacks to stop or repel a threat can fall under self-defense, yet if the perceived suspect ceases to be a threat, self-defense laws no longer applies.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. .

.

[HooptieWagon]

2. I have never heard of that argument being made in a FLA court...

...let alone successfully. And the juries in many of the "stand your ground" cases have convicted the shooter. I don't know what the decision on the Martin case will be, but your panic is premature.

[pnwmom]

3. Panic? I'm saying that Trayvon would have been justified

under the theory of preemptive self defense IF he threw the first punch.

How does that indicate panic?

[HooptieWagon]

4. Okay, I misunderstood your post.

I don't think throwing the first punch, if that happened, is pre-emptive. There is no reason to believe Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman. If Martin threw the first punch, its because Zimmerman grabbed him or another form of assault. I don't know what the jury has heard, but IMO Zimmerman likely tried to detain Martin with force, and Martin resisted, as was his right since Zimmerman is not police. So "throwing the first punch" is a misnomer, since an assault likely had already occured.
And again, when a self defense case has gone to a jury here, the juries generally don't buy it. At least two recent stand your ground cases resulted in convictions. Wait until the jury reaches a verdict before jumping to conclusions.

[pnwmom]

5. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about what the jury may decide.

But I know what I think -- that regardless of what the jury says, Zimmerman recklessly brought about Trayvon's death. And I hope he does have to suffer consequence for that decision.

[HooptieWagon]

6. I agree.

My confusion was I though you were suggesting Zimmerman was going to get off on a pre-emptive self-defense ruling. No such thing exists, not for Zimmerman or Martin.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. I would think that that's what Zimmerman and his Lying Team of Lawyers are arguing.

[HooptieWagon]

8. I haven't followed the trial on TV.

I don't know exactly what arguments Zimmermans lawyers are making. But its a fantasy to argue Martin just attacked Zimmerman out of the blue. I can't see a jury buying that story.