I have to admit that after I read the jury's instructions about 20 minutes ago

[Quixote1818]

I can see how they came to a not guilty verdict. They basically had to throw out everything that occurred before the actual fight. Seems like a poorly written law. It means you can provoke a fight, wait for them to swing at you then shoot to kill and get away with it. Is manslaughter in these types of cases written this way in all states?

[Horse with no Name]

1. I believe the NRA wrote the laws

but I read it on here, so who knows if it is true or not.

[Kennah]

2. Florida's kill without remorse statute is fairly unique.

Washington has a use of force statute that could be viewed as fairly permissive. However, if you look through RCW (Revised Code of Washington) you will find the word reasonable repeated.

[DirkGently]

4. Nonsense. The self-defense statute in FL is typical.

And it too contains the word "reasonable."

[elleng]

3. Maryland:

There are two basic types of manslaughter: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing, but voluntary manslaughter occurs without the “malice” present in a first degree murder charge. Voluntary manslaughter may occur if someone kills another as a result of being provoked, or if a fight or physical altercation leads to the death of another individual. Though malice and premeditation are absent, manslaughter is still considered voluntary if the defendant acted in a way to intentionally harm or kill the victim. Voluntary manslaughter is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

An involuntary manslaughter charge is the result of a reckless, negligent, or criminal (misdemeanor) action that leads to the death of the victim.

http://mdcriminalattorney.net/maryland-manslaughter-lawyer.html

[Igel]

5. It's a self-defense thing.

It seems. It's not a problem with the manslaughter law. Volokh argues that the law between states is substantially the same, descended essential from Common Law.

You can't provoke a fight, take a swing, and automatically kill them when they respond. Most of the time you're not in fear for your life if the fight's fairly equitable or doesn't go past a certain point. Then you're allowed to use self-defense, but it also has to be limited. If you really fear for your life and the force is (or appears to be) sufficient against you that you need to kill to live, *and* the jury finds that normal, reasonable people in that situation would have done likewise, then it's justifiable. That's my poor understanding of it. That last bit rules out paranoid cowards from just kiling everybody who goes "boo!" at them, I guess. Or frivolous claims.

However, if you have a chance to back off as you defend yourself, you're required to take it. So if GZ had been on top of TM, then he would have had a way to back off. That might have made all the difference in the verdict.

Or if had been the case that TM did strike and topple GZ but then just kicked him a few times and ran, that might have precluded the justifiable use of lethal force beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have resulted in assault charges for TM, but that's better than death.

[Quixote1818]

6. Thanks

This trial has shown me that it can be a lot more complicated than how the law is currently drawn. Maybe this case will promote a review of self defense laws to protect people from vigilante types who approach people minding their own business. If someone thinks they are going to be raped or killed they will probably start to use as much force as they can muster.

[Blackford]

7. It's more of a problem with how a jury interprets the definition of "reasonable"

For example, black boy is scary so shooting him in a chest is the result of "reasonable" fear for your life.

Middle aged white man punches a black youth but it is not "reasonable" for the black youth to throw a single punch back, else the white man can shoot the black youth because it is now "reasonable" for the provoker to fear for his life.

[bluestate10]

10. Florida and other states that have laws like Florida need to change the law to only

give a person a self defense claim if they are protecting their home, property, or another person's life. Stalking, then killing a person should result in a murder conviction.

[uponit7771]

8. Do you have a link to jury instructions

[davidpdx]

9. In terms of a fight

here in Korea it is who throws the first punch and who ends up with the worst injuries from what I've heard. Of course, then again there are no guns here so being shot isn't a possible unless you go up to the DMZ.