"I just completed my civic duty a few weeks back and sat on a jury in an assault case. Our instructions were very clear, you cannot claim self defense if you initiated the confrontation unless at some point you tried to walk away..."
Jury duty: Good on ya! I'm a little surprised your support for open carry didn't get you excluded. Did the lawyers ask during the pre-screening?
Note: Judicial direction is not necessarily true and does NOT have to be followed by the jury. Yes, I remember reading the booklet and it says otherwise. Yes, these decisions have been unheld, but at an inverse amount +- to how much they publicly announce their disagreement with the judge's instructions. Of course, whatever their decision about how to go about deliberating or which evidence to consider, they can only addressed the charges laid before them. I think I see where he was going with these jury instructions but just because you start a confrontation does not mean you were guilty of either an assault or battery. This has the distinct smell of judicial activism. Failing to run away is not the same as attacking. Ex: "Hey guys! What are you guys doing to that car!?" I think the causal link is illogical. Our culture at large seems to complain about "nobody saw nothing", but the "zero tolerance" policies are punishing the victim more and more. From what I understand, Castle Doctrine codifies common sense and has recently extended recognition of this beyond your own home to anywhere we have a legal right to be. I'll bet this judge has complained more than once about the lack of witnesses willing to testify about crimes.
As usual... never a blanket permit for general douchebagery
Wow. You went a lot of places with this that were not part of the original situation. My post was in reference to post #597 in this thread, and included what little knowledge I have of our legal system. Looking back, perhaps I should have included that post as well instead of only the post that I did include.
Without going in to the details of the case I sat on, Jury Nullification, what you are talking about, and I support as well, never came close to being a factor in this trial. The instructions I briefly mentioned were only one of about forty instructions we were given. Castle doctrine was not an issue, stand your ground was not an issue, and at no time did the judge ever give any indication of dis-satisfaction with anything.
Go back and read post #597. In that specific case, I think the originator of the confrontation would have a huge legal hurdle to clear to claim self defense, stand your ground, or castle doctrine, if the confrontation had escalated to the point of LE involvement.
My posts are not meant to be legal advice in any manner.