I would like for you to read that carefully.
You ***DO *** lose that right when you provoke it.
UNLESS
and it sets forth how you gain it back.
So again, how when and WHY he got out of that car could be an issue.
Remember, the jury supposedly doesn’t know about Martin’s background.
Think about this...what if the jury believes Diamond Eugene???
Does the burden of proof essentially shift????
NO. Please learn to read.
“The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who...Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless...Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm”
If someone escalates the intensity of the fight from a shove or punch into something that could kill or seriously injure you, then the justification IS available to you. You don’t gain it back. You never lose the right to defend yourself from deadly force.
Jury instructions include a common sense instruction. (you do not lose common sense)
Look at the cell phone tracking map. GZ went to get the adderess from a nearby street. He also followed the “we don’t need you to do that” instruction of the police.
He more than reclaimed the self defense option.
Remember the actual burden of proof, thanks to a recent 5th circuit court of appeals decision, clearly states the government has the burden to PROVE beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. ONE and only ONE reasonable doubt that it might be self defense. ONE reasonable possiblity of self defense and the government case collapses.
that is the jury instructions, the law, and the appellate court rulings.