His book is really the simplest way to understand the pillars of self-defense:
Innocence
Imminence
Avoidance
Resonableness
Proportionality
You should have seen how shocked he was when he realized Karmello said, "touch me and see what happens" when he first read the police report. You could see he went with "oh wow the facts are bad" to "oh wow, this looks like provocation and 1st degree murder"
Tim and Branca actually discuss that phrase, and Tim plays Devil's advocate of "could that be considered a warning rather than a threat or provocation". They discuss it for a few minutes and explain the differences between the three concepts (warning, threat, and provocation), and that at the very least, the defense team will have to try and make that argument to the jury if they want to make a self-defense claim.
I have my doubts about this being relevant in a discussion of violence. Proportionality is the sort of thing you can have in a sparring match but not in a real fight where someone has malicious intent. Someone taking a swing at your head is every bit as much of a threat as them going at you with a knife or a gun, which most people simply don't realize.
Proportionality is a requirement, not a potentially relevant action. In fact, it's the specific reason why Karmello Anthony committed murder. Even if everything else was in his favor, it is not proportional to use potentially lethal force against ordinary force.
Someone taking a swing at your head is every bit as much of a threat as them going at you with a knife or a gun, which most people simply don't realize.
You are making exactly the same case as everyone defending Karmello's actions. You're arguing for an acquittal.
No, a deadly weapon is not the same risk as a someone throwing a punch. Yes, people die from single punches. But you are far more likely to have nothing more than a minor injury from a single punch.
This changes if you are being mobbed by several people, or the other person is built like a brick shit-house and you are a 72 year old woman who might not survive a fall. That is because in those cases, unarmed force can escalate to grievous bodily harm, justifying lethal force. Even "the knockout game" can be a valid justification for lethal force because the purpose of the ambush is to literally concuss you hard enough to make you pass out, which requires hospitalization. All that being said, someone simply throwing a punch against obviously healthy adult male as part of a simple battery is not justification for lethal force.
Even if everything else was in his favor, it is not proportional to use potentially lethal force against ordinary force.
You can only identify that difference after the fact. You don't know if that punch to the face is going to end with you getting a bloody nose or if it's going to be followed up with a curb stomping of your skull on the pavement.
Have you ever been punched in the face before by someone who knows how to throw a punch?
You can definitely identify some risk from a punch before the fact. If the puncher is a 15-year old girl, you are not at risk of maiming or death. If the puncher is a kickboxer, your argument gets much better and deadly force may be justified.
The trial takes all contextual arguments into account. Was it soft grass or asphalt, was the ground slippery, did you know that people can die after falling backwards on a curb, etc. A punch is not ipso facto "ordinary force."
Shadow is correct. You do have the ability to determine that ahead of time, and you are required to be reasonable in your assessment. A punch is simple battery until you can show that it isn't going to be.
Proportionality - " Don't bring a gun to a pillow fight "
Deadly defensive force may be only used to counter a deadly force threat.
If the threat is non-deadly in nature, only non-deadly defensive force can be used.
There's lots of room for interpretation. And these are catchphrases & not legal clauses.
But Branca claims to have reviewed existing self-defense laws in all 50 states and boiled the core principles common to all (most?) into five elements.
The worst form of "proportionality" is in Britain where you're not allowed to use any more dangerous of a weapon or force than you are already being attacked with.
That is basically designed to make people think that using equivalent force, but with the wrong tool, is a criminal offense; and that it is better to be killed then to defend yourself.
This type of gun control is a violation of inalienable human rights.
His book is really the simplest way to understand the pillars of self-defense:
You should have seen how shocked he was when he realized Karmello said, "touch me and see what happens" when he first read the police report. You could see he went with "oh wow the facts are bad" to "oh wow, this looks like provocation and 1st degree murder"
Tim and Branca actually discuss that phrase, and Tim plays Devil's advocate of "could that be considered a warning rather than a threat or provocation". They discuss it for a few minutes and explain the differences between the three concepts (warning, threat, and provocation), and that at the very least, the defense team will have to try and make that argument to the jury if they want to make a self-defense claim.
I have my doubts about this being relevant in a discussion of violence. Proportionality is the sort of thing you can have in a sparring match but not in a real fight where someone has malicious intent. Someone taking a swing at your head is every bit as much of a threat as them going at you with a knife or a gun, which most people simply don't realize.
Proportionality is a requirement, not a potentially relevant action. In fact, it's the specific reason why Karmello Anthony committed murder. Even if everything else was in his favor, it is not proportional to use potentially lethal force against ordinary force.
You are making exactly the same case as everyone defending Karmello's actions. You're arguing for an acquittal.
No, a deadly weapon is not the same risk as a someone throwing a punch. Yes, people die from single punches. But you are far more likely to have nothing more than a minor injury from a single punch.
This changes if you are being mobbed by several people, or the other person is built like a brick shit-house and you are a 72 year old woman who might not survive a fall. That is because in those cases, unarmed force can escalate to grievous bodily harm, justifying lethal force. Even "the knockout game" can be a valid justification for lethal force because the purpose of the ambush is to literally concuss you hard enough to make you pass out, which requires hospitalization. All that being said, someone simply throwing a punch against obviously healthy adult male as part of a simple battery is not justification for lethal force.
You can only identify that difference after the fact. You don't know if that punch to the face is going to end with you getting a bloody nose or if it's going to be followed up with a curb stomping of your skull on the pavement.
Have you ever been punched in the face before by someone who knows how to throw a punch?
You can definitely identify some risk from a punch before the fact. If the puncher is a 15-year old girl, you are not at risk of maiming or death. If the puncher is a kickboxer, your argument gets much better and deadly force may be justified.
The trial takes all contextual arguments into account. Was it soft grass or asphalt, was the ground slippery, did you know that people can die after falling backwards on a curb, etc. A punch is not ipso facto "ordinary force."
Shadow is correct. You do have the ability to determine that ahead of time, and you are required to be reasonable in your assessment. A punch is simple battery until you can show that it isn't going to be.
From Branca's website
There's lots of room for interpretation. And these are catchphrases & not legal clauses.
But Branca claims to have reviewed existing self-defense laws in all 50 states and boiled the core principles common to all (most?) into five elements.
The worst form of "proportionality" is in Britain where you're not allowed to use any more dangerous of a weapon or force than you are already being attacked with.
That is basically designed to make people think that using equivalent force, but with the wrong tool, is a criminal offense; and that it is better to be killed then to defend yourself.
This type of gun control is a violation of inalienable human rights.