+7

How could it be that the same system that lowers your punishment if you kill because of being provoked also gives you the same range of right for a self defense claim if you are the provoker?

+6:

I have this question: Suppose that Zimmerman were tried by a real court. As much as he was responsible for bringing the situation onto himself, should that raises the level of fear he should have tolerated before he can claim self defense?  

One could argue that "reasonable doubt" is not only about the doubt itself. It is also about how you take the doubt and it is not reasonable to ignore that a person should carry the responsibility of his actions toward the others.  

Notice that while things may not need to be to this level for a person to carry the responsibility of his actions, the action of chasing the victim could have been seen as sufficient for the victim to shoot killing his chaser and get only a manslaughter charge for being provoked or escapes any punishment based on fear leading to self defense action, had the victim been carrying a gun and things turned out the other way around. In fact, while it is an allegation for Zimmerman's defense and his shooting to the victim could be the result of merely being provoked or other things, the running away by the victim seems to establish the fear element for the victim as a fact.

My initial concentration when writing this was narrowly focused on the fairness in allowing a person to escape responsibility of his actions while making another pays the price and if "reasonable doubt" could also be about choosing a reasonable measure for the doubts and if so, how that would apply on that question of responsibility. But if we were to expand dealing with the case above, there seems to be additional support with the law already made.

First, while I used the assumption mentioned above about the situation ends the other way around to show how big the actions of the defendants were and in turn the need to take the responsibility for them, one could also use that to show how the law would look conflicted if the defendant was dealt with at the same level of toleration to danger as the person who had done nothing to initiate the situation there. Because if the killing of the defendant by the victim could have been justified as manslaughter  for being provoked, let alone self defense, is not that an admission of more responsibility on the defendant for the situation?So how could it be that after this he can be excused with the same level of toleration for danger as if he had done nothing?

Second, I have just done a search on a question of what if a thief kills the homeowner in self defense and found that would not count because the thief is not supposed to be there. But is that just about carrying the responsibility of being in a place or is it about how, in general, choosing to put yourself in a situation with others could increase the responsibility you should carry before you can claim self defense killing?Actually, the chasing of the victim has a direct strong similarity to being where you are not allowed to be.