Can your right to self - defense be taken if you say the wrong thing?

Can your right to free speech be taken away from you if you exercise your right to free-speech ? 

 

    What if you make a comment that someone feels is disagreeable? Does this give them a right to assault you because of something you have said ?  Is this how it works in America? 

 

Is it legal for a judge and a prosecutor to  limit your right to defend yourself and allow people to assault you if you make a comment that they do not approve of ? 

 

That is exactly what happened when a teenage kid offended the wrong gang members and there illegal immigrant criminal friend while attending a festival in Galveston Texas .

 

In 1998 ,teenage youth kid Keith Michael St.Aubin was attacked and subsequently shot a group of drunk gang members who had surrounded him and assaulted him whole attending a rowdy Mardi Gras celebration in Galveston Texas .

 

Rather than an open and shut case of self - defense as it would appear on the surface Galveston County Prosecutors decided to prosecute this case to the full extent of the law -only instead of prosecuting the drunk gang members who were walking around assaulting young teenagers ,they sought to make an example out of a teenager who this group had assaulted and who decided to stand up and defend himself from being attacked .

 

Since the evidence showed and obvious attack by criminal gangsters ( 1 of whom was an illegal immigrant and was breaking the law by even being at the festival ,and another who was given a slap on the wrist for previously engaging in organized criminal activity and was in violation of his slap on the wrist probation by attending the festival also)  the prosecutors did one of the only things they could do effectively cloudy/muddy the water and distract from the facts of what occurred that night . 

 

Prosecutors introduced what they called a "provocation" clause to limit an individuals right to self -defense .This clause said that if the teenage kid said anything to these gang members that may have offended them in anyway,that once they decided to attack the young 130 lbs.white kid ,he lost his right to self -defense and to defend himself. 

This is the law and the jury has to follow it ,said the prosecutor. 

 

So this leads to the question .., if you say the wrong thing ... Do people now have the right to assault you ? And if you lose your rights by what you say ... Has your right to free speech been taken away ? 

 

If I think you have a stupid haircut, does this now mean you have right to assault me? Or if you think someone has a stupid haircut and they decide to assault you for your opinion? Lets say they did anyway, should you have the right to defend yourself? 

 

As unbelievable as it sounds, the prosecution went on to allege that an argument of some kind between the criminal gang members and the teenage kid would remove this kids rights to defend himself if this gang then decided to attack him! 

 

When do gang members breaking the law have more rights than law abiding citizens? 

 

In spite of there not being ANY evidence that this kid said anything to these gangsters, other than possibly 'I don't want any trouble with you' the prosecution claims that's not enough. The jury was told that if any verbal communication occurred ,then the assault from the gang members is now justified and a right to self-defense is not appropriate any more .The jury was told this is the law on your right of self -defense and if this young kid said ANYTHING that these criminal gangsters ,who were already breaking the law ,felt offended or provoked by ,then their right to assault takes priority over a right to protect yourself from an attack or exercising your right to free speech! How can it be?

 

IS THIS REALLY THE LAW? A HISTORY AND BREAKDOWN OF TEXAS PROVOCATION SELF DEFENSE LAW:

 

This Texas law was actually put on the books to prevent gunslingers in the old wild west from forcing shoot outs and then claiming self - defense to justify creating a conflict. This requires showing that this gunslinger has an intent to go out and take advantage of his quickness on the draw in a face off . 

 

As this behavior has been outdated has been outdated ,the law continued to remain on the books and has since been used only in rare occasions, ,but typical application is when and individual goes to the home of his ex-lovers new mate in order  to break up his car in the drive-way in hopes of luring him out of his residence and as the new lover angrily confronts the jilted lover, the jilted lover shoots the unsuspecting new lover and then claims self -defense for a situation that he obviously provoked . 

 

Obviously in this scenario, the intent is very clear and self -defense shouldn't justify and intentional act of violence. However since self-defense is such a primary right, the judiciary still honors that it is a consideration ,no matter how obvious a malicious intent may appear. In this sort of rare circumstance ,this provocation still has its place in our system .

 

"only to be used in the rarest of occasions" 

 

Is a group of criminal gangsters who surround a kid who according to witnesses tried to back away as if he didn't want any trouble and who was being surrounded ... fit into this situation in which a fundamental right should be removed if a prosecutor can twist its meaning to include if anything was said that was not favorable by these gangsters ? 

 

A judge generally determines what laws are permitted for a jury to be told and how they fit in the case . When a judge allows an overzealous prosecutor to submit a law that clearly doesn't fit to be instructed to a jury it is called "abusing his discretion" and when this "abuse of discretion" removes a fundamental right -such as self-defense or stops the jury from hearing the correct law it is a violation of Due Process ,and when this then takes away your free speech that is also guaranteed by the 1st amendment ,your Constitutional Rights have been violated ! 

 

When this happens ,the trial is deemed unfair as it didn't really consider the law and how it was meant to be considered and This is how a young kid in between semesters of college classes can be assaulted by criminal gang members and lose his right to defend himself because of "something" he may have said . 

 

   DID THIS REALLY HAPPEN?

  Not only was this young 130 lb teenager assaulted that day,but he was convicted and is serving a life sentence while the assaultive  gang members who were apparently offended and had there feelings hurt continue to roam free.