legal-terms
Terminlogy: lack of cause due to context
<p>IANAL and choose this very basic, if not obvious, example to setup the question.</p>
<p>Bob is tried for shooting a person.  Bob pleads innocence in the form of self defense: the other person drew his pistol and pointed it at Bob.</p>
<p>The findings of fact reveal:</p>
<ul>
<li>Bob was an armed bank-robber at the time of the shooting</li>
<li>Security video show the security guard drew his service revolver and Bob fired: striking the guard</li>
</ul>
<p>Is there a concise legal phrase or word that communicates the notion that because of Bob's action (robbing a bank), Bob is unable to invoke self-defense?</p>
<p>Possibly:
Bob <strong>lacks / forfeited standing</strong> to invoke self-defense?</p>

<p>The terminology used may vary some by jurisdiction, but in many it will be said that Bob <em><strong>provoked</strong></em> the confrontation, or that Bob <em><strong>was the aggressor</strong></em>, or that Bob <em><strong>was engaged in a felony</strong></em> and so cannot claim self-defense.</p>
<p>This fact patter is highly unlikely to arise in real lie, because if Bob has even a half-competent lawyer, the issue of self-defense, sure to fail, will not be raised. Doing so only wastes the court's time, and may well make them think worse of Bob, which may cost him.</p>
<p>In less open-and-shut cases, the general rule is that one who provokes a confrontation, or who is the aggressor, may not claim self-defense. But the exact rule varies by jurisdiction, and the line will be drawn in different ways in different jurisdictions. In some one who <em><strong>seeks a confrontation</strong></em> may be denied a right of self-defense.</p>
