So why is that different to anyone else accused of a crime? Why not make all defendants prove their innocence?
More try not to antagonise people and apologise if I do, rather than escalate it.
So now we might as well not prosecute any murder charges, because the defendant can just chirp the magic words.
These sentences are all false. The jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty, but that is extremely far from a factual finding that Martin was killed in self defense. You are very incorrect here.
Even Bricker has stated that Zimmerman is morally culpable for Martin’s death, most likely, though not legally culpable.
IMO, in both cases, the law has failed, though the juries may have stuck to the letter of the law. It should be harder to shoot someone and get away with it then, apparently, it is, in Florida.
Zimmerman is morally responsible for Martin’s death, and the law failed to hold him responsible. Dunn is morally responsible for Davis’s death, and the law failed to hold him responsible (though it did succeed in holding him responsible for the other shootings). The laws need to be fixed.
They aren’t magic words, and they don’t guarantee an acquittal. But it certainly should be extremely difficult for the state to lock someone up for decades or execute them, the evidence must be extremely strong. Well, it should be in every case, but when the penalties are so high it’s even more important.
As it is there are far too many people imprisoned and even executed for murders they didn’t commit, or killings that weren’t murders - especially young black men (or young when they were first imprisoned). That’s the racism that needs fighting, not the supposed racism in having self defence laws.
At this point, since none of the jurors have given any statements and we don’t know the breakdown, I.E. was it 11 for guilty vs 1 not guilty or vice versa, it would strike me as premature to say why they made their decision.
The trial is not supposed to find that, he’s presumed innocent. But it’s clear from the evidence presented that he’s factually innocent. Did you actually follow the trial, and look at all the evidence?
Bricker has several views on the morality of life and death I disagree with, this is one of them.
It should be the same anywhere, killing someone in self defence should not be murder. If the force used is excessive, it should be a crime, but not murder.
Not in my understanding of morality. If you take an action that leads to your death, whether that’s attacking someone who is fortunate enough to be able to defend themselves, or jumping in front of a train, you are responsible for your own death. That’s clearly what happened in the Martin case, and as for Dunn and Davis, as I said earlier, I’ve no complaints about what happened to either of them.
Not when the perp admits to shooting an unarmed victim, but just wants to avoid being held accountable for it.
Yes, and yes. It’s clear there was a fist fight. It’s not clear who started the fist fight. It’s not clear that Zimmerman was in serious danger for his life, and it’s not even clear that he had good reason to fear for his life. It’s clear that Zimmerman followed Martin, for no good reason, and it’s clear that shortly afterwards Zimmerman shot Martin, who was unarmed.
No, it’s not clear that Zimmerman was factually innocent. Perhaps it’s not clear that he was legally culpable, but I think it’s pretty clear that he was morally culpable. Based on the facts, Martin had as much reason to fear for his life as Zimmerman – perhaps even more, if Martin saw the gun.
Do you think Zimmerman was guilty of any crime and/or culpable, morally, at least partially, for Martin’s death?
It’s not clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman. It’s also clear that Martin had as much reason to fear Zimmerman (or perhaps more) as Zimmerman did Martin. We know Zimmerman followed Martin, and we know he had no good reason. I think it’s just as likely, and perhaps far more likely, that Martin had a reasonable fear and reacted in self-defense towards Zimmerman.
An adult male with a gun followed a 17 year old kid, at night, and for no good reason. That alone is enough to give the kid a reasonable fear for his life.
It’s significant that you have to make factually inaccurate claims to support your argument. Why is it that your argument cannot stand supported only by the truth?
True. The jury would be free to decide that there was a gun, but it was not brandished. They could even decide that it was brandished, but Dunn had no reason to fear death or serious bodily injury.
At least some of the jury, however, seemingly did not reach that conclusion.
It appears from the verdict that they convicted Dunn for the shots he fired as the vehicle fled the scene – at that point, they seem to have reasoned, he no longer had any reasonable fear and those shots formed the basis of the attempted murder charges. Which makes perfect sense – even if Dunn was in fear as the confrontation reached it’s peak, he cannot claim to STILL be in fear even as the vehicle sped away.
So what? How is that remotely relevant? Martin was not on trial; his fear, reasonable or otherwise, was legally meaningless.
ETA: sorry. It’s now clear you weren’t speaking legally. My bad.
Well, maybe. From the summary I saw, I am at least somewhat confident the jury agreed with the attempted murder charges based on the shots aimed at the fleeing vehicle. But I could be wrong.
What is certain, though, is that the jury was not persuaded that Dunn was guilty of actual murder for the one death that did occur, or even of manslaughter for that death. That, combined with the verdicts they did return, suggests the logic I offered.
Thank you.
Yes. In my view of morality, the onus is on every person to avoid taking a human life, even if such taking would be legally justified.
The Catholic prayer “An Act of Contrition,” includes the promise that the penitent will not only sin no more, but avoid the near occasion of sin. An analogy to that kind of thinking is useful for the Zimmerman case: legally, Zimmerman had every right in the world to leave his truck while armed to track down Martin. Morally, he did not: armed with a deadly weapon, he should have avoided both a confrontation AND the near occasion of a confrontation.
In my view, there is no question Zimmerman bears the moral guilt of killing a young man whose only fault was acting rashly and impetuously, as young men are wont to do.
Can we avoid using “retarded?” Thanks.
My argument stands quite well - with the truth standing right beside it.
The victims (the kids that got shot at (and in one case, killed), just in case somebody reading this is still deluded enough to consider Dunn a victim) didn’t drive anywhere far enough, or for long enough, or out of sight of plenty of witnesses, to stash the gun they never had in the first place.
They drove from one parking lot to another to check on their friend who had three bullet wounds in him and then immediately drove back to where the shooting happened, after the asshole who shot them fled.
Only in some NRA wet dream is there a microscopic possibility that this mysterious invisible shot-gun got ditched by the vicious rap-crap playing thugs.
Probably not.
So that’s what he was doing when he wanted the music turned down …
trying not to antagonise…who?