Sure:
This goes beyond the usual formula of making self-defense an affirmative defense to be raised at trial. A person is IMMUNE from arrest, charge, prosecution, and even detention in custody unless the state first has probable cause – and not overall probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, which gives a bit more latitude, but specifically probable cause to believe that the force used was unlawful.
ROFL
Seriously?
What exactly is prison for, then, except to keep dangerously violent people away from defenseless innocent civilians like children, the elderly, the disabled, etc.?
Don’t say “it’s for people who break the law”, lawyer. That doesn’t convince those of us who aren’t lawyers, those of us who aren’t wealthy enough to live in places where violence doesn’t happen. The law is mutable and changes all the time. Also, the law is secondary to common sense and safety, from the perspective of anyone who isn’t a lawyer.
I don’t agree. Even people who are not lawyers understand the danger of a system that doesn’t require a law to be broken before putting someone in prison. You, naturally, would use that power only for good, but once conceded, that power can be wielded by others who also are using it for good (in their own minds). Then you’d have rush to judgement victims, li,e the Duke lacrosse team, plucked next to people who threaten the social order, like bosses that squash union rights, and in another part of the country, gays who weaken our moral fiber with their recruiting for the homosexual cause.
Prison IS for people who break the law.
But in the context of arresting someone after a shooting, what makes “overall probable cause that a crime was committed” practically different than probable cause that lethal force was unlawful? They seem pretty close to me.
If Zimmerman had shot Martin in a non-SYG state, on what specific grounds could the cops have to arrest him that was insufficient for the Fl cops? How would the threshold for probable cause be different?
You’re talking about lynching someone, right?
Y’know, you could take it up with the guy who said the stupid thing, and tell him why, even under liberal presuppositions, what he said is stupid, instead of leaving it to Bricker.
Only if they deserve it, of course.
I’m not catching the distinction. I think I understand your framework, but do not see how they’d have evidence of any kind of violent crime if the evidence of a violent crime isn’t simultaneously evidence that it was unlawful. So maybe in theory it shifts a burden, but does it in practice? I could see maybe a plea of immunity, and then a hearing to determine if self defense exists; otherwise, the defendant would present in their case in chief or as they can during the prosecution’s turn. So it seems to me maybe a shifting in trial procedure rather than a shift in burden? I don’t know if they are approaching it that way, I’m just speculating.
Do you mean to say that in Florida, in any case of violence, that the prosecution has to show that no defense is possible before they charge?
I’m not seeing it in the statute.
Can you think of a hypothetical where this comes into play?
Yes. Prison DOES equal lynching.
Is there a reading comprehension issue here?
OK, seriously, I expected more from this forum. Granted, on an issue like this, it’s not exactly the cool-headed folks who crawl out of the woodwork and dominate the discussion, I realize. Still…
Bricker, this has nothing to do with jailing people who aren’t guilty of a crime. Zimmerman carries a gun and chased down an unarmed citizen at night, a citizen committing the crime of walking at night while being young, male, black, and wearing a hoodie.
In addition, Zimmerman has a history of vigilante behavior (via his unofficial, unapproved, ARMED “neighborhood watch” activity) and a history of domestic violence.
Finally, I note his perjuring has now landed him BACK in jail, due to lying to the presiding judge; the judge revoked his bail as a result.
Yeah, he’s an upstanding, stable citizen who should definitely be out on our streets with a gun.
I’m just glad he’s 3 states away from anyone I care about.
This has nothing to do with jailing citizens just because I don’t like them. I don’t like Rush Limbaugh, but jailing him would be stupid. He’s not physically dangerous to anyone except himself, with his drug use.
It’s simply a safety issue. Cho Seung Hui should never, EVER have been allowed to own a gun. Neither should George Zimmerman. However, it’s easy as anything to get a gun at a gun show in most states, and deranged people will always be able to GET guns in this country if they want them. Therefore, if you don’t want guns in the hands of the dangerous-and-crazy, you have to lock them up.
It’s for their good, too. What if Trayvon had wrested the gun away from Zimmerman? Trayvon would be on trial for murder, quite possibly, instead.
Until the gun laws in this country change (and they never will), the best solution with people like Zimmerman is just to lock them up, for everyone’s safety, including their own.
And FUCK what lawyers say to that. 
I love my family enough to be against the idea of crazy armed people roaming the streets.
Why should a burden be on a citizen to prove he acted in accord with the law? Shouldn’t it always be the state’s burden that he didn’t?
I know, at least in WV, and VA is usually pretty similar because of our shared heritage, the burden is initially on the suspect to prove some half-assed claim of self-defense (Zimmerman’s injuries would do that). Once he reaches that minimum bar, then the burden shifts to the state.
Zimmerman would certainly reach the WV bar to shift the burden even without a SYG law. Would VA law be different?
Ok. Answer these three questions please - in your model of society:
al72052;
al72052;
and
al72052’s sensibilities. after the fact, without notice as to his sensibilities.
it’s a good system. For al, that is.
You’ve advocated sending Zimmerman to prison whether or not he broke the law because it’s “common sense.” Honestly, you sound like early 20th century apologist for the practice of lynching (not counting the racial baggage of course).
No, YOU sound like someone who is about to compare me to Hitler.
And my concern is that someone with a history of violence, a tendency to lie to judges in court, a MAJOR vigilante streak, and a working handgun could be out walking the streets, prowling for another black boy in a hoodie.
He’s NOT. He lied to a judge, and that’s going to assfuck him when the case goes to trial.
If anything, George Zimmerman’s vigilantism is WAY closer to lynching than anything I’m suggesting.
I personally think he belongs in a prison situation where his mental health is closely monitored. The man is not remotely stable.
Who here is under the deeply mistaken assumption that Zimmerman is stable or trustworthy?
Who here would like to have him as your next-door neighbor?
Who here would let him drive your kids to school?
Who here would want him to marry your daughter or sister or granddaughter?
Did those questions make you think?
Yes, my suggestion of prison for a a mentally unstable man, who knowingly lied to a judge in court, is so terribly, TERRIBLY dangerous/awful/ridiculous/corrosive to society/whatever the fuck your obsession is.
Yep, let’s throw people who write bad checks in jail for years. Let’s put n*****r-killing vigilantes out on the streets with automatic assault rifles, though.
I mean, hey, just think how many n*****rs Zimmerman could kill if he had an Uzi!
So - can’t come up with the answers, al27052?
That’s just plain hilarious.
He’s not, what?
That’s fantastic. I personally don’t know if he belongs behind bars because I don’t know if he actually broke any Florida laws.
Not especially as they had no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was guilty of a crime.
Take a deep breath and chill out. Emotions can certainly run high but there’s no reason we can’t all be civil to one another.
I’m far more concerned about you; I’d far rather see him out on the street than you.
You are unable in a big way to see your own insanity–that you can’t run around locking people up outside the bounds of the law and the evidence that applies to it.
Based on "the guy who said the stupid thing"s recent posts, I feel that my efforts are much better targeted at Bricker. While I often disagree with him I feel he is more likely to be rational in response.