# DOJ may indict Zimmerman on civil-rights charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509 "2013-07-14T22:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/221 "2013-07-18T03:51:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is that because you just aren’t familiar with FL’s laws? > [cite](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html) Muthafucka. Is it me or does Florida have some unconventional laws. First the issue of placing the burden of disproving self defense on the prosecution rather than placing the burden of proving it on the defense and now THIS? I normally think of paying the other side’s legal costs if I presented a frivolous case. > [@Bricker](#): > > From that link: “… the prosecution’s proving the evidence of uttered racial slurs were not self-sufficient for conviction.” So there’s a case in which the prosecution had defendants who had used racial slurs during the commission of the crime, and even that was not enough. Here, in contrast, we have no racial slurs. I was just pointing out that there was an entire category of federal cases that was being left out. > [@](#): > > I will research this issue in more detail, but I believe the answer is that federal law applies the law of the state in which the offense occurs. I thought the erie doctrine only applied where federal law did not exist. > [@](#): > > For the Feds, the real problem is no good proof of racial animus. The jury in a federal case would have to hear evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary reason Zimmerman killed Martin was his hatred of Martin’s race. After reading the links by Human Action below, I have changed my mind and now agree with you. It’ll be hard to prove. > [@](#): > > I would. Even if Zimmerman has to show self-defense by preponderance of the evidence, his wounds create a prima facie showing. And Martin got shot dead. I think I could make an case that Martin might have been the one defending himself from a stranger on a dark rainy night with a gun. > [@](#): > > Zero, huh? Why is that? > > I think it’s unlikely, but not zero. What is your reasoning? Because I was ignorant of Florida law. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > [Zimmerman’s family: George handed out fliers, protesting police coddling of white suspect](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-fliers-20120405_1_sherman-ware-justin-collison-robert-zimmerman) > > [This Reuters piece](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425) is an in-depth, nuanced look at Zimmerman’s background up to the night of the shooting. Well, this is not the context in which I have been viewing this case up to this point. This changes my position. > [@](#): > > More likely, an insurance company. Maybe. But it might affect their rates, wouldn’t it? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > And I think that’s a judgement call, and honestly one that we in fact give to jurors. It’s easy to feel one way or another about something, and I’ve never served on a juror but I’d take the whole reasonable doubt burden very seriously if I ever did. This is someone’s life we’re talking about here, the jury seemed really pretty aware of the consequences of their job. They apparently cried afterward because they felt terrible that a young kid was killed and nothing was being done about it, but they didn’t feel the State had proven their case. That’s the ultimate responsibility of jurors in our system. > > Reasonable people can disbelieve Zimmerman’s story, for example the investigator, Serino, did not believe Zimmerman’s story. He wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but was told I believe through the Police Chief that after consultation with the State’s Attorney they didn’t feel they had enough evidence to obtain a conviction for manslaughter and so they were not charging him. > > I think parts of Zimmerman’s story are true. For example I don’t think he felt he was in hot pursuit of Martin or anything, I think he was probably just trying to keep an eye on him. I don’t think he ever once considered that him following Martin might scare or upset Martin. He viewed Martin as a bad guy, and never thought about how Martin would view him. I don’t believe Martin jumped him, I believe Martin turned and confronted Zimmerman and t hen I honestly don’t know what I believe after that. Someone made it into a fist fight, Zimmerman lost and pulled his gun. If Zimmerman provoked Martin verbally or started the fist fight then I think he’s guilty of some form of manslaughter (but not Murder 2, I don’t believe morally or legally he was ever really guilty of that.) But I look at the evidence and I’m just spouting off unsupported opinions here, based on “feelings” I have about the way some guy’s story sounds. I’m glad this jury didn’t vote based on that, but instead based on the fact that prosecution had to prove some things, and by and large they didn’t. > > Since we don’t know all the details, and never will, I will say of the things we do know Zimmerman did several I have deep unambiguous disagreements with: > > 1. He viewed his role as neighborhood watchman as a sort of police role. It is not, the neighborhood watch is there to observe and report. Period. It is dangerous for him, dangerous for others to make it anything other than that. > > 2. He carried a firearm with him while performing his neighborhood watch duties. I own guns, I worked in a job that required familiarity with guns for over twenty years. I enjoy shooting, I even am legally allowed to carry. I pretty much never do, because I personally don’t feel guns are appropriate things to just carry around in public. However, I believe in the right to do so, I believe Zimmerman has that right. But I believe if he wants to exercise that, he shouldn’t have done it as a neighborhood watchman. I think it creates in his mind the idea that he’s a police officer or someone who might need to use that gun, but he lacks the professional training and experience needed to use it appropriately. > > 3. Zimmerman appears to be a general sleaze. He has prior convictions including violent crimes and domestic violence. He also lied to the court about his assets during the whole bail fiasco. > > All that combined means I think Zimmerman is dumb and we won’t be having a beer together. But I go back to the evidence and while I don’t personally _believe_ his story I don’t want to live in a country where a plausible self defense claim that is not remotely disproven by the prosecution gets thrown out just because the jury “feels” it isn’t true. They need to base that on some evidence, or at least something more than a hunch. > > I also think that regardless of who started the fight, I have probably the “least” problem with Zimmerman actually pulling the trigger. Even if Zimmerman had provoked Martin or straight up started the fight by attacking him, I don’t really know that I’d expect anyone to let their head get bashed in on the ground–and it seems likely to me that **was** happening. Now, appropriately if you’re the one who starts the fight you get no self defense claim and should be guilty of manslaughter. Even if you didn’t start the fight I think Zimmerman created the situation in total, which in many jurisdictions would be involuntary manslaughter or some similar crime. However, again, that’s all based on stuff that can’t be proven. Zimmerman’s story is he never looked for a fight at all, and was jumped by Martin by surprise and never had a chance to escape. I don’t believe that story, but I also don’t believe you can say it was disproven by the prosecution and it’s plausible–so needed to be addressed sufficiently by evidence, and never was. I think I agree with this. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/222 "2013-07-18T13:49:11Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Zimmerman appears to be a general sleaze. He has prior convictions including violent crimes and domestic violence. He also lied to the court about his assets during the whole bail fiasco. Zimmerman [has never been convicted of anything.](http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/george-zimmerman-was-arrested-before-trayvon-martin-case-previously-accused-of-domestic-violence) He was arrested once, charges were dropped after Zimmerman entered an alcohol education program. ETA: That’s not to say he’s a good guy; I have no idea. But he’s not a criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/223 "2013-07-18T14:25:13Z")
My bad, I should not have stated that just based off recollections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/224 "2013-07-18T15:35:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Muthafucka. Is it me or does Florida have some unconventional laws. > > First the issue of placing the burden of disproving self defense on the prosecution rather than placing the burden of proving it on the defense and now THIS? > > I normally think of paying the other side’s legal costs if I presented a frivolous case. > . > . > . > After reading the links by Human Action below, I have changed my mind and now agree with you. It’ll be hard to prove. Do you think it’s possible that many folks on the “Zimmerman must be guilty” side of the discussions are reacting to their own innate sense of what the law must be, and not to a careful study of Florida’s laws as they apply here? Thanks for reading and changing your mind. You have no idea how rare this makes you! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/225 "2013-07-18T15:39:25Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#): > > I know that trial lawyers aren’t appellate lawyers (though many think they are), and vice versa. Only because a good appellate lawyer should be open to the possibility of a Strickland claim. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/226 "2013-07-18T16:15:55Z")
The question to me is, at what point does the self-defense right begin? Zimmerman was in a perfectly defensible position while in his vehicle, where the police dispatcher instructed him to stay. Airborne skittles and ice tea would not have reached him there. Did he forfeit self defense by leaving the vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot? Was that an aggressive act by Zimmerman, which justified Martin’s use of self-defense? Zimmerman viewed himself as the prey and Martin as the predator, which Martin’s POV was exactly the opposite. It sounds like manslaughter to me. Jury instructions: [Link](http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/227 "2013-07-18T16:22:53Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > The question to me is, at what point does the self-defense right begin? Zimmerman was in a perfectly defensible position while in his vehicle, where the police dispatcher instructed him to stay. Just a correction, here: the disptcher didn’t instruct him to stay in his vehicle. Zimmerman had already left the vehicle, the dispatcher heard him running and asked “Are you following him?” Zimmerman replied “Yeah”, and the dispatcher said “OK, we don’t need you to do that”. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Airborne skittles and ice tea would not have reached him there. Did he forfeit self defense by leaving the vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot? Was that an aggressive act by Zimmerman, which justified Martin’s use of self-defense? Zimmerman viewed himself as the prey and Martin as the predator, which Martin’s POV was exactly the opposite. Martin’s use of force in self defense would require a reasonable belief that it was necessary to defend himself against Zimmerman’s imminent use of unlawful force in order to be justified. There’s no imminent threat in someone following you. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/228 "2013-07-18T17:48:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you think it’s possible that many folks on the “Zimmerman must be guilty” side of the discussions are reacting to their own innate sense of what the law must be, and not to a careful study of Florida’s laws as they apply here? > > Thanks for reading and changing your mind. You have no idea how rare this makes you! Thanks, I try. But, to be fair, I see it a LOT more on this board than almost anywhere else on the internet. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > The question to me is, at what point does the self-defense right begin? Zimmerman was in a perfectly defensible position while in his vehicle, where the police dispatcher instructed him to stay. Airborne skittles and ice tea would not have reached him there. Did he forfeit self defense by leaving the vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot? Was that an aggressive act by Zimmerman, which justified Martin’s use of self-defense? Zimmerman viewed himself as the prey and Martin as the predator, which Martin’s POV was exactly the opposite. I don’t think there is a duty to retreat in Florida so he is allowed to go anywhere he is legally allowed to be and do anything he is legally allowed to do. I don’t know about Florida law but there is traditionally a clean hands requirement so he could not claim self defense if he initiated the attack unless he clearly withdrew. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Martin’s use of force in self defense would require a reasonable belief that it was necessary to defend himself against Zimmerman’s imminent use of unlawful force in order to be justified. > > There’s no imminent threat in someone following you. What if the guy following you had a gun? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/229 "2013-07-18T17:54:55Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > The question to me is, at what point does the self-defense right begin? Zimmerman was in a perfectly defensible position while in his vehicle, where the police dispatcher instructed him to stay. Airborne skittles and ice tea would not have reached him there. Did he forfeit self defense by leaving the vehicle and pursuing Martin on foot? Was that an aggressive act by Zimmerman, which justified Martin’s use of self-defense? Zimmerman viewed himself as the prey and Martin as the predator, which Martin’s POV was exactly the opposite. > > It sounds like manslaughter to me. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think there is a duty to retreat in Florida so he is allowed to go anywhere he is legally allowed to be and do anything he is legally allowed to do. I don’t know about Florida law but there is traditionally a clean hands requirement so he could not claim self defense if he initiated the attack unless he clearly withdrew. Florida law says that even if you were the aggressor, you can still claim self-defense as long as you reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, AND and that you have exhausted every reasonable means to escape. In other words, if you’re the initial aggressor, you have a duty to retreat, but if you cannot retreat, you can use deadly force in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/230 "2013-07-18T18:22:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What if the guy following you had a gun? No, someone having a gun isn’t an imminent threat, either. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/231 "2013-07-18T18:27:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What if the guy following you had a gun? There’s no evidence that Martin knew that was the case. Even if he did know, Zimmerman’s mere possession of a firearm isn’t enough. Zimmerman would’ve had to have threatened him with it. Again, no evidence that I know of suggests that was the case. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/232 "2013-07-18T18:32:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Muthafucka. Is it me or does Florida have some unconventional laws. I don’t have an exact count of states with similar laws, and, if varies based on which particular element you are discussing. FL has what I consider to be the best law in the country if you have to shoot someone in self-defense in a public place, but it’s not all that unconventional. Here’s Idaho’s, for example: > [@](#): > > **[6-808. Civil immunity for self-defense](http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2011/title6/chapter8/6-808/)**. > (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from any civil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties. > > (2) **The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from such action pursuant to this section.** > > (3) As used in this section, “law enforcement officer” means any court personnel, sheriff, constable, peace officer, state police officer, correctional officer, probation or parole official, prosecuting attorney, city attorney, attorney general, or their employees or agents, or any other person charged with the duty of enforcement of the criminal, traffic or penal laws of this state or any other law enforcement personnel or peace officer as defined in chapter 51, title 19, Idaho Code. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/233 "2013-07-18T18:41:07Z")
It’s more or less the same law everywhere it’s been adopted. It’s canned legislation from the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/234 "2013-07-18T18:52:57Z")
Just for fun, here’s [Kentucky’s](http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19674), which is almost word-for-word the same as Florida’s [776.032.](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html) > [@](#): > > (1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. > > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. > > (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/235 "2013-07-18T19:03:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Florida law says that even if you were the aggressor, you can still claim self-defense as long as you reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, AND and that you have exhausted every reasonable means to escape. > > In other words, if you’re the initial aggressor, you have a duty to retreat, but if you cannot retreat, you can use deadly force in self-defense. Then the problem is, how can the Prosecution possibly prove that what the Defendant reasonably believed and/or that he had exhausted his reasonable means of escape? When self defense was an affirmative defense, it was the Defendant’s burden to prove such things, and typically he had to testify to do so. Now with the SYG the waters are muddied. I still vote manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/236 "2013-07-18T19:08:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s more or less the same law everywhere it’s been adopted. It’s canned legislation from the NRA. I actually think it was from ALEC, but that’s not really all that significant. Yes, states everywhere try to emulate good things they see in other states, and that’s happened since way before the NRA even existed. Just look at all the “right to keep and bear arms” clauses found in most states’ constitutions. I can just imagine the 18th-century version of Really Not All That Bright saying “Bah! That’s canned legislation from the Founding Fathers.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/237 "2013-07-18T19:15:11Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Then the problem is, how can the Prosecution possibly prove that what the Defendant reasonably believed and/or that he had exhausted his reasonable means of escape? When self defense was an affirmative defense, it was the Defendant’s burden to prove such things, and typically he had to testify to do so. Now with the SYG the waters are muddied. > > I still vote manslaughter. I’m pretty sure it still is “an affirmative defense”, it’s just one where the burden falls on the prosecution to disprove. I don’t think that in and of itself is all that unusual. For example: > [@](#): > > As a general rule, if the evidence supports an affirmative defense, the State “has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defense does not apply. State v. Knoll, 712 P.2d 211, 214-15 (Utah 1985). See also State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶45, 192 P.3d 867 (stating that murder instruction was in error “because it lacked the necessary element that the State show the absence of the affirmative defense.”); State v. Swenson, 838 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Utah 1992) (stating that “a long line of Utah cases imposes on the prosecution the burden to disprove the existence of affirmative defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.”) There are some exceptions to the general rule. … [Source](http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/muji/inc_list.asp?action=showRule&id=33) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/238 "2013-07-18T19:18:06Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Then the problem is, how can the Prosecution possibly prove that what the Defendant reasonably believed and/or that he had exhausted his reasonable means of escape? When self defense was an affirmative defense, it was the Defendant’s burden to prove such things, and typically he had to testify to do so. Now with the SYG the waters are muddied. > > I still vote manslaughter. Okay, well you don’t get a vote and if you were on a jury you’d be instructed to follow the laws of Florida not your personal opinion. Further, your understanding of self defense law is incorrect. The standard for self defense has always been that if a defense attorney presented a good self defense claim (to the preponderance of the evidence) then you’d often see a judge give jury instructions on how to evaluate that claim. The judge would explain that the prosecution must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the self defense claim was invalid or that the defendant’s story was untrue. The use of a self defense claim never forfeits your requirement that the prosecution prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If a defendant can establish a _plausible self defense claim_ then that represents at least one possible reasonable alternative to whatever the prosecution is claiming–which is classical reasonable doubt. So if the defense has presented such a plausible claim, the prosecution must dismantle that claim piece by piece or risk a jury believing that claim and finding reasonable doubt in the charges (this is precisely what happened in the Zimmerman case.) You seem to think it is a problem that the prosecution cannot prove its case in the Zimmerman trial and present that as some problem with the legal system. But I would posit that regardless of how we all feel about Florida laws, Zimmerman raised a pretty strong self defense claim that most likely would stand in any State even those with a duty to flee. The reason you think it is a problem is you **start from the concept that Zimmerman must be guilty** so any situation that would prevent the State from convicting must be invalid. That is specifically not how our legal system works, we start from the presumption of innocence–no matter what we think of the victim or the defendant . That means sometimes, by design, if a crime has been committed by a defendant where the prosecution is simply unable to prove it, a man who commits a crime may walk free. But that’s because our system is designed so that only **proven guilty** defendants get convicted, our system is basically designed so that yes, a defendant who commits a crime but the State fails to prove it will walk. It must be that way, and we want it that way, because trust me you’d never be so happy in your life for such a system if you were put on trial for a crime that you were not guilty of committing. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/239 "2013-07-18T19:22:45Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > The question to me is, at what point does the self-defense right begin? In jurisdictions where there is a duty to flee (Florida isn’t one, obviously), you are required to flee when you have reason to fear for your life or fear grievous bodily harm. If you fail to flee when you have that fear, and instead use self defense as anything but a last resort in scenarios where you are physically _unable_ to flee then you can be convicted of a crime and your claim of self defense will fail. But even in this case, you’d have to demonstrate that _when Zimmerman stepped out of his car_ he had any reason at all to flee the situation. Just because I see someone suspicious, and call the police, doesn’t mean I fear them or have any reason to believe they are violent. Maybe I think they’re a scam artist doing door to door sales scams or confidence schemes. I’d not fear violence from such a person, so if I decided to follow them I’m not in anyway violating my duty to flee. If they suddenly and unexpectedly disappear and then reappear by attacking me from cover and knock me to the ground, I’d be able to use lethal force to end the assault if I felt it was necessary to save my life or prevent grievous bodily harm. That is basically the narrative Zimmerman presented–and that was unable to be disproven. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509/240 "2013-07-19T06:25:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s no evidence that Martin knew that was the case. Even if he did know, Zimmerman’s mere possession of a firearm isn’t enough. Zimmerman would’ve had to have threatened him with it. Again, no evidence that I know of suggests that was the case. There’s no evidence that Zimmerman didn’t instruct Martin at gunpoint to turn around and bend over so he could assfuck him either. Noone but Zimmerman knows what happened and he has lied before. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s more or less the same law everywhere it’s been adopted. It’s canned legislation from the NRA. OK, but at least in the civil case Zimmerman would have to prove self defense rather than the Martins proving it wasn’t self defense. Burden of proof can be dispositive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-may-indict-zimmerman-on-civil-rights-charges/663509.md?page=13)