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.
I was just pointing out that there was an entire category of federal cases that was being left out.
I thought the erie doctrine only applied where federal law did not exist.
After reading the links by Human Action below, I have changed my mind and now agree with you. It’ll be hard to prove.
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.
Because I was ignorant of Florida law.
Well, this is not the context in which I have been viewing this case up to this point. This changes my position.
Maybe. But it might affect their rates, wouldn’t it?
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!
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.
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”.
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.
Thanks, I try. But, to be fair, I see it a LOT more on this board than almost anywhere else on the internet.
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.
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.
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:
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 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.”
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
