Your entire hypothetical opens many questions which call into question the entire nature of these laws, but I want to focus on this part. What “good excuse” does a black kid need to walk down the street in the neighborhood where his girlfriend lives? And by what right does Zimmerman get to pursue him to demand said excuse?
In your scenario where exactly does “meet force with force” come into play? Zimmerman shot an unarmed man and there is no disputing that fact. The idea that he would be afraid of death or great bodily harm is laughable, seeing as he was just chasing after such a dangerous threat and was armed. In your scenario, it’s just as likely that the kid feels he is about to be assaulted by some maniac who’s been following him in his truck and now running after him for no good reason and his flight or fight instinct kicks in. I’ll even allow that Zimmerman may have thought Martin had a gun (given the 911 call), yet when the confrontation occurs, why would Martin go after him with fists instead of a weapon (if that’s what happened)? He doesn’t, but Z responds by shooting him. The problem with the law is that in your scenario, possibly the actual Martin case, and the case cited in the OP, the bar for what counts as “afraid of death or great bodily harm” is so low, apparently a bloody nose counts. Furthermore, Zimmerman alone initiated a situation that caused the conflict and there should be liability attached to that in cases like this where the victim wasn’t committing a crime.
My neighbors hear a gunshot. The police arrive and enter my house to find me standing over my wife with a smoking gun.
“She was coming at me with a butcher knife!” I say.
Sure enough, there is a butcher knife there on the kitchen floor beside her.
So the police say, “Self-defense? Cool. We’ll be on our way, then.”
This is Blake’s world.
Or maybe I am wrong. Explain what you think should happen here, Blake.
Fuck’s sakes. Zimmerman chased Martin. That’s where it started. Why, if your cockamamie theory is true, does Martin not get the benefit of standing his ground against an aggressor who was chasing him?
Oh, I know why. Because he’s dead and the guy that shot him said it was all his fault.
Because it is. Zimmerman could have grabbed or physically attacked Martin in some other way before getting punched back. Or maybe Z is a clumsey oaf and injured himself in the pursuit. The only evidence supporting Zimmerman’s assertion that Martin attacked him first is his own story, and why should that be worth anything when he is the only one left with something to lose.
I know, I know!
Is it ‘because he was black’?
For all we know Zimmerman’s injuries were self-inflicted after the event to cover up his murder and that’s much more likely than a kid coming to a gun fight with tea and skittles. Iced tea at that.
There’s acres of doubt here that at the time warranted investgation.
What does justice have to do with a prosecutor pursuing a case he believes he has no belief that he can win?
Yeah why would a kid in an unfamiliar neighborhood not feel threatened by some unidentified guy following him around in his unmarked truck. I mean of course it’s just the friendly, self-appointed, neighborhood watch patrol making sure the kid isn’t lost (though Zimmerman doesn’t appear to be the best person to ask for directions:dubious:).
You still have no basis to factually assert Martin did not instigate.
I have no trouble with a stand your ground law. I think most reasonable judges and juries can tell the difference between SYG and a cockamamie extrapolation of that to “a duty to chase them down”.
I would imagine you could find some cases where the “duty to retreat” laws were abused by fools on that side as well (which were probably the impetus for the passing of SYG laws in the first place), where the expectations of retreating seem like something from a Monty Python skit.
Personally, assuming reasonable judges and juries, I’d rather have SYG laws than DTR laws. And, wouldn’t perfectly logical interpretations of both of those functionally be the same thing?
And your evidence that he did is? Other than the word of a killer that is.
That’s why things have to be investigated properly. If they had they’d have found he was on the phone to his girlfriend and so there was evidence that disputed the shooter’s version of events.
The defendant isn’t responsible for disproving every possible theory of the crime. He’s only responsible for putting forth a reasonable theory as an alternative to his guilt. One reasonable theory that is an alternative to his being guilty is grounds for acquittal.
If you have 200 scenarios that are all reasonable that suggest Zimmerman is guilty, but Zimmerman’s defense shows one reasonable alternative you have to acquit. That’s why the prosecution must literally prove beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning he has proven there is no reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Not that there is “reasonable proof of guilt”, that’s easy, he has to show there is no reasonable doubt of guilt, a far higher burden.
I think it’s not totally unreasonable to try and make this thread more about general self defense laws and Stand Your Ground laws than about the Martin/Zimmerman case. If for no other reason than a 1300+ post thread already exists on the Martin/Zimmerman case that has pretty much discussed every possible issue specific to that case.
Blake brings up a good point in this thread that I don’t think was ever fully explored in the Martin/Zimmerman thread just because people were more interested in the specifics of that case.
In traditional common law, if you have a scenario in which there are no eyewitnesses to a shooting and the only evidence you have is the shooter’s testimony, and the shooter’s testimony is that he acted in self defense that is literally all you have ever needed to sustain a claim of self-defense. The prosecution has to undermine that claim, it’s very easy to do in some cases (i.e. you tie your wife up and bludgeon her to death and the police find her tied up and bludgeoned to death), and very difficult to do in others.
The only thing Stand Your Ground changes is before, if the prosecution could demonstrate that I had an ability to retreat then I should have done that, and it invalidates my self defense claim. SYG just means the prosecution can demonstrate that I had an ability to retreat and it doesn’t invalidate my self defense claim.
I don’t necessarily think that change in the law entirely explains some of the self defense cases we’ve read about in Florida where no prosecution happens. I think it’s possible the political climate that lead to that law being passed has created more aversion to pursuing a trial in the “marginal cases” (marginal cases being ones in which a prosecutor might think he can get a conviction but isn’t quite sure.)
Not sure specifically about Florida, but isn’t claiming self-defense an *affirmative *defense, ie. you have to provide evidence of it being the case?
Otherwise, you could shoot anyone on the street and claim that they were threatening you, throwing punches at you and looked like they were reaching for a gun. With no other witnesses, how could the prosecution prove otherwise?
Bullshit. The law should be construed as an affirmative defense. The burden for establishing an affirmative defense falls on the defendant.
If it is not an affirmative defense, it is a license to commit murder anytime there are no eyewitnesses to dispute your story.
Zimmerman’s story should be tested before a jury.
Exactly. Looks like old-fashioned feuds are back in style in Florida. Just make sure there aren’t any witnesses, and you can pursue your vendettas with impunity.
Red herring. It’s the police’s job to investigate a possible murder properly and not take the word of a guy who just shot someone dead that it was all cool.
Yes, he should be prevented from speaking in his own defense :smack:
You should give his statement as much weight as any other. The fact that he may have reason to lie is not, by itself, evidence that he’s lying.
If his statement fits the other evidence, it is evidence of his innocence, but if it conflicts with the evidence, it is evidence of guilt. Either way, it absolutely needs to be taken into account.
In the extremely unlikely event that there is no other evidence, it should be taken at face value.
In any event, these should be issues for a jury to sort out.
Which was my original point. And it seems the Justice Department, The State Lieutenant Governor and Governor agree.
If all you have to do to legally kill someone is shoot them away from witnesses, punch yourself in the nose and claim self defence with some cock and bull story then these laws are a de facto license to kill.