If the question you’re asking is “should he have done that”, you can approach them any way you want. If the question you’re asking is “should he be arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime” then I think the legal technicalities are pretty important.
What’s happening in the other thread in several cases is people attempting to answer the second question with arguments relevant only to the first.
Does this thread remind anyone of the Ricky Jervais dance scene in the office?
In Texas and the several other states I am licensed in state court I can’t recall a case or reason the judge’s instructions weren’t both written and read. There are usually state pattern jury instructions as to the basics like reasonable doubt in a criminal caae and avoiding discussing or researching the matter outside of deliberations. IIRC, every general pattern jury instruction I am familiar with includes in almost the first portion that the jury will also receive the instructions in writing. But I don’t practice in every state.
“Legal technicalities” = “The Law”.
Ah! Good, then, we are in agreement that the technicalities of arrest and convictions have little, if anything, to do with the question of the morality of Z.'s actions? Because, by the same token, you are not suggesting that his actions become justified and acceptable simply because he cannot be successfully prosecuted. Point of fact, then, you offer no opinion as to whether he should be arrested and prosecuted, only that he cannot be. As a practical matter. Not to be confused with such fuzzy things as justice and decency, which so many of us seem fixated upon.
That was my point.
No, I’m firmly of the opinion that he shouldn’t be arrested or tried if the law doesn’t allow it, regardless of whether the law is fair. Whether the law should be changed to ensure someone who acts as Zimmerman did in the future can be tried is a separate question.
Oh, I quite agree, that is the only question of any significance. Issues of morality and decency are for people who lack analytical skills. Some folks are like that, can’t seem to focus their attention on the issues that really matter.
They’re questions that are important to discuss when determining what the law should be, not when deciding whether a particular situation was illegal.
In my experience, when juries come back with questions, it’s most often to ask for definitions to words in the pattern instructions.
Those questions about morality and decency have no place if they are substitutes for questions about the legal system deciding what a jury will or should do in a particular case. They are of great significance in deciding what te law should be in the first place.
I’ve not followed the threads. But I did read OP.
@ Steophan - Do your regard “illegal” and “wrong” as synonymous? If not, do you nevertheless agree with the characterization I’ve quoted from OP?
(Lest I be accused of asking without answering, I think Zimmerman was wrong. If he was too cowardly to leave his gun behind and still confront Martin, he should have refrained.)
No, not entirely. I think that the purpose of law is to codify what society thinks is right and wrong, and the behaviour expected of it’s members. That doesn’t mean that someone who follows every law is necessarily a good person, nor that a person who breaks a law is necessarily evil. Neither is it the case that all law is good law
I would further note that a jury does have the (moral and legal) right to find someone not guilty even if they are factually guilty of the crime. They do not have the right to find someone guilty who is not provably guilty - it’s not a symmetrical system, with good reason.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say there was nothing wrong with Zimmerman’s actions - following Martin was stupid, because he put himself at risk. I don’t believe there’s anything in Zimmerman’s actions (prior to Martin hitting him) that he could reasonably have expected would lead to anyone’s death.
The evidence suggests that Zimmerman did not intend to confront Martin, and in fact had stopped following him when Martin, instead of going home, went out of his way to confront Zimmerman. Still, I believe Zimmerman would have had the right to follow Martin and ask him what he was doing, but not to threaten, attack, or attempt to detain him. There’s absolutely no evidence that any of that happened.
As to the gun, I don’t think there’s anything cowardly about carrying one, especially where it’s both legal and normal to do so (it’s neither where I live). Neither do I think there’s anything wrong with using one to defend oneself if necessary.
In short, I don’t believe your characterisation of Zimmerman’s actions is correct. Had he confronted him in such a way that made it likely he would need to use his gun, he would have been in the wrong, and very probably guilty of manslaughter. Which, incidentally, was my initial opinion before seeing the evidence in the public domain.
Er…
:smack:
No.
Maybe I should do that, eh?
OK, I withdraw that comment and will say something after I watch it. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the text below was transcripted.
I find this concept troublesome. The way I understand it, the jury is charged with determining if the accused has, in fact, guilty of the crime charged.
It’s jury nullification, it’s quite a well established practice, and it’s a check against a government attempting to enforce deeply unpopular laws.
That said, I think it’s right to find it troublesome. Used too much, or in the wrong situations, it would undermine the justice system. But not allowing it would force juries to find someone guilty even if they, in good conscience, consider their action to be morally fine, or the punishment to be so severe as to be immoral.
I also thought that the jury was the finder of facts, while the Judge interprets the law and decides if there are extenuating circumstances for a lighter sentence (unless it is French law).
The jury is the finder of ultimate fact (in a jury trial, anyway).
The judge is a threshold finder of fact for certain questions, such as any facts necessary to rule on motions in limine.
Oh? That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Still don’t, come to think on it. The “evidence” that you allude to, what might that be?
And “stopped following”? What does that mean, precisely? Obviously, he didn’t turn his truck around and go home. And when? Did he “stop following” when he was advised not to? That would be new information to me, I was under the impression that he continued to follow after the dispatcher’s advice. But no?
Always interested in new information. But you haven’t actually given us any new information, so much as claim to have it.
He wasn’t in his truck… If you listen to the call to the dispatcher, you can hear him get out of his truck, and start breathing heavily, as he’s telling the dispatcher he’s following Martin. Shortly after he’s advised to stop following him, he says he’ll stop, and stops breathing so heavily. That sounds like he’s stopped running, and, if he didn’t in fact stop following, he’s certainly going much slower.
Add to that, the evidence from Martin’s girlfriend. If she’s to be believed, during their conversation, Martin was right by the house he was staying at. So, at some point, he returned from that house to the location of the fight.
All of this information has been provided, by me and others, in the other thread, and analysed exhaustively. I’ll certainly understand if you don’t want to read it all, but plenty of the people in this thread have, so I’m not necessarily going to repeat everything from there.
Anyway, what we have is some evidence that Zimmerman stopped following Martin, as he claimed to do, and no evidence that he continued following. We also have some evidence that Martin returned to Zimmerman. There’s more than just the phone call, there’s analysis of the times of the various calls, and how long it would take both parties to travel to various points. Martin could easily have returned home if he’d chosen before Zimmerman caught him, even if he was following.
So, there’s the evidence. It’s not conclusive - I doubt there’s any conclusive evidence about exactly who went where when, but it supports Zimmerman’s account. I’ve asked a few times in the other thread for the evidence that contradicts that, but no-one’s supplied it. If you do have evidence that Zimmerman followed and caught Martin, that he was the one to initiate any sort of encounter, or that he was the first to use threats or violence, I’d be interested to see it.
Well, actually, your evidence is more about your inference of the meaning. Did the confrontation take place in the immediate vicinity of the truck? I had thought it was some distance therefrom, yes? Rather what one might expect if Martin was walking where the truck could not go, and so Z. got out and followed him on foot. Again, an inference, but having the same weight as your own.
Old joke. Guy rolls through a stop sign, gets pulled over. Bitches at the cop says “Hey, I slowed down!” Cop starts to whack him with his stick, says “You want me to stop, or just go slower?”