Is there no moral obligation to be intelligent, when you’re the guy with the gun?
This whole case screams, “We need gun control,” to me. There should be some kind of penalty for going out of your house on a hunt for “suspicious youths” carrying a firearm, so you don’t end up killing a suspicious youth (both suspicious to you and suspicious of you) when he understandably knocks you down in self-defense because in his eyes you’re a crazy guy accosting him.
Given what little we know, a defense of Zimmerman’s disproportionate use of deadly force to repay an assault is also in principle a defense of Martin’s disproportionate use of assault to defend himself from the man who was threatening toward him–I want to say molested him, but that has the wrong implications in English; or maybe not–with the difference that Martin is dead, and Zimmerman suffered no permanent damage.
Since Zimmerman started this confrontation, given Martin was not even on Zimmerman’s property; and since Zimmerman alone resorted to extreme sanction; and since the other guy is now unable to give his side; I expect Zimmerman to be convicted of some kind of felony homicide.
“Presumption of innocence” is gone. We know who the shooter was. At this point Zimmerman has to offer an affirmative defense for why shooting some kid was OK. “He knocked me down,” ain’t it, and I don’t expect any credible justification to be forthcoming. Ball’s in Zimmerman’s court, and I don’t think he even has a racquet.
Don’t think so. TG, IANAL, but it seems from here almost as if the SYG law was custom made to give Zimmerman’s lawyer enough wiggle room for a marching band and a parade of elephants. That one word, “reasonable” can be inflated to Hindenburg size. He walks.
I don’t think so. If this thing makes it past pre-trial, it’s my understanding that SYG ceases to change the arithmetic. We’re basically left with a good ole fashion self-defense case.
The eyewitness still says Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
There is a reason why early eyewitness reports are taken as more credible than their later “corrections”. The pressure on these eyewitnesses to modify their testimony was incredible the last few weeks, both from prosecution and, I am sure, from their peers. No wonder some buckled.
But I am still willing to make a money bet that Zimmerman will walk. Wanna do it?
And which eyewitness would that be? Honest question, no snark intended or implied.
And the prosecution and “their peers” pressured the witnesses to change their story? Have you any evidence, beyond your fervent wish that it be true? It may be true, I have no evidence one way or the other. But then, neither do you.
Seriously – we’ve had so many posts about this issue it isn’t funny. The law in Florida does not place the burden on Zimmerman to come up with an affirmative defense. The law requires the State of Florida to disprove self-defense, and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what in the world possesses you to come along and announce that Zimmerman has to offer an affirmative defense? That’s not the process.
The law is laid out in crystal clarity in Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, (Fl 2010):
(Quoting State v. Peterson.)
Now, I know this isn’t fair to say, out of the blue, “How could you not know this?”
But this isn’t out of the blue. There are a zillion threads on the subject and the point has been made a zillion times. I can’t imagine how you could possibly miss it.
The State must prove the lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not gone.
Your other claim, about how to analyze the start of the confrontation, is also whack. But not whack to this degree.
I’m sure Bricker remembers the legal term for the difference between a proximate cause and things which are just background information in a scenario. You’re comparing apples and Kalashnikovs here. At this point, it seems there was a fight because Zimmerman either started or provoked one.
I agree with Absolute’s whole post of which this is an excerpt.
Then this becomes a test case for Stand Your Ground, and if the system of common law can’t work its magic to find a way Zimmerman gets convicted anyway, SYG probably goes away.
Well, perhaps, but you speak in code. Who is “#6”? What is the citation for the testimony of “#6”? Number six of how many? Perhaps a bit more explanation would be in order, beyond a rather cryptic reference.
Who is “number six”? What did “number six” say, and when? Have you some explanation why “number six” did not buckle under the extreme peer pressure and prosecution intimidation of which you speak?
Perhaps you are awfully busy. Does anyone else know what Terr means by “number six”?
I agree that this case exposes the fatal - no humor intended - flaws in Florida’s version of SYG.
However, I do not agree at all with the hint that the courts should find a way to convict Zimmerman anyway.
Criminal law is always construed strictly against the state. The law must describe precisely what acts are prohibited. And it must do so ahead of time.
I would rather have ten thousand Zimmermans patrolling the land than see that principle upended.
Its Wednesday, which is Anything Can Happen Day. So lets make it Be Fair to Bricker Day.
He’s telling you the truth. The law is a travesty and a horror to shock any reasonable mind. But they did pass it, it was signed, and it is the law. To my mind, the law itself is the true core of this, and the gibbering baboons who crafted it.
But to convict Zimmerman, a jury would have to be able to point to evidence that proves he did, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not aware of any piece of evidence right now that meets this standard for this element. Especially when “provoke” is actually not part of the legal standard. The legal standard is that Zimmerman must have been the aggressor. And, again, that means more than simply approaching and speaking to Martin. It must involve some threat of violence, or actual violence.
With that in mind, what evidence do you believe establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor for the fight?
Dude, the whole argument is whether Zimmerman is legally justified to commit assault with a deadly weapon in an altercation* he started.* Don’t come at me like some anti-violence schoolmarm (and you call* me* a liberal? :rolleyes:) and say “battery is bad.” You’re defending deadly force.
The same defense that Zimmerman is relying on to avoid a Murder One rap applies even more strongly to Martin. One of the best scenarios Zimmerman can hope for (most likely; see below) is a finding that both men “stood their ground” under the law, and it’s a shame, but neither broke the law. But we’ll still know Zimmerman started the fight, and we’ll still know he killed Martin, and the “Stand Your Ground” law will be voided one way or another.
But I still think, SYG or no, that Zimmerman will be convicted of something, and in most states, he would be.
Here are the “best” scenarios for Zimmerman, assuming he can’t pull out proof of some kind that Martin jumped him unprovoked:
Jury nullification for no real clear reason. Could happen, but not terribly illuminating to our argument.
The jury finds that most likely Zimmerman just stopped and asked the kid some questions, and Martin attacked him unprovoked. Possible, but I’m not convinced yet.
1a) The jury finds that, while we know that Zimmerman using deadly force in an altercation he instigated, we don’t know for certain that Martin didn’t respond to a peaceful questioning with violence, so Zimmerman skates on reasonable doubt. Problematic. This kind of approach would make it hard to convict murderers in general.
The USA finally remembers it’s a racist nation at core, and niggers no longer have rights. Zimmerman gets a medal. Unlikely.
2a) The jury decides to let Zimmerman off because, you know, Martin was just a darkie. Still unlikely.
Both sides acted consistent with “Stand Your Ground,” and no liability attaches. What next? Legalized dueling, or the repeal of SYG? I have my suspicions…