I’m thinking Chapter 21 Subchapter I. Is is pretty vague.
Come to think of it, Zimmerman isn’t free and clear on Federal criminal charges. The cops that beat up Rodney got acquitted by the state of California and did federal time for violating his civil rights. Did he also talk to federal agents? They could get him for perjury.
I actually have morals, I just don’t think they are absolute standards that can be deduced from first principles. For instance, I think Infanticide is wrong, but in a famine it might be a choice between that and letting all of their children starve.
This is wrong. Nobody will kill him. They will merely stand their ground. After all, he has shown a propensity to shoot unarmed people. Nothing could be more natural than to defend yourself against a proven quickdraw by beating him to the draw. Skittles: taste the irony.
One is omission and the other is commission, though. Without being aware of every variable (as humans never are), isn’t it better to seek consent from individuals or provide palliative care? The post you quoted had incorrect premises too: both in that morality necessarily increases the survival chances of a group and that evolution works at the group level. In reality, evolution works at the kin level and evolutionary stable strategies emerge over time. These strategies can be worse for any constituent member than a planned society and artificially constructed morals can contravene evolutionary stable strategies (though, they’ll be subject to invasion by alternative moralities). Dawkins points out that certain human behaviours do not increase our chances of reproductive success yet we engage in them for pleasure anyway.
Indeed, this is an argument, not a criminal trial.
I ran across this just now:
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/23781560442/work-in-progress-ii
I don’t know if that link will stay up, but it’s a simple cartoon explanation of self-defense. One of the examples (where “Luke” shoots a man about to punch him) really highlighted for me what’s so weird about this case:
Zimmerman’s case hinges on the reasonable doubt that Martin could have started the fight AND the claim that Martin’s assault justified deadly force.
It seems like under classic self-defense law, even if Martin started the fight, deadly force could be considered disproportionate. And of course there is no right to self-defense for the someone who initiates a fight with an unlawful attack.
And there’s the matter of intentionally walking into a situation where you might find yourself at risk of bodily harm, or even creating such a situation. Does self-defense apply in a situation you create?
Well, I don’t think carrying a gun is the problem so much as firing a gun at close range in what was a fistfight. If he’s the sort to turn a fistfight into a shooting, maybe carrying a gun is a problem for* him.*
Assuming for the sake of argument that Zimmerman’s story is basically correct, I don’t see that he did anything immoral.
Of course, it’s possible that Zimmerman is lying but at this time the evidence does not seem to indicate that he is lying. To believe that he is lying, one needs to pull a “you with the face,” and ignore evidence you don’t like.
Me, too. But not for the same reason you apparently do.
Unless you mean a 42 USC § 1983 action, which… actually might have some legs. Presumably one of the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” is the right to continue breathing, and Zimmerman deprived Martin of that right by using Florida law.
Quite frankly, this is the first time this mess has brought a smile to my face. I am NOT a fan of federal overreach, but when state law forecloses every path, I have to say this is a creative and clever proposal. I don’t know the caselaw for 1983 actions, but on the text, it seems colorable. Research from someone who knows civil law would be appreciated, though, because it’s impossible to read this and assume you know how it works.
Well, now you’re back in my wheelhouse.
No. So far as I am aware, he had no interaction with federal agents, and even if he did, you have to prove the truth of the underlying lie before perjury even is possible.
The police officers in the Rodney King case were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 of violating the victim’s constitutional rights under color of law. This requires a close nexus between the accused and state or federal authority. In other words, a private citizen, acting on his own, cannot be convicted under this statute unless his actions are so intertwined with the state as to make him an agent of the state. And before a crowd of hopefuls leaps on that sentence… no, using a general state law to shoot someone without consequence is not nearly enough.
Martin was reasonably scared, by Zimmerman’s stalking behavior, and had a right to defend himself. This is a documented fact, unless you’re calling his girlfriend a liar.
Zimmerman recklessly and wantonly choose to ignore 911 instructions that lead to a child’s death. This a documented fact.
Classic self-defense? Or in Florida?
In Florida, Martin’s assault justified deadly force. (Assuming Martin started the fight and broke Zimmerman’s nose). And in Florida, you can’t just say “..a situation you create…” The question is whether you are lawfully present.
Not “reckless” as a matter of criminal law. Reckless is your personal opinion of how his actions should be characterized, but those actions do not reach the level of criminal recklessness.
And Martin did not have a right to defend himself by punching Zimmerman, unless you know some fact the rest of the thread does not.
I do not engage with this poster because of his past strawmanning.
Only one poster has ever reached that level with me. I feel it’s more useful to patiently and repeatedly rebut false statements, clarify the differences between statements of opinion as opposed to legal conclusions, and generally respond factually and calmly.
Sometimes I can’t channel my inner Ghandi, I admit. But I try.
That Martin was scared is fact, that it was reasonable is interpretation.
The second statement is entirely false.
Quote the strawmanning, you lying coward.
Well… it’s a reasonable interpretation. If Martin had no idea who Zimmerman was or what he was doing, it seems to me that ding somewhat scared is reasonable.
But simply being scared is not enough to allow Martin to hit Zimmerman, at least legally. To the extent that Tao claims otherwise, he’s wrong.
I’d call ignoring 911 to follow some rightfully scared kid trying to get away from you pretty reckless. It was stupid, and it was wanton, and it created the situation, but alas as you say:
Given the laws you quoted earlier, I fear this is correct. Florida is so fucked up you can make someone reasonably fear for their safety, but they can’t defend themselves.
Please understand though, the law okaying kid being shot by a creep with a gun, for doing what many of us would do in his situation, is very disturbing and objectionable to us.
Some of us still had the last tatters of naivety that we lived in a civilized country.
Steophan, did he follow 911’s instructions or did he chase a scared kid through the dark?
I get it. And maybe it’s my own bias to look at every situation through a defense attorney’s eyes, but I try to keep separate – and clear – the distinction between “disturbing and objectionable” and “criminal.”
I have said, ever since I understood the ramifications of Florida’s singularly unique SYG law, that it was a horribly crafted statute with tremendous potential for unintended consequences. The classic self-defense formulation says, in effect, “We (society) understand that you may have to take a life defending yourself, but if you do, you’re the one that has to prove it was necessary.”
Florida says, in effect, if we can’t prove a negative – that it wasn’t necessary – then you’re immune. Oh, and by the way, you’re even immune from civil suit!
So I get it.
Well it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. At a minimum, I am not interested in engaging with (ETA: in effect) liars like Tao’s Revenge who insist on responding to strawman arguments as opposed to the points I actually made. And no, I’m not saying he did that in this thread.
Quote the straw manning, lying coward.
Bricker, I am not disparaging your legal sense. It is actually pretty interesting in this case. If I’m coming across as killing the messenger, I apologize.