And I suppose you have some proof that such an outlandish defense has ever been successfully employed? I can picture it now:
Officer: “Why did you strike the jogger sir?”
Suspect: “Because he was chasing me.”
Officer: “How did you know he was chasing you?”
Suspect: “Because he was running at me”
Officer: “Did he say anything to you, did he threaten you in any way?”
Suspect: “No”
Officer: “You have the right to remain silent…”
Moreover, you are proving my point when your say that there is a difference between someone running at you (i.e. a jogger) and being chased. You are right, being chased implies some compounding information that adds to the simple act of running at someone that may constitute an assault, thought it would have to be pretty specific.
And if they release additional information, I might have to change my opinion. I won’t feel bad about having formed an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
Are you claiming to have full knowledge of the information police have about this case? Obviously, since they have declined to arrest him on this incident so far they must have some kind of corroborating evidence that supports Zimmerman’s side of the story.
Oh we are in agreement there–I think it is a terrible law. I can’t imagine if I was walking down the street and someone was chasing me that isn’t considered assault. And I turn and defend myself now I am the aggessor! But it does sound like that is the law there in Florida, and this case if nothing else will help focus and change that law is my hope.
Frankly I hope that (and I trust eventually this will happen) that Zimmerman gets his due. I think it will happen either legally or via the street but I think the case has incited too many emotions for him to get away free.
And with that, I think I will bow out of this thread. Interesting discussion though.
Of course, the difference is that that’s how criminal burden of proof works, inconveniently enough for the prosecution. The defense can say, in effect, maybe something else happened. The prosecution has to say, “My evidence shows that the only conceivable, reasonable scenario is guilt.”
So if you and he are both making possible scenarios up, he carries the day and you don’t.
Yeah, I can invent dialogue too. Since you and Bricker are so convinced that as a matter of law being chased without more necessarily fails to authorize self-defense, I’d be gratified if you could direct me to a court that agrees with the two of you.
“Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” are basically the same law and they are both concerned with the aforementioned “Duty-To-Retreat”:
Some states make a differentiation between being inside the home and some do not. Florida does not, neither does Oklahoma. The logic being that it is difficult to always define what constitutes a protected domicile and it is also problematic to say that people can defend themselves at home but not in their car or in the parking lot on their way to the gym for example.
Would you feel bad if someone was lynched based on incomplete evidence? I am not saying that you don’t have a right to an opinion. I am just saying that is dangerous to assume that a person is guilty of a crime until you have all the evidence. I mean, didn’t some militia group announce they were going to hunt Zimmerman down and attempt a “citzen’s arrest” on him? You don’t have a problem with that I suppose?
Yes, the defense need only show that the credited evidence is not inconsistent with with innocence or justification. However, the defense cannot create reasonable doubt by saying “Maybe there’s some evidence we don’t have would show something different” (which is what OnePercent is saying when he told ArnoldWinklereid, “Well, maybe the police have secret evidence that shows that I am right”).
Wait are you guys arguing that Zimmerman is potentially protected by SYG or Martin, because it seems to me that Martin is the one who has the SYG standing.
I can only conjecture, and I’m only trying to look at this from Martin’s point of view. However, a teen might think something along the lines of: ‘There is this weird guy following me, I’ll just pull up my hoodie, there, now I’m not looking at him so I can’t be pissing him off, I’m not drawing attention to myself and I’ll just get out of here.’
I don’t know why you are trying to push all this blame on Martin (the victim) this way. You seem to be pushing that he pulled up his hoodie/that he didn’t call the cops or his father as proof of…what exactly? Is this akin to: ‘she wouldn’t have gotten raped if she hadn’t gotten drunk/worn that short skirt’, because your argument sounds *really *similar…
Also…really? I said I used to hide like that when I was a teenage. I also said I can ‘put myself in his shoes’ i.e. try to understand his motivation. I didn’t say I acted like that now, as an adult… :rolleyes:
Yikes! So you hope that he gets murdered? I guess you are not a big believer in the whole “innocent until proven guilty” standard we have in this country. This kind of mentality exhibits exactly what is wrong with making assumptions of guilt based on incomplete and potentially inaccurate information.