Not just some 911 calls. A 911 call with Zimmerman saying, "These assholes always get away," and telling the dispatcher that he was going to follow the asshole and the dispatcher telling him not to.
Sorry, I can't see a case of intent coming from that one sentence. Also, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" when Zimmerman said that Trayvon was running, which is different than an order to not follow. Not that it really makes much difference as instructions from a 911 operator are just suggestions and you are under no legal obligation to follow them.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
EDIT: Gotta love that even in the most black and white situations, some silly goose has to step in and offer-up a contrary opinion, to show that they are a special little snowflake.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
People do succumb to their injuries from a violent attack after speaking to police/making a statement you know. It's not completely unheard of for that statement to be included as evidence in a murder trial.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
People do succumb to their injuries from a violent attack after speaking to police/making a statement you know. It's not completely unheard of for that statement to be included as evidence in a murder trial.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
There actually is precedent for shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant based on certain claims. Self defense, I believe, is one of them. Especially when all other testimony would speak against it.
Zimmerman is entitled to a fair, honest, speedy trial. But you know what? So is Trayvon Martin and his survivors. The injustice here, beyond the assumed, is that this trial isn't happening.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
This is a case where that doesn't work so hot, unless you're cool with one side getting innocent until proven guilty and the other side getting guilty until proven innocent. This guy admits to shooting the kid. That is not in question. He has now accused the kid of assault and should need to prove that claim.
EDIT: Gotta love that even in the most black and white situations, some silly goose has to step in and offer-up a contrary opinion, to show that they are a special little snowflake.
Who is doing that?
I agree that a crime probably took place and I highly doubt that his actions were justified, but I am not going to jump on the "OMG throw the murderer in jail" bandwagon because he hasn't even been charged with anything yet, never mind convicted.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
Um, yes. Self defense is what's known as an affirmative defense, in which the burden of proof shifts to the defense, mainly because you are admitting that the criminal action occurred, but the circumstances render it non-criminal.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
This really should be a cut and dried 2nd degree murder conviction at the least. It's pretty clear to me that Zimmerman intended to shoot a black person he didn't think belonged in that neighborhood before he confronted Martin, but 2nd degree may be the best we can hope for. Martin is begging for his life before the second shot. This isn't a case of several reaction shots, but after the first shot disabled Martin (And thus removed any threat to Zimmerman if there was one), the second shot is an execution.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
I do not know if the legal system in the United States very closely follows the standards for rhetorical logic, but assuming it does: the burden of proof is on the claimant (or, in legal terms, the accuser).
'Zimmerman shot Martin' is a positive claim made by Zimmerman's accusers - this claim is not disputed, and supported by overwhelming evidence.
'Martin was attacking Zimmerman' is the positive claim made by Zimmerman to justify his actions. He has taken-on the role of accuser, and now assumes the burden of proof as a result.
Most states divide murders into degrees, with first degree murder representing the worst form of homicide crime (though some states use other names such as "capital murder"). State laws vary as to what exactly constitutes murder in the first degree, but it generally includes murders committed by people who willfully take a life after having a chance to think about what they are doing. States have also enumerated certain murders which qualify as first degree even when the normal elements aren't met - such as the killing of law enforcement officers and murders committed in the course of violent crimes. Defenses to the charge take many forms, from mistaken identity to self-defense to not guilty by reason of insanity. States reserve their most severe punishment for certain first degree murder, including the death penalty.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
I do not know if the legal system in the United States very closely follows the standards for rhetorical logic, but assuming it does: the burden of proof is on the claimant (or, in legal terms, the accuser).
'Zimmerman shot Martin' is a positive claim made by Zimmerman's accusers - this claim is not disputed, and supported by overwhelming evidence.
'Martin was attacking Zimmerman' is the positive claim made by Zimmerman to justify his actions. He has taken-on the role of accuser, and now assumes the burden of proof as a result.
Yes, but IIRC the burden is lower. It's like a preponderance of evidence versus beyond reasonable doubt sort of thing. But yes, the burden in a self-defense case is on the accused. Though technically the prosecution still has to "prove" that Zimmerman committed the act (this burden doesn't go away), that becomes really easy when his defense is "I did it but here's why..."
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
Yes, because sometimes the evidence won't support a full murder conviction, and my instead support a lesser offense and/or be inconclusive, we should just eliminate our laws against murder. Sure. Gotcha.
You do realize that part of our justice system is that we don't just get to convict all the bad people, and sometimes they get away...right? But that this is what makes it less likely that you'll wind up in prison for some shit you didn't do?
This really should be a cut and dried 2nd degree murder conviction at the least. It's pretty clear to me that Zimmerman intended to shoot a black person he didn't think belonged in that neighborhood before he confronted Martin, but 2nd degree may be the best we can hope for. Martin is begging for his life before the second shot. This isn't a case of several reaction shots, but after the first shot disabled Martin (And thus removed any threat to Zimmerman if there was one), the second shot is an execution.
I don't think it's clear at all that he intended to shoot Martin. Not before the confrontation. He intended to stop Martin, but not necessarily to shoot Martin.
I think your narrative regarding the second shot is convincing...it would actually be unsurprising if the entire intent at that point was to kill Martin, to eliminate any testimony he might give in the future once the first shot was fired. I still don't know that I buy that to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
This case, to me, seems like a slam-dunk for manslaughter. You get up into murder, and it seems like more of a crap shoot. Proof-wise, mind you. Not what I believe, but what can be proven.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Manslaughter may be all that happens considering the history of the prosecutor's office, but 2nd degree murder shouldn't be that hard. The only way that second shot is justified is if the threat still exists at that point. If the prosecution establishes that the voice that is begging is Martin's, then I would consider it unreasonable to believe that someone begging for their life constitutes an immediate threat to one's person.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
What part of affirmative defense do you not understand? Yes, the state has to prove that he shot and killed Martins, but when your defense starts with "Well, I did shoot him, but...", then that's not exactly hard to do. The rest of it, that's on his head now.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
No.
There is a dead person.
Zimmerman is responsible for this person's death.
Zimmerman claims self defense, because of the type of claim this is, he has to prove this was the case.
The prosecution would then have to prove that it was not self defense, it was murder.
The burden of proof for murder is on the state, the burden of proof for self defense is on Zimmerman's defense team.
Martin didn't drop dead of his own accord. That's how self defense claims work.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
What if Martin hadn't died? Would you still say Zimmerman deserves the benefit of the doubt, but Martin doesn't? That it's up to Martin to prove that he didn't assault Zimmerman?
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the burden is only on the state to prove the homicide. As in, did Zimmerman shoot him. Zimmerman can argue that yes he did, but that it was justified. Then the burden is indeed on Zimmerman.
The burden is on the state to show murder versus manslaughter, sure. But right now unless Zimmerman is able to meet the burden to show self defense, conviction for manslaughter would be ridiculously easy.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the burden is only on the state to prove the homicide. As in, did Zimmerman shoot him. Zimmerman can argue that yes he did, but that it was justified. Then the burden is indeed on Zimmerman.
The burden is on the state to show murder versus manslaughter, sure. But right now unless Zimmerman is able to meet the burden to show self defense, conviction for manslaughter would be ridiculously easy.
I think you and I are saying the same thing, but in different ways. The state would have to prove Zimmerman shooting Martin was homicide, be it through eye-witness testimony or other evidence (the 911 call recordings, for example). Zimmerman's claim of self defense and account of the events would merely be testimony. Whether or not it fell in his favor would be up to the jury in light of all the other evidence presented and the context therein.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the burden is only on the state to prove the homicide. As in, did Zimmerman shoot him. Zimmerman can argue that yes he did, but that it was justified. Then the burden is indeed on Zimmerman.
The burden is on the state to show murder versus manslaughter, sure. But right now unless Zimmerman is able to meet the burden to show self defense, conviction for manslaughter would be ridiculously easy.
I think you and I are saying the same thing, but in different ways. The state would have to prove Zimmerman shooting Martin was homicide, be it through eye-witness testimony or other evidence (the 911 call recordings, for example). Zimmerman's claim of self defense and account of the events would merely be testimony. Whether or not it fell in his favor would be up to the jury in light of all the other evidence presented and the context therein.
Well, I think we're both kind of orbiting around the same thing. The state would have to prove Zimmerman shot Martin; it's obviously homicide. That's the thing. Once Zimmerman admits that he shot Martin, and argues self-defense, the state has already met its burden as to the homicide charge (not murder mind you, that being a subset of homicide). Zimmerman at that point loses his presumption of innocence...he has admitted to being guilty of killing another person. He then takes on the burden of showing that his killing of that person was justified (though by my understanding his burden of proof is lower).
Basically, once you admit to killing somebody the default result becomes conviction, and (likely) prison. You have to argue as to why that doesn't apply to you. Hence the affirmative defense.
The prosecutor can still decline to file charges if he determines that the defense can easily meet its burden. Though that shouldn't have been the case here.
The Castle doctrine and Stand your ground laws are ideas that at the baseline of our legal system. That you don't have to accept being a victim, you are allowed to defend yourself. Self-defense is a valid human right.
The problem becomes when you start writing it down and codifying the laws. People start gaming the system to wring an advantage out of the law. Hiding behind the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law.
You can't really judge a law by its regular use, you got to judge it by its most extreme example. If this was self-defense, then the Stand your Ground law is too lenient.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The prosecutor can still decline to file charges if he determines that the defense can easily meet its burden. Though that shouldn't have been the case here.
It hasn't yet. The PD just sent the file up at the end of this past week.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Castle doctrine and Stand your ground laws are ideas that at the baseline of our legal system. That you don't have to accept being a victim, you are allowed to defend yourself. Self-defense is a valid human right.
The problem becomes when you start writing it down and codifying the laws. People start gaming the system to wring an advantage out of the law. Hiding behind the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law.
You can't really judge a law by its regular use, you got to judge it by its most extreme example. If this was self-defense, then the Stand your Ground law is too lenient.
I would argue that Zimmerman would be in violation of the stand your ground law.
He saw a "suspicious character" out on the street. He calls 911. They tell him not to engage, which is not a legal command but should be smart. He then starts pursuing the "suspicious character". Now, even if this kid was Jeff Dhamer, you don't chase him down and shoot him. This is where his argument falls apart on a Stand Your Ground or Castle Law basis. Martin wasn't trying to enter Zimmerman's property or attack him, he was just going to the place he was staying at.
Well, Zimmerman wasn't having any of this. He's sick of these types getting off scott free and decides to dispense some frontier justice. The threat in this instance was from Zimmerman taking vigilantism as a reasonable course of action. There was no threat from Martin, had Zimmerman made his 911 call and then went back inside to oil his gun while listening to Beck on the radio Trayvon Martin would still be alive today and Zimmerman would be no worse off for it.
Castle Law certainly does not apply, and neither does Stand Your Ground. You have the right to defend yourself, your property, and your family in the state of Florida. You do not have the right to track down people you think "look suspicious" and then gun them down in the middle of the street.
I'd go so far as to say that Trayvon Martin might even have thrown the first punch. If some character with a gun came after me while I was walking home, I'd try to defend myself as well. There was someone for whom Stand Your Ground Applied, it was this young man
if the court decides that Zimmerman acted in accordance with self defense, well, that proves the anti gun lobby right: we just can't be trusted with these kinds of laws.
I'd go so far as to say that Trayvon Martin might even have thrown the first punch. If some character with a gun came after me while I was walking home, I'd try to defend myself as well. There was someone for whom Stand Your Ground Applied, it was this young man
Indeed, and something I don't think anybody has brought up yet. If Zimmerman confronted Martin without any reasonable cause (and he had none), then tried to detain Martin, then Zimmerman was committing a crime. At least, I'm pretty sure that detaining somebody without any lawful authority is a crime. At which point he'd no longer have the law on his side even if Martin assaulted him first. Quoting the law again:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Of course, I'm not sure what the burden of proof on that is.
if the court decides that Zimmerman acted in accordance with self defense, well, that proves the anti gun lobby right: we just can't be trusted with these kinds of laws.
I think Joe Horn actually went a long way towards showing that. Even though in that case, the men shot were committing a crime, and he was found to be within the law.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The burden of proof for self defense is on the defense. Unless Zimmerman can afford some hot shot Denny Crane, I just don't see the law siding with him, even in my sunshiney homestate.
Actually, what I'd want more than anything to see in this case is for (after a guilty verdict) a judge to sit Zimmerman down, explain very clearly why he was the criminal here, why even if Martin attacked him it was Martin who acted in self-defense, and why because of this now he is going to prison for (at least) a fairly long time.
Well, aside from the whole thing never having happened, that is.
EDIT: Then that should, of course, be televised to dissuade any future Batman-wannabes.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The burden of proof for self defense is on the defense. Unless Zimmerman can afford some hot shot Denny Crane, I just don't see the law siding with him, even in my sunshiney homestate.
Oh, I know for self-defense arguments in general the burden is on the defense.
I'd like to know what the burden is for the "unlawful activity" bit needed to set aside the stand-your-ground law entirely, in order to really slam-dunk this fuckstick. I'm guessing he'd have to be tried and convicted of the underlying crime, which is probably a nonstarter.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Hmm, I'm not sure. I tend to think you're right though.
I'd wager it's going to be very hard for Zimmerman to be able to prove this guy was a threat. There's nothing to show that he was. He was a kid, he was carrying a bottle of tea and some skittles, while Zimmerman was this fellow:
who apparently has a history of violence.
I'm having trouble seeing where Zimmerman is going to be able to defend his claim.
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
Hmm, I'm not sure. I tend to think you're right though.
I'd wager it's going to be very hard for Zimmerman to be able to prove this guy was a threat. There's nothing to show that he was. He was a kid, he was carrying a bottle of tea and some skittles, while Zimmerman was this fellow:
who apparently has a history of violence.
I'm having trouble seeing where Zimmerman is going to be able to defend his claim.
The whole thing would have been an open and shut case if the police hadn't tried to stick to their history and cover the whole thing up.
Personally I don't think this was self-defense. My post was to the point that if this was a legal shooting: pursuing a suspect outside of your home, without seeing a clear cut crime(being black is not a crime), then the law was too lenient.
The Stand your ground law goes to a basic right, but the law is being used to defend shit like this and needs to be reined in(if its accepted in this case).
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Personally I don't think this was self-defense. My post was to the point that if this was a legal shooting: pursuing a suspect outside of your home, without seeing a clear cut crime(being black is not a crime), then the law was too lenient.
The Stand your ground law goes to a basic right, but the law is being used to defend shit like this and needs to be reined in(if its accepted in this case).
I agree with this completely. I was just trying to point out why it shouldn't be applied at all. Cause I'm sure that the Florida AG office is going to sift through the internet and come across my post and realize how chock full of legal standing it is.
The Stand your ground law goes to a basic right, but the law is being used to defend shit like this and needs to be reined in(if its accepted in this case).
From my understanding, Stand Your Ground basically means "you are allowed to kill somebody even if you are able to safely escape the situation." It does not apply to situations in which violent self-defense is the only option, only in ones where violent self-defense is an available option. I'm wondering: how is shooting somebody a basic right?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Stand your ground law goes to a basic right, but the law is being used to defend shit like this and needs to be reined in(if its accepted in this case).
From my understanding, Stand Your Ground basically means "you are allowed to kill somebody even if you are able to safely escape the situation." It does not apply to situations in which violent self-defense is the only option, only in ones where violent self-defense is an available option. I'm wondering: how is shooting somebody a basic right?
You've got a bad understanding of the law, and I guess the same understanding Zimmerman has (though it seems you took it to a saner conclusion).
It is supposed to apply if you're attacked or your home is attacked because often the family of an assailant who is hurt or killed during a crime will sue the victim and before these sorts of laws they were in the legal right.
Now, cases like this show that there needs to be a clearer border staked out.
Basically, if I come after you and you make the choice to stand your ground, you should have that right. This is also where Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder in my opinion.
From my understanding, Stand Your Ground basically means "you are allowed to kill somebody even if you are able to safely escape the situation." It does not apply to situations in which violent self-defense is the only option, only in ones where violent self-defense is an available option. I'm wondering: how is shooting somebody a basic right?
Defending yourself from an assault is a basic right. The law, as I understand it, is intended as a legal protection for someone who protects themselves from an attacker by using deadly force in the heat of the moment instead of trying to escape.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Basically I agree with the spirit behind Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, but cases like this one make me question on whether we can be trusted with those rights. For them to work, you need a legal system willing to go after people when they abuse these protections and I'm not totally convinced we have that.
It is supposed to apply if you're attacked or your home is attacked because often the family of an assailant who is hurt or killed during a crime will sue the victim and before these sorts of laws they were in the legal right.
No, they weren't. There's something called the doctrine of clean hands.
The prosecutor can still decline to file charges if he determines that the defense can easily meet its burden. Though that shouldn't have been the case here.
It's more like you said earlier; if there isn't a preponderance of evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood, and that his justification for "self defense" doesn't stack up to scrutiny, it's highly doubtful this will see prosecution.
With no firm eyewitnesses, only background sound on some 911 calls, and no victim testimony/statement, I can't see a jury going 1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder... maybe but that too would be a tough sell if they put Zimmerman on the stand and he says he was attacked by the kid, and then says the magic words "he saw my gun and grabbed for it" then even getting Manslaughter would be difficult.
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
People do succumb to their injuries from a violent attack after speaking to police/making a statement you know. It's not completely unheard of for that statement to be included as evidence in a murder trial.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
There actually is precedent for shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant based on certain claims. Self defense, I believe, is one of them. Especially when all other testimony would speak against it.
Zimmerman is entitled to a fair, honest, speedy trial. But you know what? So is Trayvon Martin and his survivors. The injustice here, beyond the assumed, is that this trial isn't happening.
Self defense usually isn't an affirmative defense, IIRC
Posts
Sorry, I can't see a case of intent coming from that one sentence. Also, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" when Zimmerman said that Trayvon was running, which is different than an order to not follow. Not that it really makes much difference as instructions from a 911 operator are just suggestions and you are under no legal obligation to follow them.
Awfully difficult for the victim to give testimony when he is fucking dead, isn't it? Guess we may as well throw murder out the window as a crime, then.
And the burden of proof is (or ought to be) on the murderer for proving his self-defense claim. Essentially, he would be accusing Trayvon of assault in that case.
EDIT: Gotta love that even in the most black and white situations, some silly goose has to step in and offer-up a contrary opinion, to show that they are a special little snowflake.
People do succumb to their injuries from a violent attack after speaking to police/making a statement you know. It's not completely unheard of for that statement to be included as evidence in a murder trial.
Innocent until proven guilty except in cases where self defense is cited, then it's guilty until proven innocent?
There actually is precedent for shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant based on certain claims. Self defense, I believe, is one of them. Especially when all other testimony would speak against it.
Zimmerman is entitled to a fair, honest, speedy trial. But you know what? So is Trayvon Martin and his survivors. The injustice here, beyond the assumed, is that this trial isn't happening.
This is a case where that doesn't work so hot, unless you're cool with one side getting innocent until proven guilty and the other side getting guilty until proven innocent. This guy admits to shooting the kid. That is not in question. He has now accused the kid of assault and should need to prove that claim.
Who is doing that?
I agree that a crime probably took place and I highly doubt that his actions were justified, but I am not going to jump on the "OMG throw the murderer in jail" bandwagon because he hasn't even been charged with anything yet, never mind convicted.
Um, yes. Self defense is what's known as an affirmative defense, in which the burden of proof shifts to the defense, mainly because you are admitting that the criminal action occurred, but the circumstances render it non-criminal.
I do not know if the legal system in the United States very closely follows the standards for rhetorical logic, but assuming it does: the burden of proof is on the claimant (or, in legal terms, the accuser).
'Zimmerman shot Martin' is a positive claim made by Zimmerman's accusers - this claim is not disputed, and supported by overwhelming evidence.
'Martin was attacking Zimmerman' is the positive claim made by Zimmerman to justify his actions. He has taken-on the role of accuser, and now assumes the burden of proof as a result.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder.html
Pretty sure that Zimmerman had all sorts of opportunity to think about what he was doing before he fired the second round.
Yes, but IIRC the burden is lower. It's like a preponderance of evidence versus beyond reasonable doubt sort of thing. But yes, the burden in a self-defense case is on the accused. Though technically the prosecution still has to "prove" that Zimmerman committed the act (this burden doesn't go away), that becomes really easy when his defense is "I did it but here's why..."
Yes, because sometimes the evidence won't support a full murder conviction, and my instead support a lesser offense and/or be inconclusive, we should just eliminate our laws against murder. Sure. Gotcha.
You do realize that part of our justice system is that we don't just get to convict all the bad people, and sometimes they get away...right? But that this is what makes it less likely that you'll wind up in prison for some shit you didn't do?
I don't think it's clear at all that he intended to shoot Martin. Not before the confrontation. He intended to stop Martin, but not necessarily to shoot Martin.
I think your narrative regarding the second shot is convincing...it would actually be unsurprising if the entire intent at that point was to kill Martin, to eliminate any testimony he might give in the future once the first shot was fired. I still don't know that I buy that to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
This case, to me, seems like a slam-dunk for manslaughter. You get up into murder, and it seems like more of a crap shoot. Proof-wise, mind you. Not what I believe, but what can be proven.
No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was murder. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our justice system works.
What part of affirmative defense do you not understand? Yes, the state has to prove that he shot and killed Martins, but when your defense starts with "Well, I did shoot him, but...", then that's not exactly hard to do. The rest of it, that's on his head now.
No.
There is a dead person.
Zimmerman is responsible for this person's death.
Zimmerman claims self defense, because of the type of claim this is, he has to prove this was the case.
The prosecution would then have to prove that it was not self defense, it was murder.
The burden of proof for murder is on the state, the burden of proof for self defense is on Zimmerman's defense team.
Martin didn't drop dead of his own accord. That's how self defense claims work.
What if Martin hadn't died? Would you still say Zimmerman deserves the benefit of the doubt, but Martin doesn't? That it's up to Martin to prove that he didn't assault Zimmerman?
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the burden is only on the state to prove the homicide. As in, did Zimmerman shoot him. Zimmerman can argue that yes he did, but that it was justified. Then the burden is indeed on Zimmerman.
The burden is on the state to show murder versus manslaughter, sure. But right now unless Zimmerman is able to meet the burden to show self defense, conviction for manslaughter would be ridiculously easy.
These assholes always do get away.
But I think he and I are talking about different assholes.
I think you and I are saying the same thing, but in different ways. The state would have to prove Zimmerman shooting Martin was homicide, be it through eye-witness testimony or other evidence (the 911 call recordings, for example). Zimmerman's claim of self defense and account of the events would merely be testimony. Whether or not it fell in his favor would be up to the jury in light of all the other evidence presented and the context therein.
Well, I think we're both kind of orbiting around the same thing. The state would have to prove Zimmerman shot Martin; it's obviously homicide. That's the thing. Once Zimmerman admits that he shot Martin, and argues self-defense, the state has already met its burden as to the homicide charge (not murder mind you, that being a subset of homicide). Zimmerman at that point loses his presumption of innocence...he has admitted to being guilty of killing another person. He then takes on the burden of showing that his killing of that person was justified (though by my understanding his burden of proof is lower).
Basically, once you admit to killing somebody the default result becomes conviction, and (likely) prison. You have to argue as to why that doesn't apply to you. Hence the affirmative defense.
The prosecutor can still decline to file charges if he determines that the defense can easily meet its burden. Though that shouldn't have been the case here.
The problem becomes when you start writing it down and codifying the laws. People start gaming the system to wring an advantage out of the law. Hiding behind the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law.
You can't really judge a law by its regular use, you got to judge it by its most extreme example. If this was self-defense, then the Stand your Ground law is too lenient.
It hasn't yet. The PD just sent the file up at the end of this past week.
I would argue that Zimmerman would be in violation of the stand your ground law.
He saw a "suspicious character" out on the street. He calls 911. They tell him not to engage, which is not a legal command but should be smart. He then starts pursuing the "suspicious character". Now, even if this kid was Jeff Dhamer, you don't chase him down and shoot him. This is where his argument falls apart on a Stand Your Ground or Castle Law basis. Martin wasn't trying to enter Zimmerman's property or attack him, he was just going to the place he was staying at.
Well, Zimmerman wasn't having any of this. He's sick of these types getting off scott free and decides to dispense some frontier justice. The threat in this instance was from Zimmerman taking vigilantism as a reasonable course of action. There was no threat from Martin, had Zimmerman made his 911 call and then went back inside to oil his gun while listening to Beck on the radio Trayvon Martin would still be alive today and Zimmerman would be no worse off for it.
Castle Law certainly does not apply, and neither does Stand Your Ground. You have the right to defend yourself, your property, and your family in the state of Florida. You do not have the right to track down people you think "look suspicious" and then gun them down in the middle of the street.
I'd go so far as to say that Trayvon Martin might even have thrown the first punch. If some character with a gun came after me while I was walking home, I'd try to defend myself as well. There was someone for whom Stand Your Ground Applied, it was this young man
if the court decides that Zimmerman acted in accordance with self defense, well, that proves the anti gun lobby right: we just can't be trusted with these kinds of laws.
Indeed, and something I don't think anybody has brought up yet. If Zimmerman confronted Martin without any reasonable cause (and he had none), then tried to detain Martin, then Zimmerman was committing a crime. At least, I'm pretty sure that detaining somebody without any lawful authority is a crime. At which point he'd no longer have the law on his side even if Martin assaulted him first. Quoting the law again:
Of course, I'm not sure what the burden of proof on that is.
I think Joe Horn actually went a long way towards showing that. Even though in that case, the men shot were committing a crime, and he was found to be within the law.
Well, aside from the whole thing never having happened, that is.
EDIT: Then that should, of course, be televised to dissuade any future Batman-wannabes.
Oh, I know for self-defense arguments in general the burden is on the defense.
I'd like to know what the burden is for the "unlawful activity" bit needed to set aside the stand-your-ground law entirely, in order to really slam-dunk this fuckstick. I'm guessing he'd have to be tried and convicted of the underlying crime, which is probably a nonstarter.
I'd wager it's going to be very hard for Zimmerman to be able to prove this guy was a threat. There's nothing to show that he was. He was a kid, he was carrying a bottle of tea and some skittles, while Zimmerman was this fellow:
who apparently has a history of violence.
I'm having trouble seeing where Zimmerman is going to be able to defend his claim.
The whole thing would have been an open and shut case if the police hadn't tried to stick to their history and cover the whole thing up.
The Stand your ground law goes to a basic right, but the law is being used to defend shit like this and needs to be reined in(if its accepted in this case).
I agree with this completely. I was just trying to point out why it shouldn't be applied at all. Cause I'm sure that the Florida AG office is going to sift through the internet and come across my post and realize how chock full of legal standing it is.
From my understanding, Stand Your Ground basically means "you are allowed to kill somebody even if you are able to safely escape the situation." It does not apply to situations in which violent self-defense is the only option, only in ones where violent self-defense is an available option. I'm wondering: how is shooting somebody a basic right?
You've got a bad understanding of the law, and I guess the same understanding Zimmerman has (though it seems you took it to a saner conclusion).
It is supposed to apply if you're attacked or your home is attacked because often the family of an assailant who is hurt or killed during a crime will sue the victim and before these sorts of laws they were in the legal right.
Now, cases like this show that there needs to be a clearer border staked out.
Basically, if I come after you and you make the choice to stand your ground, you should have that right. This is also where Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder in my opinion.
Defending yourself from an assault is a basic right. The law, as I understand it, is intended as a legal protection for someone who protects themselves from an attacker by using deadly force in the heat of the moment instead of trying to escape.
No, they weren't. There's something called the doctrine of clean hands.
I'm willing to better many in the legislature hadn't heard of the clean hands doctrine either.
It's more like you said earlier; if there isn't a preponderance of evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood, and that his justification for "self defense" doesn't stack up to scrutiny, it's highly doubtful this will see prosecution.
Self defense usually isn't an affirmative defense, IIRC
It's something the prosecution has to defeat
Let me check Florida law