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.
preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt are two completely different standards of proof, they don't mix together
Here is an excerpt to the jury instruction on self defense in Florida:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Seems like the jury in Florida needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense applies.
Here is an excerpt to the jury instruction on self defense in Florida:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Seems like the jury in Florida needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense applies.
Here is an excerpt to the jury instruction on self defense in Florida:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Seems like the jury in Florida needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense applies.
Uh, I read the instructions to mean that 'if reasonable doubt, then not guilty.' AKA, the absence of self-defense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, same as in your state.
Isn't it simple: it's the defense's job to prove reasonable doubt and its the prosecution's to disprove it.
Or am I missing something?
the defense doesn't have to prove anything, EXCEPT certain defenses which are usually called "affirmative" defenses
self defense: prosecution must prove def NOT acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt
An example of affirmative defense in Florida would be insanity. The defense has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the def was "insane" (the legal definition) for the jury to find the defense applies.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Isn't it simple: it's the defense's job to prove reasonable doubt and its the prosecution's to disprove it.
Or am I missing something?
the defense doesn't have to prove anything, EXCEPT certain defenses which are usually called "affirmative" defenses
self defense: prosecution must prove def NOT acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt
An example of affirmative defense in Florida would be insanity. The defense has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the def was "insane" (the legal definition) for the jury to find the defense applies.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Though I would argue that self defense should be an affirmative defense, but it would seem that's not where Florida law stands.
Isn't it simple: it's the defense's job to prove reasonable doubt and its the prosecution's to disprove it.
Or am I missing something?
the defense doesn't have to prove anything, EXCEPT certain defenses which are usually called "affirmative" defenses
self defense: prosecution must prove def NOT acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt
An example of affirmative defense in Florida would be insanity. The defense has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the def was "insane" (the legal definition) for the jury to find the defense applies.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Though I would argue that self defense should be an affirmative defense, but it would seem that's not where Florida law stands.
well there is a bit of a difference
justification defense: I acted in a certain manner, but I was justified in doing so, therefore my actions were not criminal (self defense).
"excuse" (for lack of a better word) defense (usually affirmative): I did commit the crime, but my actions should be excused because I was insane, I was acting under duress, or I was acting under necessity (some general examples)
the terms for these things of course will vary from state to state and this is just a general idea
anyway not trying to derail
to tie it back to discussion, whether or not you can overcome a self defense claim is important in evaluating a case. from what little info I have about this scenario and the witnesses it seems like it could be overcome to me, or at least a jury should hear it and decide.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Isn't it simple: it's the defense's job to prove reasonable doubt and its the prosecution's to disprove it.
Or am I missing something?
the defense doesn't have to prove anything, EXCEPT certain defenses which are usually called "affirmative" defenses
self defense: prosecution must prove def NOT acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt
An example of affirmative defense in Florida would be insanity. The defense has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the def was "insane" (the legal definition) for the jury to find the defense applies.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Though I would argue that self defense should be an affirmative defense, but it would seem that's not where Florida law stands.
well there is a bit of a difference
justification defense: I acted in a certain manner, but I was justified in doing so, therefore my actions were not criminal (self defense).
"excuse" (for lack of a better word) defense (usually affirmative): I did commit the crime, but my actions should be excused because I was insane, I was acting under duress, or I was acting under necessity (some general examples)
the terms for these things of course will vary from state to state and this is just a general idea
anyway not trying to derail
to tie it back to discussion, whether or not you can overcome a self defense claim is important in evaluating a case. from what little info I have about this scenario and the witnesses it seems like it could be overcome to me, or at least a jury should hear it and decide.
Agreed. There's a 911 tape that in and of itself should do it. As a Florida voter (we don't have state income tax) I demand this go to a trial.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Here is an excerpt to the jury instruction on self defense in Florida:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Seems like the jury in Florida needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense applies.
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.
I hope that fat prick Zimmerman fucking burns. But he won't. Not in a Republican state. But karma, like death and taxes, is inevitable.
Florida is not a Republican state, we are Swingers baby! Yeah!
And like most swingers is gross.
Seriously, whats with the humidity? And the giant bugs? And the alligators?
Heres a video of the 13 year old who witnessed it, its pretty sad. Mostly the part where he wonders what would have happened if he went over to help instead of trying to get his dog.
Indeed, on principle I agree with Castle Law, but in practice I find it to be dangerous.
I think basically no matter what, if you shoot someone in your house, in your car, fuck in your bedroom, whatever doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, and that fact is not in dispute, you should be arrested. Then you should have the opportunity to be cleared under the castle doctrine or similar laws.
If you shoot someone on the street who the police told you not to follow? Well fuck me that's clear cut at the very least manslaughter. I don't care if you walked up to the kid and he started attacking you, the cops told you to stay the fuck back.
Indeed, on principle I agree with Castle Law, but in practice I find it to be dangerous.
I think basically no matter what, if you shoot someone in your house, in your car, fuck in your bedroom, whatever doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, and that fact is not in dispute, you should be arrested. Then you should have the opportunity to be cleared under the castle doctrine or similar laws.
If you shoot someone on the street who the police told you not to follow? Well fuck me that's clear cut at the very least manslaughter. I don't care if you walked up to the kid and he started attacking you, the cops told you to stay the fuck back.
Note: it was a 911 operator, not the cops.
Aside from that, I agree with most of this. You should expect at least an arrest after killing somebody, pretty much regardless of the circumstances. How far your interaction with the criminal justice system goes from there should depend on the circumstances.
I would only accept this, however, on the assumption that you be released without bail. I could talk at length on the subject, but my main thing is that if you don't post an actual imminent (alleged) danger to society and aren't a flight risk, bail shouldn't generally be an issue. The point of bail is to ensure you show up for trial, nothing more. There's no reason for you to spend, say, a weekend in jail simply because you couldn't get the funds together to get bailed out.
Indeed, on principle I agree with Castle Law, but in practice I find it to be dangerous.
I think basically no matter what, if you shoot someone in your house, in your car, fuck in your bedroom, whatever doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, and that fact is not in dispute, you should be arrested. Then you should have the opportunity to be cleared under the castle doctrine or similar laws.
If you shoot someone on the street who the police told you not to follow? Well fuck me that's clear cut at the very least manslaughter. I don't care if you walked up to the kid and he started attacking you, the cops told you to stay the fuck back.
That's the thing that pisses me off, he was told to back the fuck off and when he didn't even do that, the police department didn't have the balls to charge the fucker with something.
Honestly, this is the whole thing that I don't like about stand your ground laws and castle laws, they make it too easy for people who mean ill to abuse them. I gather the case with Zimmerman isn't the only time where Florida's stand your ground law has caused issues.
I don't know exactly what that is going to do. Unless they do the whole "Civil Rights violation that ended in Death" thing to make it a federal murder case. But that would be stepping on a lot of toes at the state level.
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.
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.
As So It Goes said, "preponderance of the evidence" is a different standard. You're mixing up a bunch of stuff here.
To show that Zimmerman committed some kind of homicide (whether murder, manslaughter, whatever), the prosecution would have to prove he was guilty of all the elements of the crime, and the burden of proof the prosecution must meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If and when Martin's family sues Zimmerman in a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, they would have to prove each element of the tort of wrongful death, and the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" (aka, "more likely than not" or "51%").
"Scrutiny" in legal terms refers to equal protection law, mostly.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't know exactly what that is going to do. Unless they do the whole "Civil Rights violation that ended in Death" thing to make it a federal murder case. But that would be stepping on a lot of toes at the state level.
This could end up being very interesting.
IIRC Zimmerman has left the state(due to harassment at his home), which allows Federal jurisdiction for any felony.
I don't know exactly what that is going to do. Unless they do the whole "Civil Rights violation that ended in Death" thing to make it a federal murder case. But that would be stepping on a lot of toes at the state level.
This could end up being very interesting.
IIRC Zimmerman has left the state(due to harassment at his home), which allows Federal jurisdiction for any felony.
Well, that wasn't a problem, since a gun was involved. (Gun crimes can be tried at either the state or federal level, this is how Project Exile worked.) But, it does make the case for him being a flight risk.
Posts
preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt are two completely different standards of proof, they don't mix together
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Seems like the jury in Florida needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense applies.
Here is the entire instruction (includes a "no duty to retreat" section) - word doc shortcut
...I know that the legal process and rhetorical logic are not the same thing, but this makes no sense to me.
If you're making the positive claim, I shouldn't have to prove you wrong.
in my state, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was NOT acting in self defense, yes.
Yes, okay, this makes perfect sense.
Florida, your laws make sense! Sometimes!
Which state is that?
...And I don't recall: is your profession in the field being a prosecutor? If so - that must suck. :P
I do enjoy seeing differences in state criminal law
even the subtle ones
Uh, I read the instructions to mean that 'if reasonable doubt, then not guilty.' AKA, the absence of self-defense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, same as in your state.
Or am I missing something?
the defense doesn't have to prove anything, EXCEPT certain defenses which are usually called "affirmative" defenses
self defense: prosecution must prove def NOT acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt
An example of affirmative defense in Florida would be insanity. The defense has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the def was "insane" (the legal definition) for the jury to find the defense applies.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Though I would argue that self defense should be an affirmative defense, but it would seem that's not where Florida law stands.
well there is a bit of a difference
justification defense: I acted in a certain manner, but I was justified in doing so, therefore my actions were not criminal (self defense).
"excuse" (for lack of a better word) defense (usually affirmative): I did commit the crime, but my actions should be excused because I was insane, I was acting under duress, or I was acting under necessity (some general examples)
the terms for these things of course will vary from state to state and this is just a general idea
anyway not trying to derail
to tie it back to discussion, whether or not you can overcome a self defense claim is important in evaluating a case. from what little info I have about this scenario and the witnesses it seems like it could be overcome to me, or at least a jury should hear it and decide.
Agreed. There's a 911 tape that in and of itself should do it. As a Florida voter (we don't have state income tax) I demand this go to a trial.
This is a very good find. Thanks.
Much as I can sometimes dislike CNN's hyperfocus on a single crime, I'm grateful for it in this case.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Florida is not a Republican state, we are Swingers baby! Yeah!
And like most swingers is gross.
Heres a video of the 13 year old who witnessed it, its pretty sad. Mostly the part where he wonders what would have happened if he went over to help instead of trying to get his dog.
I think basically no matter what, if you shoot someone in your house, in your car, fuck in your bedroom, whatever doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, and that fact is not in dispute, you should be arrested. Then you should have the opportunity to be cleared under the castle doctrine or similar laws.
If you shoot someone on the street who the police told you not to follow? Well fuck me that's clear cut at the very least manslaughter. I don't care if you walked up to the kid and he started attacking you, the cops told you to stay the fuck back.
Note: it was a 911 operator, not the cops.
Aside from that, I agree with most of this. You should expect at least an arrest after killing somebody, pretty much regardless of the circumstances. How far your interaction with the criminal justice system goes from there should depend on the circumstances.
I would only accept this, however, on the assumption that you be released without bail. I could talk at length on the subject, but my main thing is that if you don't post an actual imminent (alleged) danger to society and aren't a flight risk, bail shouldn't generally be an issue. The point of bail is to ensure you show up for trial, nothing more. There's no reason for you to spend, say, a weekend in jail simply because you couldn't get the funds together to get bailed out.
That's the thing that pisses me off, he was told to back the fuck off and when he didn't even do that, the police department didn't have the balls to charge the fucker with something.
Honestly, this is the whole thing that I don't like about stand your ground laws and castle laws, they make it too easy for people who mean ill to abuse them. I gather the case with Zimmerman isn't the only time where Florida's stand your ground law has caused issues.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I don't know exactly what that is going to do. Unless they do the whole "Civil Rights violation that ended in Death" thing to make it a federal murder case. But that would be stepping on a lot of toes at the state level.
This could end up being very interesting.
As So It Goes said, "preponderance of the evidence" is a different standard. You're mixing up a bunch of stuff here.
To show that Zimmerman committed some kind of homicide (whether murder, manslaughter, whatever), the prosecution would have to prove he was guilty of all the elements of the crime, and the burden of proof the prosecution must meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If and when Martin's family sues Zimmerman in a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, they would have to prove each element of the tort of wrongful death, and the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" (aka, "more likely than not" or "51%").
"Scrutiny" in legal terms refers to equal protection law, mostly.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
IIRC Zimmerman has left the state(due to harassment at his home), which allows Federal jurisdiction for any felony.
Well, that wasn't a problem, since a gun was involved. (Gun crimes can be tried at either the state or federal level, this is how Project Exile worked.) But, it does make the case for him being a flight risk.