|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 16 2013 12:22 Feartheguru wrote:On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law. Yes but that is just regular self-defense. "Stand Your Ground" laws say basically (minor differences between states) that if you are attacked and feel you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury but there is also the option to retreat, you can "stand your ground" and use lethal force in self-defense lawfully. Several other states have laws that say if you have the option to retreat, you must try to do that before you can use lethal force. Otherwise it's involuntary manslaughter at the least. Statistically it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether a state has "Stand Your Ground" laws or not but when they were passed gun-control advocates (some of them) made dire predictions of Wild-West shootouts if they were passed. Well, gun violence didn't go up after they were passed. It continued slightly downward like it has for a while. But some people think "Stand Your Ground" gives people too much leeway to lawfully kill another person, and it was a possible defense for Zimmerman. With gun-control advocates wanting guns to be on the front burner again, it became a larger part of the circus around this case than it otherwise would have been. If you started a fight and then were losing badly and thought you were going to be killed or seriously hurt, you could argue self-defense if you shot who you were fighting with, but not claim that it was a "stand your ground" situation. Most self-defense defenses require that you not be engaged in an illegal activity for it to hold. If you instigate a physical confrontation, even without the intent to kill, you are probably engaging in some form of aggravated assault, thus nullifying any self-defense claim. Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
Actually, in this case it probably didn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight.
+ Show Spoiler +A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
There's no discussion if Martin started the fight if it was self-defense. If Zimmerman started the fight, he still has the right to self-defense because Martin escalated it to the point where he feared for his life.
|
On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances...
I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
|
On July 16 2013 11:08 emc wrote:
I'm glad he wasn't convicted. There wasn't enough evidence, no good witnesses, the media was just going on the assumption that the dude was killed unjustly because of race and spun it that way.
Here's the thing that I believe and it's that if the dude is truly guilty then he will commit another crime and soon. The only killers who've only killed one time are in jail because they've been caught.
But yeah, the legal system is what it is and I'd rather a dude not get convicted based on an emotion that a young black man was killed. Young black people die all the time and this just happens to make nation wide news. There is SO much reverse racism in this country it's ridiculous.
Guaranteed Zimmerman would've been convicted if he didn't plead the fifth or if he took the stand. Seriously, if you're innocent, DON'T TALK TO FUCKING COPS THEY WILL MAKE YOU GUILTY. PLEAD THE FIFTH.
Are you serious? What kind of Utopian bubble do you live in?
Many people get away with crimes in this country (and everywhere). Just ask any investigative office near you how many cold cases they have, or look at the slew of people that were wrongly convicted (proven once DNA evidence became admissible in our legal system).
|
On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Why? So someone attacks you, you defend yourself, and now if you are unable to prove that he attacked you first you end up in jail? Self defense is also not only about guns as well. There is no perfect system, but a system where guilty man are set free in exchange of less erroneous convictions is better than a system where the innocent are punished.
|
On July 16 2013 14:04 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:On July 16 2013 13:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 16 2013 12:22 Feartheguru wrote:On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law. Yes but that is just regular self-defense. "Stand Your Ground" laws say basically (minor differences between states) that if you are attacked and feel you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury but there is also the option to retreat, you can "stand your ground" and use lethal force in self-defense lawfully. Several other states have laws that say if you have the option to retreat, you must try to do that before you can use lethal force. Otherwise it's involuntary manslaughter at the least. Statistically it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether a state has "Stand Your Ground" laws or not but when they were passed gun-control advocates (some of them) made dire predictions of Wild-West shootouts if they were passed. Well, gun violence didn't go up after they were passed. It continued slightly downward like it has for a while. But some people think "Stand Your Ground" gives people too much leeway to lawfully kill another person, and it was a possible defense for Zimmerman. With gun-control advocates wanting guns to be on the front burner again, it became a larger part of the circus around this case than it otherwise would have been. If you started a fight and then were losing badly and thought you were going to be killed or seriously hurt, you could argue self-defense if you shot who you were fighting with, but not claim that it was a "stand your ground" situation. Most self-defense defenses require that you not be engaged in an illegal activity for it to hold. If you instigate a physical confrontation, even without the intent to kill, you are probably engaging in some form of aggravated assault, thus nullifying any self-defense claim. Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense. Actually, in this case it probably didn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. + Show Spoiler +A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. There's no discussion if Martin started the fight if it was self-defense. If Zimmerman started the fight, he still has the right to self-defense because Martin escalated it to the point where he feared for his life.
We were answering hypothetical questions about self-defense from another poster, not this case specifically. However, the evidence presented in this particular case suggested that it was Martin that actually instigated the physical confrontation.
Edit; However, the first clause of that statement would make a self-defense argument tough, if you could argue that GZ was engaged in aggravated assault (starting a physical fight) as that constitutes a "forcible felony" in Florida. However, as mentioned above, the evidence presented in this case suggests it was TM that started the physical confrontation.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.08.html
|
On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Its the foundation of the US justice system. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is in line with the philosophy that it is better to let the guilty go free rather than imprison the innocent.
The states burden was to present an undoubted case showing no self defense and intent (for murder) or unnecessary killing for manslaughter. Instead they were only able to inject some doubt in defenses case, at best. This did not meet the standard as dictated by law and tradition therefore the only choice was acquittal.
|
On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
The default position is that it is better to let ten criminals go free than to throw an innocent man in prison.
|
On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden is on the defense.
Zimmerman was able to convince the jurors that he was in a significantly threatened position through things like the injuries he sustained at the time, the audio of someone calling for help (that apparently most jurors believed was Zimmerman), and how the testimony from various witnesses overlaid with other evidence (such the bullet trajectory/wound).
You cannot simply say it was self-defense and force the prosecution to refute you; you must present enough evidence to convince the jury.
|
On July 16 2013 14:16 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence. The default position is that it is better to let ten criminals go free than to throw an innocent man in prison.
I would agree with this. However in New York the burden of proof on self defense is on the defense. The defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their act was justified. I think that standard is really harsh for self defense given the principle we established off preferring to let innocent people go free. I'm pretty sure there are other states with similar burdens of proof.
|
On July 16 2013 14:19 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:16 Artax wrote:On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence. The default position is that it is better to let ten criminals go free than to throw an innocent man in prison. I would agree with this. However in New York the burden of proof on self defense is on the defense. The defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their act was justified. I think that standard is really harsh for self defense given the principle we established off preferring to let innocent people go free. I'm pretty sure there are other states with similar burdens of proof.
Frankly, New York has been the laughing stock of fair legal proceedings in the US.
|
Hundreds of people protesting the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial marched onto the eastbound Interstate 10 near Arlington Avenue (map) on Sunday, shutting down the freeway for more than 30 minutes and clashing with police, authorities said.
Los Angeles Police Department officers fired bean bags at protesters after some people threw objects at officers, LAPD Commander Andrew Smith told NBC4. Video shot by protesters showed police officers striking protesters with batons.
Source
|
Most self-defense defenses require that you not be engaged in an illegal activity for it to hold. If you instigate a physical confrontation, even without the intent to kill, you are probably engaging in some form of aggravated assault, thus nullifying any self-defense claim.
That's a prosecutor's argument, it's up to a judge or the jury and sometimes both to decide that. I'll stick with the defense argument.
People have been acquitted and others convicted arguing self-defense where the only initial crime they committed was starting a fight and they said they were not fighting to kill but at some point their victim did start to fight to kill.
Prosecutors and judges and juries have to and do decide all the time if force used was excessive or severe in some way to decide what charges to file / allow / convict on. They also use that discernment when making their conclusions about a self-defense claim where a fight began that the defendant claims was not exactly unprovoked. Or that his victim got the upper hand and used excessive force so he had no choice.
You can't just beat someone to death or deliberately (and unnecessarily) break their legs or arms and things like that because they started a fight with you. Under the law you only have the right to use enough force to get yourself out of danger. If some drunk jerk starts something with you and you teach him a lesson, you can't keep on going just because he started it. If you're stomping his face into the floor and he pulls a gun and shoots you and he never tried to stomp your face into the floor or something equivalent, he has a self-defense claim. Usually there are more witnesses to fights like Zimmerman and Martin so it's possible to find out with more or less certainty who was doing what to who and when.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different.
|
I think we are confusing people more than helping, because we are discussing two different things simultaneously. "Stand your ground" laws (not used in the Zimmerman case, but was brought up by the media, esp in the beginning) are not the same as a self-defense argument in court. The topics deal with similar situations, so it's natural that they would come up together.
However, some "stand your ground" laws (like those in Florida) actually grant immunity from arrest or prosecution, so it is up to the police to conduct an investigation and generate probable cause before making an arrest when "stand your ground" laws are invoked.
person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties
Except you can't shoot on a cop on duty. Don't do that.
http://floridastandyourground.org/
|
On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote:
Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different.
This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this.
If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 16 2013 14:45 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote:
Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different. This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this. If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same.
Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this:
conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points
Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case.
|
On July 16 2013 14:18 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote:
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances... I don't know enough about standards of evidence. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden is on the defense. Zimmerman was able to convince the jurors that he was in a significantly threatened position through things like the injuries he sustained at the time, the audio of someone calling for help (that apparently most jurors believed was Zimmerman), and how the testimony from various witnesses overlaid with other evidence (such the bullet trajectory/wound). You cannot simply say it was self-defense and force the prosecution to refute you; you must present enough evidence to convince the jury.
Burden is not on the defense.
|
Protest: LAPD Declares Unlawful Assembly
Protesters marched through Los Angeles along Crenshaw Boulevard near Leimert Park on Monday night, the second night of protests following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Florida. Aerial video caught some throwing rocks, attacking people and clashing with police.
Just before 10 p.m., the Los Angeles Police Department declared the protest an unlawful assembly and dispersed the gathering, an LAPD spokesman said. The area quickly cleared and officers detained several people.
A majority of protesters were gathered at Leimert Park (map), but a violent group has split off and walked up and down surrounding streets, rushing into businesses, attacking pedestrians and bicyclists and throwing objects at police.
"It originally started out as a peaceful protest, as they all have, and we certainly support that - in fact encourage people to peacefully protest, exercise their First Amendment rights," said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith told NBC4's Beverly White. "But what happened here unfortunately is some people took this as an opportunity to break into buildings, to jump on cars, to commit acts of vandalism, to assault other people and to commit some thefts from some of the buildings here."
LAPD officers appeared to use rubber bullets or bean bag weapons against some of the protesters at one point.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has tweeted: "I commend the prayer rally attendees in Leimert Park for practicing peace. I call on people in street on Crenshaw to follow their example."
LAPD Chief Charlie Beck tweeted: "Violence is never the answer. Urging all protestors around LA 2let peace prevail.This is OUR City and we need to work 2gether 2 preserve it"
Monday marked the second night of protests in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch captain who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old in a Sanford, Fla., gated community.
The case fueled a national debate about race, guns and Florida's "stand-your-ground" law that broadens the definition of self-defense and the legal scope of the use of firearms in exercising it.
In Oakland on Monday, a group of protesters briefly blocked Interstate 880.
On Sunday night in Los Angeles, police made arrests and issued citations during demonstrations across LA on Sunday.
At one point, protesters blocked Interstate 10 at Arlington Boulevard for more than 30 minutes. At another, a group broke off and walked into the W Hotel, causing some $15,000 in damage to the lobby, said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith, a department spokesman.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Protesters-March-Through-Streets-215618071.html
|
On July 16 2013 14:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:45 Velocirapture wrote:On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote:
Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different. This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this. If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same. Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this: conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case.
I don't think I exaggerate when it comes to the letter of the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty but it is the highest possible standard for understanding anything that can't be directly observed. If you need to rely on manipulating juries toward irrational judgements, no matter how reliable this method is, to moderate the application of this type of "justice" then we need to rework the rules.
As the law stands, the only things standing between us and gross murderous abuse is the incompetence of criminals and the incompetence of juries. Sad thought.
On a side note it is good to see that different states have different ways of tackling the balance between victims rights and vigilante justice.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 16 2013 15:25 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 14:54 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 14:45 Velocirapture wrote:On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote:
Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different. This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this. If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same. Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this: conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case. I don't think I exaggerate when it comes to the letter of the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty but it is the highest possible standard for understanding anything that can't be directly observed. If you need to rely on manipulating juries toward irrational judgements, no matter how reliable this method is, to moderate the application of this type of "justice" then we need to rework the rules. As the law stands, the only things standing between us and gross murderous abuse is the incompetence of criminals and the incompetence of juries. Sad thought. On a side note it is good to see that different states have different ways of tackling the balance between victims rights and vigilante justice.
In almost every single criminal case, the defendant is pretty clearly guilty and they are treated as such by the prosecution. I wouldn't say the system is broken because of a few false positives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
