CCCToad on 18/7/2013 at 03:53

---

Anyone heard the more recent interview? Apparently Trayvon was "just layin down some whoopass"

demagogue on 18/7/2013 at 07:35

---

To be precise about this (as I recall it), self-defense is what they call an affirmative defense, which means the defendant has the burden to prove his case, and if he doesn't (or it's a complete unknown and a draw), the defendant loses.

This is all after the prosecution has already met its burden of proof that the defendant actually met the elements for murder 2, so the new default is he's guilty now. And then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it was in self defense. So technically speaking, if it's a draw and it's not clear what happened, in legal terms it means whoever has the burden of proof doesn't meet it (which is the defendant here) and the current "default" wins, which in this case means that he'd be guilty of murder 2.

To put it another way, if it's the case for who commits the murder in the first place, a draw or total unknown means the defendant wins. But on the argument whether it was self defense or not (an "affirmative" defense), a draw or total unknown means the prosecution wins (since they already met their burden to show he committed the killing).

This is all a long way to say that the jury had to actually believe Zimmerman's story & that the evidence established that it was really in self-defense, not that they didn't know one way or another so they just let him get the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the prosecution would get the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: That said, I believe the burden of proof for self-defense is lighter than the burden to prove guilt. To prove guilt, it has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt", a very high burden to meet. But for self-defense, it may be more like "the preponderance of the evidence supports his story" or something like that, an much easier burden to meet.

faetal on 18/7/2013 at 10:11

---

SubjEff - totally agree.

I get (but don't sympathise with) why Zimmerman decided to profile Martin if there has been a lot of crime in the area. Sure, it's prejudice, but that thought in itself isn't a crime. He should have called it in and waited for the police. I also get why the jury had to find him not guilty if there wasn't enough evidence to do otherwise - fine, that's the role of a justice system.

What I can't get past is all of the character assassination of the dead guy which seems to serve little purpose other than to make people feel better about the fucked up situation where a large number of people in the US walk around armed with guns. See, it's ok if Zimmerman was well within his god given right to carry and to use that gun, because Martin was a bracelet-stealing, pot-smoking ne'er do well that clearly brought this on himself and Zimmerman was just a good old working class citizen trying to do his bit for his neighbours' safety.

The fact that without gun ownership, this would likely have all ended very differently is probably going to be uncomfortable for a lot of people, because shit like this exists everywhere - with vigilantes over-extending their remit, the difference is that this guy had a gun and a concealed carry permit.

I suppose no one is allowing consideration for the idea that Martin saw the gun and realised that his life was in danger? Wouldn't that justify him using all necessary force to defend himself from the creepy guy pursuing him for no reason? Oh that's right, his side of the story never got told, because guns.

Also, if Martin's past can be used to justify why Zimmerman thought he was acting 'off', the Zimmerman's violent past can be used as justification to suppose that he incited the whole thing. Point is that neither are relevant.

faetal on 18/7/2013 at 11:39

---

That's the problem, no one know what happened, hence the acquittal. He wasn't acquitted because it is known that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was just defending himself, but some people are behaving like it is known in order to create a narrative that pleases them.

I'm mildly surprised that the NRA haven't suggested that this all could have been averted if Martin was armed too.

Queue on 18/7/2013 at 11:52

---

Just like everyone automatically knows this was racism from the start because a black kid was shot by a white Hispanic guy. ... yet there were only two people involved. But face it, everyone knows. It's that whole omnipotence things that everyone has.

jay-- Martin would have been allowed to shoot Zimmerman, if Zimmerman were the one banging Martin's head against the pavement.


(edit) Is this what you're talking about, ccctoad? Thanks for the link, btw...I had fun searching this one out. [video=youtube;zvvuJ5ofuPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zvvuJ5ofuPg[/video]

Fucking Rush. ...it's a crying shame he's right.