Renault on 15/7/2013 at 14:00
I believe Zimmerman said he (Martin) was reaching for his (Zimmerman's) gun and said something like "now you're going to die mofo", and at that point he (Zimmerman) pulled the gun himself and shot the guy.
But yeah, without a witness, who knows what really happened.
SubJeff on 15/7/2013 at 14:09
Its an interesting and confusing one, no?
On one hand I think that if that is true then Zimmerman did what he had to, but on the other hand when he called the police they explicitly told him to stay in his car and if he hadn't got out he wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.
It's almost analogous to tackling a burglar - you can't just beat, stab or shoot someone. But if they are in your house they made the decision to enter your house so arguably its on them.
demagogue on 15/7/2013 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Phatose
The typically requirement is "reasonably believes". So not only do you have to believe it, but any reasonable person would have to believe it too.
No the standard for conviction in the US is "guilt beyond all reasonable doubt", which means the jury has to *know* with crazy certainty that the person is guilty to convict, and the burden is on the prosecution to meet that standard, or the presumption is innocence and he walks. And any plausible doubt no matter how dumb or unlikely will be enough to defeat that standard, as long as it's not just absurd or impossible on its face.
As for "making up any old story", to be more accurate, the defendant doesn't have to say any story at all to meet the presumption of innocence. The burden is completely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It's not like they even need any old story. The defendants' witness can just stare at the ceiling and if the prosecution doesn't meet the standard he walks.
Chimpy Chompy on 15/7/2013 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
but on the other hand when he called the police they explicitly told him to stay in his car
Nah, they said "we don't need you to do that", not "don't do that".
Phatose on 15/7/2013 at 14:23
I was referring specifically to the requirement for using lethal force as self defense.
You can sue anybody for anything. Filing a suit and actually winning it are two very different things.
Renault on 15/7/2013 at 14:27
A lot of people here are outraged, and maybe the guy was a racist, but I really can't buy the argument that the guy was like "think I'm going to go out and shoot a black guy today." I have to think if he pulled the trigger, then he felt seriously threatened. He didn't run or panic or anything afterwards, he had already called the police so they knew exactly who he was. There's pictures of his face all bloody, so he did take some kind of beating, unless he just punched himself in the face. I thought there was a witness too who saw Martin on top of him beating him up.
He was definitely overzealous in pursuing Martin, but should that fact get you a Manslaughter charge?
There used to be an "equal force" type of law, which basically said if someone breaks into your house with a knife, you can just blow them away with a gun. Not sure if that holds true anymore.
<--not a lawyer
Scots Taffer on 15/7/2013 at 14:47
Quote Posted by Brethren
<--not a lawyer
^ don't believe the opposite was anyone's thinking
Renzatic on 15/7/2013 at 15:18
Quote Posted by Brethren
He was definitely overzealous in pursuing Martin, but should that fact get you a Manslaughter charge?
Yes, because he instigated the situation. Him shooting Martin in self defense is beside the point. He never would've had to pull his gun if he didn't start the confrontation in the first place.
This is, of course, assuming Zimmerman made the opening move. If he didn't, and Martin jumped him as he was walking back to his car like he claimed, then it is self defense.
Muzman on 15/7/2013 at 15:42
Quote Posted by Vivian
wait wait wait, what? So I could shoot you and all I would have to prove is that I felt threatened by you? How the hell is that enforceable?
Quote Posted by Phatose
The typically requirement is "reasonably believes". So not only do you have to believe it, but any reasonable person would have to believe it too.
The additional wrinkle is that the second part only applies if the claim is tested in court. Which, thanks to various things, is something the police have often decided not to do. This one would not have been without enormous public outcry.
(just for Vivs context)
