LesserFollies on 15/7/2013 at 18:07
A hopeful counterpoint to Dia's scary experience-- I live in a racially diverse neighborhood, about 30% white, 30% black, 30% Hispanic, with Thai and Vietnamese families as well. I just got back from the local grocery store, and there was a palpable feeling of openness. People were talking to differently-colored strangers much more than normal, and everyone seemed to be looking at and acknowledging others more than usual. It was... unexpected, and encouraging.
Pyrian on 15/7/2013 at 22:50
Quote Posted by Brethren
He was definitely overzealous in pursuing Martin, but should that fact get you a Manslaughter charge?
Armed men stalking kids? In most states that's illegal right off the bat. Merely discharging a firearm in the course of stalking said underage, unarmed kid could get you 20 years, easily.
demagogue on 15/7/2013 at 23:09
Quote Posted by demagogue
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".
Sorry I was reading too fast, so ignore what I posted before. Self defense is an affirmative defense, so after the prosecution meets its burden that Zimmerman shot Martin, which was trivial, then the burden shifts to the defendant to establish self defense as an affirmative defense.
The thing is that states differ on the burden, but I'm pretty sure the mental state of the defendant by itself is never going to be enough and it has to be reasonably grounded in the objective situation too. E.g., you could have a schizophrenic that genuinely believes someone is coming at him with a knife, so lethal counter-force would be reasonable from his point of view, but it's not grounded in the situation so I can't imagine it meeting the self-defense burden.
As for "any old story", so Zimmerman has the burden to prove his case. The level that the jury has to believe it to meet the burden varies, sometimes the standard for some claims is "more likely than not", which means its more than 50% likely it happened than it didn't, and sometimes the standard is higher like preponderance of the evidence or clear & convincing (and beyond all reasonable doubt is the highest).
Because I haven't seen the actual standard written down, I don't know how well established the evidence had to be for the jury to say it met that burden to establish the affirmative defense, but I think it's in the preponderance or clear & convincing range... So just any old story by itself won't be enough to meet that burden. There needs to be some evidence to back up the story (although it includes witness testimony & the jury's own intuitions how credible it is with everything else they know; so the testimony is an important part).
jay pettitt on 16/7/2013 at 00:39
Remind me how the law was protecting Zimmerman Martin again. 'Cos you can't have folk just going around shooting each other.
faetal on 16/7/2013 at 08:16
Quote Posted by demagogue
As for "any old story", so Zimmerman has the burden to prove his case. The level that the jury has to believe it to meet the burden varies, sometimes the standard for some claims is "more likely than not", which means its more than 50% likely it happened than it didn't, and sometimes the standard is higher like preponderance of the evidence or clear & convincing (and beyond all reasonable doubt is the highest).
Isn't part of the role of any good defence lawyer to turn "any old story" into "something plausible"?
Either way, with the patchy and conflicting witness reports, it was Zimmerman's canvas to paint. I'm not saying that makes him guilty and that he wasn't genuinely acting in self-defence, but it sure as fuck makes me glad I don't live in a country which allows its citizens to carry firearms and has stupid laws like SYG. Because the ambiguity in these things is colossal and I'd prefer that assailants who possess knowledge of said ambiguity be armed with things I can run away from. That said, Martin would have been equally fucked if Zimmerman had a knife.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/7/2013 at 08:51
I thought SYG wasn't used here? Just regular old self defense.
Muzman on 16/7/2013 at 09:05
Stand your Ground is part of Florida's expanded self defense definition. It always applies unless proven not to.
From the judge's jury instructions;
Quote:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
(
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf)
There's no law against following and confronting black kids for no reason, while armed.
SubJeff on 16/7/2013 at 10:37
Quote Posted by Muzman
There's no law against following and confronting black kids for no reason, while armed.
This is rather the nub of it all. It's all very well saying he confronted Martin because he was black, and it's likely true, but that isn't really the issue.
What is the issue is what happened thereafter.
As regards "racial profiling"; a friend of mine who lives in London is just about the only person he knows in London who has not been mugged, assaulted or otherwise had a crime perpetrated or attempted against them including his last three girlfriends. And every single one of these incidents that has happened to people he knows, bar none, has been by a black male or multiple black males. These people live all over London, so you can't say "that's a particular known crime area that just happens to have a high black population".
I'm not jumping to any conclusions about anyone here, and I think it wrong to pigeonhole people by race etc, but imagine being this guy. It's anecdotal information and I've told him that. He understands the stats, he knows that you shouldn't jump to conclusions and he's not prejudiced against anyone, normally. But he admits that he cannot help being wary of black men in London because of this and I don't know that I can really criticise him for that.
Muzman on 16/7/2013 at 10:59
I don't really know what that's got to do with this. Zimmerman was being far more specific and is pretty plainly a paranoid loon with badge envy straight out of Observe and Report.
But you can criticise someone for being irrational and illogical. That's easy. Doesn't matter if it's understandable on some level. It's still dumb.
SubJeff on 16/7/2013 at 11:06
What I'm saying is we don't know what his experiences were. What if there had been 100 crimes in the last year and 95% had been perpetrated by young black males? You can call suspecting someone based on race dumb all you want, and if that is all you are going on they you are right, but this is pretty contextual stuff, no?
