So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Verityn]

I think if Zimmerman walks scott free we'll see a lot more of these cases. Basically, in theory a lot of people can murder someone just by getting someone to attack them and then shooting them in the face. There has been a somewhat similar case where someone invited a neighbor over at night and then shot them dead for trespassing. Fortunately, it didn't work. Either way the precedence that this case produces could be very bad.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not really following this case, but I'm confused. I can carry a gun, follow you, shoot you, and then the burden of proof is on a prosecutor to establish that I wasn't defending myself? Is all of the self defense evidence coming from the killer's testimony? This seems like really bad precedent.

pretty much. zimmerman is required to provide evidence that he acted in self defense. he doesn't need to convince anyone of his self defense though -- he just needs to create a reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self defense, based in evidence.

and that shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor, to prove that there is no reasonable doubt.

in this case, there's no evidence to disprove self defense

[Hasbinfat]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not really following this case, but I'm confused. I can carry a gun, follow you, shoot you, and then the burden of proof is on a prosecutor to establish that I wasn't defending myself? Is all of the self defense evidence coming from the killer's testimony? This seems like really bad precedent.

When you word it like that, it sounds bad, but it's really the only way that is fair.

The prosecutors are charging him with second degree murder, so the burden of proof is on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder. If you are going to charge someone with something, you better have enough evidence to prove it.

If Zimmerman's team is able to lawyer out of the charges with dumbshit trickery, contrived self-defense scenarios, and other fringe evidence, that just means the prosecution had shit for evidence.

What would you do instead?

[Rhambuk]

the "justice" system is fuckin bullshit....

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Verityn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think if Zimmerman walks scott free we'll see a lot more of these cases. Basically, in theory a lot of people can murder someone just by getting someone to attack them and then shooting them in the face. There has been a somewhat similar case where someone invited a neighbor over at night and then shot them dead for trespassing. Fortunately, it didn't work. Either way the precedence that this case produces could be very bad.

good rule of thumb: don't assault anyone and you don't open yourself up to that possibility

if you allow yourself to be goaded into felony assault, you're already putting yourself in a precarious situation. self defense precedence won't change that

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or does the law say it's okay to murder if you first incite violence in your victim? I'm not from Florida I dunno.

Unfortunately, some of this comes down to what Florida law says. Different states define assault and such differently. Hell, pointing a finger at someone is a physical threat somewhere I believe. The thing is, if Martin did knock Zimmerman to the ground at all, I'm afraid you could claim the right to use deadly force in self-defense about anywhere. And there doesn't seem to be much as far as prosecution witnesses to show that Martin acted in some sort of self defense. And the one "girl" on the phone with Martin who called Zimmerman a "cracker" in front of 5 white jurors isn't going to help.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

good rule of thumb: don't assault anyone and you don't open yourself up to that possibility

Better rule: shoot that motherfucker and then hit yourself with a brick.

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

here's the facts: that's not quite what happened. there was a string of break-ins in the neighbourhood, so they stepped up their neighbourhood watch. zimmerman started packing. he spotted one of the thieves and really wanted to bust him.

here's where it's zimmerman's word: the thief ran away and hid, and then ambushed zimmerman when zimmerman turned to return to his car. the thief started beating him and threatened his life. zimmerman capped him.

live like a thug, die like a thug.

Or (and too bad Martin isn't alive to say this), someone was following me, he didn't identify himself as a police officer, so I ran and hid. He looked white to me at first so maybe he had it out for me. This neighborhood is mostly whiteys. If this guy wants to hurt me, I'm going to defend myself. I'm tired of always watching what I say or do around the man.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even as someone who has paid the attention little attention, I can see a case made that the older, supposedly trained Zimmerman should have known how to handle the situation without killing Martin. That's all it takes for 2nd degree murder. This is not CSI. You do not an eye-witness to contradict Zimmerman. You do not need evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account, even. You need to establish that Zimmerman knew he was doing something reckless which could lead to this ultimately tragic outcome, and did not take the steps he knew could prevent that outcome. If that's not how it's being prosecuted then they bad.

Or does the law say it's okay to murder if you first incite violence in your victim? I'm not from Florida I dunno.

you're ascribing a level of responsibility to zimmerman that has no foundation in law. even if he knew that being an obnoxious busybody could lead to violence, he isn't liable for that violence simply for being obnoxious. and even if he could have potentially escaped without killing trayvon, he's not required to try. as soon as he felt his life was in danger, he was justified to use deadly force.

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Verityn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think if Zimmerman walks scott free we'll see a lot more of these cases. Basically, in theory a lot of people can murder someone just by getting someone to attack them and then shooting them in the face. There has been a somewhat similar case where someone invited a neighbor over at night and then shot them dead for trespassing. Fortunately, it didn't work. Either way the precedence that this case produces could be very bad.

This happens across the country all the time already though. Any Stand your Ground law state.