Gents, by stating there should be no trial, you are effectively declaring the defendant's innocence. Based on what you have heard or read in the dreaded, despised media. Get a grip.
There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Once more, I'm not declaring his innocence- you've got our justice system backwards. What I'm asking is if you think it's conceivable that the police/DA's office did not charge Zimmerman with good reason.
So, is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion? If your answer is "yes", who determines that threshold? The police? The news media? Eric Holder?
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
Wrong.
I have stated that there should not be a trial *IF* the prosecutor's office determines that they cannot make a case. This is a simple fact, if you don't believe me go talk to your local district attorney and they will tell you how it works. With the current legal system in the US and the realization that there is, in the vast majority of cases, a massive backlog of legal workload at the government level. Put all of these together and one realizes why there is such an incentive for prosecutors to plead people out where possible, and only take absolutely surefire cases to court which there is a possibility of winning. Doing otherwise is not a good use of their time and resources, which are extremely scarce. You've repeatedly mentioned that the courts are where they sort things out, again this is false. The whole point of going to trial is that both sides have their facts, views, opinions, and arguments down pat and are reasonably self-assured of success. This is the whole point of the discovery process. The courtroom is where arguments are presented and the jury decides based on that. Bottom line, if the prosecution thinks or had thought that they have enough evidence that he was guilty and to convict him, then absolutely go ahead. If not, then no. It always has been and will remain my unshakeable belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to take an innocent man's freedom or life.
Completely agree, based on what I wrote above.There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
It's also a failry widely recognised Anglo-Saxon principle - that you have abetter legal defence if you didn't go looking for a fight.
Zimmerman was looking for something - and if he thought it was a thief he should have called the cops.
Here's a question to consider: If Martin was wailing on Zimmerman so hard how did Zimmerman shoot him?
Seems like maybe Martin beat him down then backed off and Zimmerman shot him.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
I just looked it up - Martin was shot at Intermediate range - which is Forensics speak for between a few inches and around 3 feet - basically point blank but not touching
Basically Zimmerman's account looks more and more likely with the only question being - who started it?
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Ugh.
Look - you have an Anglo-Saxon legal system, when trying this case one of the questions the Judge has to consider is the precedent when interpreting whether Zimmerman was acting in accordance with the law or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_..._.281775_on.29
Common Law is so pervasive that it was the US Supreme Court (in a Common Law judgement) that determined there was no Federal Common Law above State Commone Law.
So, when I talk about "Anglo-Saxon" principles I am talking about the bedrock of your legal system.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Why was he out of the car?
The intial story from the Police was more suspicious than subsequent versions - based on the initial story he should have been immidiately charged.
If he had been immidiately charged those charges might have been dropped by now, or not, the point is that failing to charge him has in every way made the situation worse.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
And more importantly, for anyone thinking of prosecuting the case... How on earth can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it?Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Last edited by Xiahou; 05-17-2012 at 20:15.
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
I would suggest by demonstrating Martin was not a sociopath.
If Martin has no history of unprovoked violent attacks then it seems highly unlikely he started it.
What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.
The burden of proof here actually is on Zimmerman, because he has to demonstrate that his manslaughter was not murder - he is not disputing having killed Martin, the question is whether that killing was justified and the law usually assumes it isn't.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
This won't mean anything.
That would be true only if Zimmerman had a history of unprovoked attacks.If Martin has no history of unprovoked violent attacks then it seems highly unlikely he started it.
He said he was. That is sufficient.What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.
Not in this country.The burden of proof here actually is on Zimmerman
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.
Zimmerman is clearly guilty of murder unless he can demonstrate self defence as a legal defence, that's the same in the US as elsewhere.
Frankly, I think he's probably guilty of whatever passes for manslaughter in Florida on the grounds of diminished responsibility and should probably get about five years.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
It's true that we presume innocence, as is right and proper. However, when you have indisputably killed a stranger, the burden of proof starts to fall on you. You simply cannot kill another citizen and not face serious questions (most probably a trial).
All things are conceivable.
Who said anything about "murder"? There are many situations in which you can kill another human being and not be charged with murder. Some of them fall under OSHA rules, actually. But the idea that you can kill another human being and not be investigated thoroughly is offensive to many.
That's fair, but weren't you also stating earlier in the thread that there should be no charges or trial unless the evidence was crystal-clear? I'm on deadline, so no time to look back through the thread, but someone was arguing that unless guilt was 100% transparently clear, there should be no charges or trial. This seems dubious to me. What about confusing and murky cases? Should they never be tried?
Look, if I shoot a man, I will be investigated. I will also probably be charged with reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, or use of a fierarm while in violation of the Mann act while naked on a motorcycle and intoxicated. "Murder," as a legal concept, usually involves malice and/or premeditation. Just one option.
To go back to the question of when charges should not be filed, I'd say if there is a thorough investigation and the situation is both obvious and clearly self-defense, then charges should probably not be filed. I think the Florida case fails on the "thorough investigation" front. I could hazard some other guesses, based on what I've read, but haven't we done quite enough of that already?
The case is going to trial. Zimmerman and his defense team will have their fair say. I hope the jury is impartial and the judge fair.
Bookmarks