This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Whacker]

I haven't declared him innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty. And I think proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a tall order. Is it unreasonable to ask if it's possible that the police and DA's office- the people that actually were on the scene -took a look at the situation and the evidence and concluded that the chances of conviction were so slim that it would be a waste of taxpayer funds.

Can we acknowledge the possibility that he wasn't charged for good reason instead of because of corruption or incompetence? The reason he finally was charged was pretty obviously due to political pressure.

Here's Alan Dershowitz calling the arrest affidavit "unethical and irresponsible":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=i4fr5QwG63M#!

Oh, do shut up, and stop trying to derail the race baiter's agenda. You silly person!

[Lemur]

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.

[rvg]

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.

The problem is that the case was opened for the sole reason of pleasing the lynch mob.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is that the case was opened for the sole reason of pleasing the lynch mob.

The reason their is a lynch mob is because of the failure to prosecute - in fact I would go so far as to say that the dubious failure to bring charges has most harmed Zimmerman.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Whacker]

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.

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.

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.

Completely agree, based on what I wrote above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

Not in public - if he invades your home, then yes, perhaps a trial would not be warrented, provided you did not shoot him in the back.

[rvg]

Not in public - if he invades your home, then yes, perhaps a trial would not be warrented, provided you did not shoot him in the back.

But that's your personal opinion. Florida law isn't supposed to operate based on personal opinions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But that's your personal opinion. Florida law isn't supposed to operate based on personal opinions.

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.

[Sir Moody]

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?

[rvg]

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.

Anglo-Saxon principles <> U.S. Laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anglo-Saxon principles <> U.S. Laws.

Only so long as those laws remain on US Statute books - repeal a law and it's back to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for you.

[rvg]

Only so long as those laws remain on US Statute books

Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

[gaelic cowboy]

Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

Dunno why your arguing against PVC here cos it doesnt have to be about Anglo-Saxon blah blah to cop that looking for a fight is not covered by any self defence law I ever heard of.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

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.

[rvg]

...looking for a fight is not covered by any self defence law I ever heard of...

Who says he was looking for a fight?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who says he was looking for a fight?

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

[Vladimir]

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

Oh dear Lord. He was walking back to the car, or was he? You're just as guilty of prejudging this case as the others are. Don't try skipping to the back page

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh dear Lord. He was walking back to the car, or was he? You're just as guilty of prejudging this case as the others are. Don't try skipping to the back page

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.

[rvg]

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

This is speculation on your part with zero evidence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is speculation on your part with zero evidence.

Which part?

[rvg]

Which part?

This:

...looking for a fight

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This:

Then what was he looking for.

The alternative is that Martin decided to beat him up just for giggles, without provocation.

Far more likely he was provoked - even if his reaction was then completely unreasonable.

[rvg]

Then what was he looking for.

Whatever he said he was looking for. There's no proof to suspect otherwise.

The alternative is that Martin decided to beat him up just for giggles, without provocation.

Okay.

[Xiahou]

Basically Zimmerman's account looks more and more likely with the only question being - who started it?

And more importantly, for anyone thinking of prosecuting the case... How on earth can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And more importantly, for anyone thinking of prosecuting the case... How on earth can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it?

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.

[rvg]

I would suggest by demonstrating Martin was not a sociopath.

This won't mean anything.

If Martin has no history of unprovoked violent attacks then it seems highly unlikely he started it.

That would be true only if Zimmerman had a history of unprovoked attacks.

What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.

He said he was. That is sufficient.

The burden of proof here actually is on Zimmerman

Not in this country.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He said he was. That is sufficient.

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.

[rvg]

I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

[Lemur]

you've got our justice system backwards.

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).

What I'm asking is if you think it's conceivable that the police/DA's office did not charge Zimmerman with good reason.

All things are conceivable.

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?

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.

I have stated that there should not be a trial *IF* the prosecutor's office determines that they cannot make a case.

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.