Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Probably the culture of "innocent until proven guilty" that pervades the mind of many fair-minded people.

good luck - that whole notion is discounted by the true skeptics in this thread

 

[johnny karate]

Probably the culture of "innocent until proven guilty" that pervades the mind of many fair-minded people.

Accept that Zimmerman is making a positive claim. And last time, I checked, in the realm of skeptical thinkers, positive claims required substantiation.

 

[johnny karate]

good luck - that whole notion is discounted by the true skeptics in this thread

Are you as confused about the difference between a positive and negative claim as Newton's Bit appears to be?

Zimmerman isn't saying "I didn't do it". If so, then yes, the evidence would have to prove otherwise.

Zimmerman is saying "I did it out of self-defense". That is a positive claim. It requires substantiation.

 

[johnny karate]

Let me try to rephrase it: if he were actually innocent, but there is no eyewitness like it is the case now, how would he be able to prove that he actually is innocent if we begin our assessment with the assumption that he has a motive to lie and that therefore what he says is suspect?

I'm not sure it's anyone's problem but Zimmerman's to make his case. But if we gave every suspected murderer the same benefit of the doubt, every murder case would begin and end with the suspect taking the stand and saying "I didn't do it".

 

[Mumbles]

I'm curious - if GZ carried his gun all the time - Like going to the store, etc - does that change anything in your mind ?

IOW, would the fact that GZ went everywhere armed make his actions any less egregious than if he had specifically run home to grab his gun before coming back to follow TM ?

Actually, I'd consider his actions egregious even if he didn't have a gun at all. Who on earth gets out of their car to chase someone that they find "suspicious", based on their walking down the street and looking around?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Are you as confused about the difference between a positive and negative claim as Newton's Bit appears to be?

Zimmerman isn't saying "I didn't do it". If so, then yes, the evidence would have to prove otherwise.

Zimmerman is saying "I did it out of self-defense". That is a positive claim. It requires substantiation.

of course the counter claim to self defense is "It was murder/manslaughter" which also a positive claim requiring substantiation

 

[Moss]

I'm not sure it's anyone's problem but Zimmerman's to make his case. But if we gave every suspected murderer the same benefit of the doubt, every murder case would begin and end with the suspect taking the stand and saying "I didn't do it".

Err, you do realize that something is going wrong when an innocent gets convicted because he was unable to verify this innocence via physical evidence or third party testimony?
And afaik we are giving murderers that benefit of the doubt. The prosecution does have to build a case against them and prove that they did the deed.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm curious - if GZ carried his gun all the time - Like going to the store, etc - does that change anything in your mind ?

IOW, would the fact that GZ went everywhere armed make his actions any less egregious than if he had specifically run home to grab his gun before coming back to follow TM ?

Yes, going home to specifically get his gun would be more egregious, but that doesn't absolve him of all responsibility. This idea that he carries his gun around all the time so it's not really a big deal is ridiculous.

Guns are dangerous weapons and demand a certain amount of responsibility and accountability from those who carry them. And as gun-owner, Zimmerman has an obligation to behave responsibly when carrying his weapon. Instead, he chose to behave recklessly and irresponsibly.

 

[johnny karate]

Err, you do realize that something is going wrong when an innocent gets convicted because he was unable to verify this innocence via physical evidence or third party testimony?
And afaik we are giving murderers that benefit of the doubt. The prosecution does have to build a case against them and prove that they did the deed.

When I referred to the "same benefit of the doubt", I was referring specifically to taking Zimmerman's account at face value. In a murder trial, the state must of course prove their case, but no one is required to automatically believe the suspect's version of events. Particularly in cases of affirmative defense.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, going home to specifically get his gun would be more egregious, but that doesn't absolve him of all responsibility. This idea that he carries his gun around all the time so it's not really a big deal is ridiculous.

That's fine.

You'll note I didn't claim it would absolve him or make it not a big deal.

Guns are dangerous weapons and demand a certain amount of responsibility and accountability from those who carry them. And as gun-owner, Zimmerman has an obligation to behave responsibly when carrying his weapon. Instead, he chose to behave recklessly and irresponsibly.

Yes, it's quite clear you believe he behaved recklessly and irresponsibly.

Have we determined that GZ actually did anything counter to any gun training he received, or any classes he might have had to take prior to receiving a CCP ? I mean, is there a CCP course which describes how you should never follow someone you believe is suspicious or something similar ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Particularly in cases of affirmative defense.

I don't think it's been even close to determined that this case will require any type of affirmative defense.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actually, I'd consider his actions egregious even if he didn't have a gun at all. Who on earth gets out of their car to chase someone that they find "suspicious", based on their walking down the street and looking around?

Probably more people than you think.

 

[johnny karate]

of course the counter claim to self defense is "It was murder/manslaughter" which also a positive claim requiring substantiation

Actually, a claim of self-defense is an affirmative defense. How it might affect this case has been discussed previously in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

Have we determined that GZ actually did anything counter to any gun training he received, or any classes he might have had to take prior to receiving a CCP ? I mean, is there a CCP course which describes how you should never follow someone you believe is suspicious or something similar ?

Zimmerman acted in contradiction to what the police dispatcher advised him, and in violation of the rules of the neighborhood watch program with which he claims to be affiliated.

 

[Moss]

When I referred to the "same benefit of the doubt", I was referring specifically to taking Zimmerman's account at face value. In a murder trial, the state must of course prove their case, but no one is required to automatically believe the suspect's version of events. Particularly in cases of affirmative defense.

Sorry, didn't intend to come over as patronizing or anything.
I think putting his testimony under stress is reasonable, but if it does not crack under that or other evidence puts dents in it there is not much else to be done than taking it as it is. Because else we might end up putting Zimmerman in prison for what exactly?
I agree that following Martin on foot instead of waiting for the police was somewhat reckless. As I said, this with carrying a weapon actually makes me feel he is responsible for what happened on a gut instinct.
But I also feel uncomfortable with the possibility him going to prison after he changed his mind and aborted his pursuit.
I feel quite in a bind as to what to make of this case.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think it's been even close to determined that this case will require any type of affirmative defense.

Zimmerman already admitted to killing Martin, and claims it was done in self-defense. How is that not an affirmative defense?

 

[Peephole]

Because else we might end up putting Zimmerman in prison for what exactly?

Uhm, perhaps for shooting people?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Actually, a claim of self-defense is an affirmative defense. How it might affect this case has been discussed previously in this thread.

With Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Zimmerman is immune unless the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman was either the aggressor or did not hold a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Immune is clearly defined by the law: he cannot be arrested, detained or even charged with a crime related to the shooting. The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman. It's on the State.

Edit: reading a little further, Florida allows the aggressor to use deadly force if the aggressor has exhausted every means of escape. If Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him is true, then he was legally allowed to shoot Martin. This, however, is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman would have to prove that fact in court.

 

[Cylinder]

When I referred to the "same benefit of the doubt", I was referring specifically to taking Zimmerman's account at face value. In a murder trial, the state must of course prove their case, but no one is required to automatically believe the suspect's version of events. Particularly in cases of affirmative defense.

In Florida, a trial jury does have to accept a prima facie claim of justification unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be untrue or unlawful.

 

[Moss]

Uhm, perhaps for shooting people?

Err, yes. Major brainfart by me that sentence. Point I was trying to make is that in absence of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence it does get a wee bit hairy to prove self defense.

Ah, given that at least some the action might have happened on wet lawn, I wonder if forensics looked at footprints or other marks of the two people involved. That might give us an indication of who went where. But then again: too much CSI.