Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Antigonus" data-source="post: 1776722" data-attributes="member: 19664"><p>Of course it is, but SYG effectively makes killing someone not a crime unless the state can prove you weren't acting in self-defense. In most murder trials as you know, the main question is whether or not the defendant committed the crime. In a trial like this, the jury is asked to determine the mindset of the victim and make a value judgment of that mindset. SYG allows for situations like this one, in which we have the word of a man on trial for murder against the word of a dead kid. Justice is not easily meted out in such situations because as stated before, the prosecution must prove a negative - that the defendant <strong>wasn't</strong> in danger when he made the choice to kill another person. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman, it is on the DA. Hypothetically Zimmerman could just not hire a lawyer and sit there during the trial, and if the plaintiff conducts a poor case then he could go free without Zimmerman having to do anything. That is not a situation in which the burden of proof is on the killer. Reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side, not the DA's here. The DA has to show that Zimmerman was not acting in a reasonable manner, which is waaaay different from requiring Zimmerman to show that he was acting reasonable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, this is not correct. The DA has the burden of proof here. Zimmerman will certainly help himself by attempting to show that he "NEEDED" to use force here, but all the defense "needs" to do is counter the DA's claims, not assert their own. The DA must show strong evidence that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Martin, which means they must show both unreasonable behavior and intent. The difference between SYG laws and sane murder laws could be summed up here: (this is assuming in both cases that murder was actually committed)</p><p></p><p>Scenario A (Non-SYG) - Bob kills Jim on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Bob is arrested at scene for murder despite claims of self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. He can't show evidence of self-defense, so he gets sentenced.</p><p></p><p>Scenario B (SYG) - Martin kills Trayvon on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Martin is not arrested because he claims self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. DA can't prove he wasn't acting in self-defense, so he goes free.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes it is an emotional argument, or more specifically, a normative argument. Arguments made with value judgments embedded in them aren't inherently incorrect. It's sad to me that we have adopted wartime standards for the use of violence in our own streets. I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Antigonus, post: 1776722, member: 19664"] Of course it is, but SYG effectively makes killing someone not a crime unless the state can prove you weren't acting in self-defense. In most murder trials as you know, the main question is whether or not the defendant committed the crime. In a trial like this, the jury is asked to determine the mindset of the victim and make a value judgment of that mindset. SYG allows for situations like this one, in which we have the word of a man on trial for murder against the word of a dead kid. Justice is not easily meted out in such situations because as stated before, the prosecution must prove a negative - that the defendant [b]wasn't[/b] in danger when he made the choice to kill another person. The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman, it is on the DA. Hypothetically Zimmerman could just not hire a lawyer and sit there during the trial, and if the plaintiff conducts a poor case then he could go free without Zimmerman having to do anything. That is not a situation in which the burden of proof is on the killer. Reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side, not the DA's here. The DA has to show that Zimmerman was not acting in a reasonable manner, which is waaaay different from requiring Zimmerman to show that he was acting reasonable. No, this is not correct. The DA has the burden of proof here. Zimmerman will certainly help himself by attempting to show that he "NEEDED" to use force here, but all the defense "needs" to do is counter the DA's claims, not assert their own. The DA must show strong evidence that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Martin, which means they must show both unreasonable behavior and intent. The difference between SYG laws and sane murder laws could be summed up here: (this is assuming in both cases that murder was actually committed) Scenario A (Non-SYG) - Bob kills Jim on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Bob is arrested at scene for murder despite claims of self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. He can't show evidence of self-defense, so he gets sentenced. Scenario B (SYG) - Martin kills Trayvon on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Martin is not arrested because he claims self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. DA can't prove he wasn't acting in self-defense, so he goes free. Yes it is an emotional argument, or more specifically, a normative argument. Arguments made with value judgments embedded in them aren't inherently incorrect. It's sad to me that we have adopted wartime standards for the use of violence in our own streets. I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom