How to get away with murder (non-state actor edition)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Florida law has nothing to do with New York law. GZ did not need any injuries at all, only to convince the jury that he was in fear of great bodily harm. Under New York law, GZ would have been convicted. If Floridians want to change their law they will.

In New York he would be guilty - In Florida, not guilty.

Pretty much. It helps to "forget" you have a gun, until you need it, because displaying or brandishing a firearm would be illegal, even in Florida.

[Darnell 8,479]

brandishing a gun seems really lame, all things considered.

However, if'n ya choose one of the paths mentioned back in post #1 - it's best to be a cop, when brandishing, aye?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Darnell

[GandD 5,966]

Quick, what gear am I using?!

2nd

[DaveE 178]

Pretty much. It helps to "forget" you have a gun, until you need it, because displaying or brandishing a firearm would be illegal, even in Florida.

Pity that the prosecution could not convince even one of six women that. If they did we would have the pleasure of a VJ do over.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

2nd

Ha. I can't drive stick.

My husband has tried to teach me.

It's ended up in tears each time.

[GandD 5,966]

Ha. I can't drive stick.

My husband has tried to teach me.

It's ended up in tears each time.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Ha. I can't drive stick.

My husband has tried to teach me.

It's ended up in tears each time.

What is that face. Are you judging me?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ha. I can't drive stick.

My husband has tried to teach me.

It's ended up in tears each time.

My wife can't drive automatic. I can't handle the near death experiences anymore.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

My wife can't drive automatic. I can't handle the near death experiences anymore.

We had to buy me a car when I moved here because I can't drive the ridiculously impractical little sports car my husband bought.

[RGinWA 816]

What is that face. Are you judging me?

I think he's referring to the underlying possible subtext to your "driving a stick" comment.

Although I could be off base completely.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I think he's referring to the underlying possible subtext to your "driving a stick" comment.

Although I could be off base completely.

Oh.

That makes the "it ended in tears" thing a bit creepier...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So what type of evidence do you think that I legitimate practitioner of self defense would invariably be able to produce that a murderer just claiming self defense wouldn't, or likely wouldn't, be able to produce?

The precedent and approach is that we assume that someone is innocent and have to prove them guilty and I am unwilling to change that precedent. Unless you believe that someone who kills someone else in legitimate self defense is less innocent than someone who doesn't kill someone else at all, they are both entitled to the same legal defense. This means that the only evidence that they can be expected to produce is evidence that they would invariably have unless they were in fact not innocent. That really narrows down the list of things that they can be expected to have. In fact, if you can think of something that George Zimmerman should have had were it legitimately self defense but didn't have (or conversely, something he couldn't have had were he a murderer but did have), then you probably aught to apply for a job as a prosecutor in Florida because I know a couple that you could have done better than.

In essence, I am for the standard of proof for self defense being as high as possible without introducing a significant risk that a legitimate practitioner of self defense would be found guilty of murder (or manslaughter, etc.). However, I feel that the current standard of proof is consistent with this.

I don't have a problem with someone being innocent until proven guilty. That's fine and how it should be. The defendant in this case, however, certainly has taken another person's life. That's a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He claims that he acted in self defense but has apparently no obligation under Florida law to offer any proof whatsoever to substantiate that claim. All it takes to shift an overwhelming burden of proof onto the state is to say 5 words: "I acted in self defense". That's it. And it is now up to the state to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. That's essentially saying that the state ought to square a circle or let you walk. If that's not a license to kill then I don't know what is.

You should change your forum name to Ring Leader. Everyone should know what kind of power you possess.

As ring leader, I don't take advise from the underlings. Now hush!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Zimmermann had nothing but a couple of minor, insignificant injuries. His entire medical treatment amounted to three band aids.

Here's a guy whose head smashed into concrete this past weekend in NYC - that's what that looks like. And I can tell you that the assailant will not be charged for arming himself with a sidewalk.

Did someone tell you they reached a verdict Saturday..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Insignificant to who?

The medics who treated him at the scene, the RNP that he went to see the day after and, last but not least, Mr. Zimmermann himself. He declined to be checked out at a hospital. Not many with significant injuries, let alone with head injuries, would do that unless they're suicidal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Florida law has nothing to do with New York law.

Nobody said that one has anything to do with the other. But do heads bleed more profusely after hitting NYC sidewalks than they do after hitting Sanford, FL sidewalks? Do they have some magic cement in NYC?