|
|
| Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG (1274912) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 25 05:33:04 2015, in response to Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG, posted by mtk52983 on Wed Mar 25 05:03:36 2015. First, just having a death is insufficient if you do not also have the appropriate mens rea.No, but it is necessary. I never claimed that having a death was sufficient to prove murder; just that if you are trying to demonstrate murder, you should probably start by showing that a death occurred. Betting is now open as to whether you actually understand what "mens rea" means. Second, while OTChat is not a jury, I will not blame the actual jury because of items that would not properly be before it. Considering that any jury will see only a highly edited version of the events and the prosecutor seemed to be intentionally trying to botch the case, it's probably not fair to blame the jury entirely. That said, this is not a jury. If I film myself murdering someone while shouting that I have no justification for doing so, and the police discover this recording through an illegal search, then it is inadmissible in court and will never be seen by a jury. That does not mean I should expect you to ignore it here. Finally, even an aggressor can claim self defense. Um, no. Self-defense is a claim of justification based on your need to defend yourself from an attacker. It doesn't apply if you are the attacker. The legal question is the reasonableness of the belief as his head was being bashed into the pavement... Are you claiming Martin attacked him? OK, here's a quick primer on the law. When an armed maniac is hunting you and has thwarted any attempt you have made to avoid him, once a confrontation is inevitable you have a right to defend yourself. If you are an armed maniac and you hunt down an innocent kid, thwart his every effort to escape, and make a confrontation unavoidable, you cannot claim self-defense. Period. Zimmerman admitted that he attacked Martin first. You cannot claim self-defense when you attack first. That's not even Criminal Law 101— that's more like Remedial Duh. ...a scenario we have seen kill people before. It doesn't matter. If you attack someone and they attempt to defend themselves, you cannot claim self-defense, no matter how theoretically they may be potentially threatening your life as they attempt to save theirs. That Zimmerman may have been following Martin although told not to is not sufficient to disprove because it does not tell about his state of mind when he acted in self defense. <voice="lawyer">Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!</voice> The fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin proves his claim of "self-defense" is baseless because it proves he was the aggressor. You cannot claim self-defense if you are actively hunting someone down while they try to escape from you. I'm not sure why you think his "state of mind" is relevant, because it isn't— the only relevant facts are (1) Zimmerman killed Martin, and (2) Zimmerman was the aggressor; his actions were unprovoked. For more on the burdens of proof this LINK explains Florida law on the subject Your link confirms what I said— that self-defense requires affirmative proof, that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense, and that Zimmerman's "state of mind" is irrelevant. The simple fact is, if Martin were white then Zimmerman would be in prison for murder right now. |
|
|
|