Jaylan said:
What you are forgetting is that when it comes to criminal cases, the defense does have to prove something to the jury. The jurors are the ones who decide what happens to a defendant...and if they dont by his claims, hes toast. The jury is human after all.
Theres plenty of proof to bring a solid case against him, and youre kidding yourself if you dont think a jury could convict him of manslaughter in this case.
Youre simply parroting a line that would make it ok for people to kill others without penalty. This case is exactly why the stand your ground law will be modified or repealed.
Nice understanding of legal procedure.
The defense doesn't have to prove their innocence.
The defense only has to demonstrate flaws in the prosecutors case.
The prosecutor has to make a case to reasonably prove the guilt of the defense, and the defense has to point out why the prosecutors case is faulty/flawed/false.
A jury can convict anyone of anything. A jury can convict a
ham sandwich of perjury, contempt of court and felony embezzelment.
The question is whether the prosecutor can make a case which proves the guilt of Zimmerman beyond
reasonable doubt.
Why is the "Stand Your Ground" clause even being challenged?
If those supporting Martin are challenging the Stand Your Ground law, that is admitting defeat before trial.
"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."
Are those of you who support Martin and object the Stand Your Ground clause, saying that Zimmerman had a valid reason to use self-defense when he felt threatened?
If it was repealed, the only difference is that he would first have a duty to retreat
if he felt threatened.
By repealing the Stand Your Ground clause, that does not mean Zimmerman was illegally following/keeping an eye on Martin.
Stalking is impermissable as AFAIK Zimmerman and Martin had no prior interaction. Criminal Stalking in case law requires the victim and suspect to have interacted with eachother more than once.
I agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement to follow the kid (in hindsight), and I'm sure he himself would agree.
Poor judgement =/= illegal
A 120lb 10/10 babe could walk through a bad neighborhood by herself one night, maybe even following the path of a group of shady-looking thugs.
That is an exercise in poor judgement.
When she gets attacked though, and she pulls a Kahr PM9 from her purse and kills three of her attackers... That is not illegal.
Poor judgement put her in that position, but nothing she did was illegal.
Zimmerman (in hindsight) could have behaved differently and nothing would have occurred probably. But in hindsight, he exercised poor judgement regardless of what actually transpired.
Again, poor judgement =/= illegal.
Jaylan said:
Im saying that he stalked and caused an unnecessary confrontation that led to an innocent boys death.
That is a politically motivated statement if I've ever seen one.
So many dynamics:
1. Stalking: Was it following or criminal stalking?
Answer: Case law will tell you that unless this becomes precedent, that it was not criminal stalking.
2. Unnecessary confrontation: We are trying to determine the potential illegality of certain actions. Where the hell does "unnecessary confrontation" ever appear in criminal law???
Did Zimmerman attack Martin or did Zimmerman put himself in a position which caused Martin to attack him?
That is all that matters.
3. Innocent boys death.
You have jumped to conclusion and pre-convicted Zimmerman in the little fantasy-trial that is occuring in your mind.
Refer to #2.
A. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes the death of an innocent boy victim occured.
B. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (regardless of Zs poor judgement), then the death of a guilty boy victim occured.
If you are still arguing the Stand your Ground clause, then you have actually selected B because Stand Your Ground clause is only active in self-defense.
If A, then Stand Your Ground does not apply. If B, it does.
If you are saying it does apply to the case but should be repealed, then you are indirectly saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman should have had the duty to retreat.
Are you mad that A occurred, or are you mad that when B occured, Zimmerman did not run away?
Can you prove that A occurred?
Are you angry that in Florida someone doesn't have to run away when they fear for their life in public?
Running away = turning your back to danger. Turning your back to a threat can be very dangerous in and of itself.
I'd be very interested to hear this "rock solid case" that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin, which is the only thing that a prosecutor will be trying to determine.
Everything else is circumstantial and relevance to the case will be dismantled by the defense.