Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This trial will be media frenzy. It will make the O.J. trial (the first one you whipper-snappers) look like a traffic hearing.

Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

Yes right, and in the absence of other witnesses it shouldn't happen. The problem is with the ridiculous law, you can just shoot and kill someone and then just hold up your hands and say, "he was coming at me". If there was ever a joke pre-written for a family guy sketch this is it (perhaps it has been done already?)

Although no doubt it will now be turned into a political issue - his death will be used as a vent for the outpourings and frustrations of the under-privileged class/race/strata of society he was a part of.

No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense

The difference here, KingCracker, is that in Florida it's up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defence, rather than the onus on Zimmerman to prove that he did (as is usually the case). It's easy to say that immediately gives Zimmerman a huge advantage since, without damning evidence to suggest his story is completely fabricated, the prosecution can't do anything.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.

Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.

Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.

Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.

Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.

In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.

As has been demonstrated in similar cases.

I think you might have your judgment clouded by this whole fiasco. To many people heard the story and instantly thought that Zimmerman was a bad guy, therefore hes already guilty. Not how it works

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.

Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.

Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.

In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.

As has been demonstrated in similar cases.

What makes this jurisdiction less than sane?

He is charged with 2nd degree murder, the State has to prove he committed that crime. All the defense has to do is produce reasonable doubt. Pretty frickin simple concept.

KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.

Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.

Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.

Thats how it works everywhere else I think. *To Capt Jake obviously

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.

Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.

Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.

In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.

As has been demonstrated in similar cases.

What makes this jurisdiction less than sane?

He is charged with 2nd degree murder, the State has to prove he committed that crime. All the defense has to do is produce reasonable doubt. Pretty frickin simple concept.

OK generally its much harder than that. In other jurisdictions, "self defense" is an affirmative defense. The defendant has to prove it. The prosecution doesn't have to affirmatively disprove it. Florida may be different, but I'd bet its not. Unless there are other provisions "stand your ground" is just terminology overturning historical judicial precedent that you have a duty to retreat if at all possible, which in many jurisdictions (New York) was taken to rediculous extremes.

KingCracker wrote:Thats how it works everywhere else I think. *To Capt Jake obviously

Not at all, defence is on the onus of the defendant.

To have the prosecution have to disprove a defence, beyond reasonable doubt, from the get go gives the defendant a massive advantage. One that I haven't heard of in other US states, and certainly isn't considered fair game in Australia.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.

Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.

Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.

Of course the onus should be on the prosecutor, no matter what. That is the way our carefully designed system works. It prevents the Gov't from coming up with trumped up charges and forcing some poor schmuck to prove a negative. You may not like the way it applies to this case, tough. It is this way for a reason, and it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Thats how it works everywhere else I think. *To Capt Jake obviously

Not at all, defence is on the onus of the defendant.

To have the prosecution have to disprove a defence, beyond reasonable doubt, from the get go gives the defendant a massive advantage. One that I haven't heard of in other US states, and certainly isn't considered fair game in Australia.

They don't have to disprove a defense, they have to PROVE guilt. And yes, they have to do so 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Yes that gives the defendant an advantage, and again, it is designed that way for a reason.

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.

Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.

Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.

Of course the onus should be on the prosecutor, no matter what. That is the way our carefully designed system works. It prevents the Gov't from coming up with trumped up charges and forcing some poor schmuck to prove a negative. You may not like the way it applies to this case, tough. It is this way for a reason, and it works.

Thats NOT how it works though CJ.

When you put in the affirmative defense of "self defense" you're effectively saying 'yes I did it, but it was a legal kill. Here's why.'

And the prosecution must still prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime they have charged you with. The 'self defense' if presented correctly helps inject that reasonable doubt.

It gives the prosecutor a very good start point because the defendant already agrees they commited a physical action, which relieves the prosecution from having to prove that.

In this case IF Zimmerman wants to avoid prosecution under the SYG law, he must show a preponderence of evidence that he was threatened and the kill was justified and if he does he cannot be prosecuted. If instead he goes to trial, the prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A component of that includes proving intent. Z's lawyers are going to just have throw reasonable doubt into the mix.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

Support for this? I'm not disputing that you may have heard this somewhere, I just wanted to verify it.

This is surprising, and nothing I've read about Florida's statute shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove self defense.

edit: Nevermind, found it:
"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)

Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."

Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.

Can't say I've heard of it. Not exactly "bigger than O J Simpson". Who is this Zimmerman guy anyway?

Frazzled wrote:
When you put in the affirmative defense of "self defense" you're effectively saying 'yes I did it, but it was a legal kill. Here's why.'

Bingo.

CptJake wrote:And the prosecution must still prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime they have charged you with. The 'self defense' if presented correctly helps inject that reasonable doubt.

It gives the prosecutor a very good start point because the defendant already agrees they commited a physical action, which relieves the prosecution from having to prove that.

In this case IF Zimmerman wants to avoid prosecution under the SYG law, he must show a preponderence of evidence that he was threatened and the kill was justified and if he does he cannot be prosecuted. If instead he goes to trial, the prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A component of that includes proving intent. Z's lawyers are going to just have throw reasonable doubt into the mix.

This isn't how it works, you're confusing reasonable doubt with legal defences.

Testify wrote:Can't say I've heard of it. Not exactly "bigger than O J Simpson". Who is this Zimmerman guy anyway?

Don't you know? He wrote a note once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.

Support for this? I'm not disputing that you may have heard this somewhere, I just wanted to verify it.

This is surprising, and nothing I've read about Florida's statute shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove self defense.

edit: Nevermind, found it:
"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)

Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."

Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.

Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.

Frazzled wrote:

Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.

IWhen frazzled says this I hope everyone realizes it's equivalent to Darth Vader balking at the destruction of Alderan.

olympia wrote:

Frazzled wrote: I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.

IWhen frazzled says this I hope everyone realizes it's equivalent to Darth Vader balking at the destruction of Alderan.

New sig ahoy!

olympia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.

IWhen frazzled says this I hope everyone realizes it's equivalent to Darth Vader balking at the destruction of Alderan.

Yes Sig worthy again!


Alderaan had it coming, those hippy treehuggers!
-Vader after a few shots of rum.

Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.

Doesn't rum bring on the tears? I'm trying to imagine what a crying Darth Vader would sound like.

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.

But wouldn't he have to be found guilty for it to get kicked up to the Supreme Court?

From what I have seen the whole "self defense" aspect is a separate act from the actual trial.

Step 1) Prosecution gives the judge the evidence they have to determine if an arrest warrant should be issued. This is where the prosecution gave their probable cause to believe that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and that he should be charged.

Step 2) After arrest and arraignment, defense files a motion to dismiss the case based on the "stand your ground" law. At this point, in order for Zimmerman to get immunity based on that law, the DEFENSE has to prove that he acted in self defense. If he wins the motion the case is dismissed, pending appeals of course.

Step 3) If the motion to dismiss is not successful, the actual trial starts. At this point Zimmerman would have already admitted to killing the victim through his motion to dismiss. At this point the prosecution has to prove that the killing rises to the level of 2nd degree murder and the evidence has to seed enough doubt with the jury to get a not-guilty verdict.

tl;dr

The "who proves what" tango

1) Zimmerman says self-defense cops don't arrest.
2) Prosecution proves to a judge that it was not self defense - warrant issued.
3) Defense tries to prove it was self defense - motion to dismiss.
4) Trial - no longer about self defense. Prosecution tries to prove it was murder. Defense tries to argue it wasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.

But wouldn't he have to be found guilty for it to get kicked up to the Supreme Court?

Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.

d-usa wrote:

Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.

Really? In Australia prosecution can only appeal sentences and particular points of law being erred on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.

Indeed it is a new law with some relatively undefined terms ('provoke' for example. WTF?) that will be adjudicated, well right now.