Trayvon Martin: civil rights leaders call for Florida police chief to resign

[BruSan]

Well let's see.. the only people with guns are the criminals, at least south of the border you can own a gun too and defend yourself against criminals..

Sorry, I'm pro-gun.. Smith & Wesson .40 sitting on my desk next to me now.. ;-)

Say what? I'm Canadian, not a criminal and own guns. Sure don't have my old Ithica pump sitting beside me at the computer though, that'd indicate a somewhat deviant personality disorder in my circle.

My personal choice of phallic symbol is out in the garage and has Impala SS on it. LOL !

 

[Locutus]

While I expected this site to address the obvious differences in both dated photos that all the media loves to show, they did ask at least one legitimate question:





News outlets have been using a few different photos of Martin, including one of him wearing a red Hollister T-shirt, a football jersey and the white hoodie. Irby said that given the stigma around hoodies, it’s smart to have conversations about whether to feature the photo of Martin wearing one.


“There are a number of images that the family has made available, and I think we have to question why journalists continue to present that same image and not new information or new images that represent the individual in a more complete way,” Irby said. “We have to be willing to ask good questions. Are we perpetuating stereotypes, and are we pursuing a range of options? There are other options out there.”


How to cover Trayvon Martin killing: Report on ‘racial tension’ and look beyond the hoodie | Poynter.

 

[EagleSmack]

He was 6'3" 160lbs! On the news a protester said he was 120 Lbs. soaking wet!

 

[Colpy]

Maybe, just maybe Zimmerman was completely justified, and the gun he was carrying saved his life.......

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - Orlando Sentinel

 

[Cannuck]

Maybe I should not have used the words "at face value". Look up the meaning of "prima facie" and see for yourself who has to prove what. Self defense is a legal defense but it is up to the individual who wishes to use it to prove it. There is never a presumption of self defense.

No. That is simply not the case.If, as you suggested in post #38, "when a person shoots another person, it is a crime (it is by definition homicide) and the individual must prove that it was in self defense." every single police officer that has shot and killed a perp would be guilty of homicide until he was proven innocent. It simply does not work that way.

 

[Niflmir]

No. That is simply not the case.If, as you suggested in post #38, "when a person shoots another person, it is a crime (it is by definition homicide) and the individual must prove that it was in self defense." every single police officer that has shot and killed a perp would be guilty of homicide until he was proven innocent. It simply does not work that way.

And if the DA decided to initiate a law suit, it would work that way. You are confusing the discretion of the DA with the burden of proof needed to prove self defense. My original post was talking about a court of law.

 

[Colpy]

No. That is simply not the case.If, as you suggested in post #38, "when a person shoots another person, it is a crime (it is by definition homicide) and the individual must prove that it was in self defense." every single police officer that has shot and killed a perp would be guilty of homicide until he was proven innocent. It simply does not work that way.

Correct.

Killing in self-defense is perfectly legal, and there must be evidence that it is NOT self-defense before someone can be charged.

Self defense is NOT an excuse to break the law.....it is simply not illegal.

Big difference.

And if the DA decided to initiate a law suit, it would work that way. You are confusing the discretion of the DA with the burden of proof needed to prove self defense. My original post was talking about a court of law.

Ah....the state would not institute a law suit in this case, nor would a DA have anything to do with a lawsuit.

The DA deals with criminal law.

A lawsuit would be civil law.

Two completely different animals.

 

[Cannuck]

...

I don't think Niflmir has been Pwned at all.

 

[Niflmir]

Correct.

Killing in self-defense is perfectly legal, and there must be evidence that it is NOT self-defense before someone can be charged.

Self defense is NOT an excuse to break the law.....it is simply not illegal.

Big difference.

Certainly if a defendant raises the defense, then the crown should be able to convince the jurors that it did not happen. But there is no presumption of self defense, if the defendant does not raise the defense, then the defendant forfeits the defense.

Moreover, if the crown paints a sequence of evidence that a jury buys and self defense is not a part of it, then that is all that is necessary to prove homicide. If the defendant never faults the sequence of events, or worse, affirms it, and the jury buys it, then then the prosecutor's "proof" of self defense (by never mentioning it at all) is complete.

 

[B00Mer]

New Black Panthers are nothing but the black version of the KKK.

 

[Cannuck]

Certainly if a defendant raises the defense, then the crown should be able to convince the jurors that it did not happen. But there is no presumption of self defense, if the defendant does not raise the defense, then the defendant forfeits the defense.

Moreover, if the crown paints a sequence of evidence that a jury buys and self defense is not a part of it, then that is all that is necessary to prove homicide. If the defendant never faults the sequence of events, or worse, affirms it, and the jury buys it, then then the prosecutor's "proof" of self defense (by never mentioning it at all) is complete.

No presumption of self defense by the court and a requirement by the accused to prove self defense are not the same thing.

 

[Niflmir]

No presumption of self defense by the court and a requirement by the accused to prove self defense are not the same thing.

Yes, and the crown proving that the accused intended to cause grievous injury to the victim is a third, which is what I am talking about.

 

[Cannuck]

Yes, and the crown proving that the accused intended to cause grievous injury to the victim is a third, which is what I am talking about.

A police officer shooting a perp in self defense intends to cause grievous injury to the "victim".

 

[Niflmir]

A police officer shooting a perp in self defense intends to cause grievous injury to the "victim".

Yes, which is why if it ever went to trial (and his defense attorney wasn't a chump) he would raise the defense of self defense and present the paperwork he filed as evidence. Presumably the crown would have some evidence that a different chain of events happened and they would be attempting to prove that their version of the story is what happened, and the jury would judge based on the merits.

 

[Cannuck]

Yes, which is why if it ever went to trial (and his defense attorney wasn't a chump) he would raise the defense of self defense and present the paperwork he filed as evidence. Presumably the crown would have some evidence that a different chain of events happened and they would be attempting to prove that their version of the story is what happened, and the jury would judge based on the merits.

Then we are in agreement. The accused does not have to prove self defense. There, that was easy.

 

[Niflmir]

Then we are in agreement. The accused does not have to prove self defense. There, that was easy.

Well it is could go down like this:

The DA shows evidence that the location of Zimmerman's phone call to the police is a far distance away from the location of the body.

The DA shows evidence that the police told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

The DA shows evidence that Martin was unarmed and that the gun was Zimmerman's.

The DA shows evidence that Martin's girlfriend last heard him asking "Why are you following me?"

The DA shows evidence that witnesses heard Martin screaming for help.

And Zimmerman's lawyer doesn't present any evidence at all.

What that shows is that Martin was the one being assaulted, Zimmerman who introduced the dangerous element into the situation, and Zimmerman who caused the situation even when he was advised by the police to stay away. That provides the guilty mind and guilty act for second degree murder.

A good defense lawyer would find holes in that by finding evidence that suggests a different turn of events. That is what I mean by proving self defense, a defense that makes no statements at all will not prevail on self defense.

 

[EagleSmack]

Nfl... that would be ideal if all those were facts.

 

[Niflmir]

Nfl... that would be ideal if all those were facts.

Yeah, precisely. I don't have the answers, and Zimmerman certainly would be sure to have a competent defense that would present all the contradicting claims, like the witness who claimed that Martin was on top: he is almost certain to get off at this point.

However, if it is true that the police did not follow normal procedures, such as testing Zimmerman for alcohol/drugs and asking around the neighbourhood to see if anybody knew him (amongst others) than at this stage, and the suppression of witness statements, then probably the only justice possible at this point is the resignation of the police chief.

Which is also a shame for Zimmerman, if it was indeed self defense, since now his name is tarnished, one way or the other, and the facts likely too clouded at this point to sort them out.

 

[EagleSmack]

Well Zimmerman was tarnished the moment he shot an African-American.

 

[Niflmir]

Well Zimmerman was tarnished the moment he shot an African-American.

Whenever I imagine myself in a situation where I need to defend myself, I can only imagine a complete mess afterwards. This whole situation is certainly a mess, that is for sure.