jestingrabbit wrote:Eomund wrote:All things considered, from what I've seen I would be very scared if he had been convicted. I am hearing a lot of theories about how Zimmerman could have been the aggressor but no evidence. And if a theory is enough to convict someone... *shudder*
How about the absence of much physical damage on either of their hands? or the fact that his story is based on the claim that he got out of his truck to check the street name in a suburb with 3 streets that he does neighborhood watch for? Looking at images 77 to 93, where is it possible to ambush anyone, which is the substance of how Zimmerman claimed the confrontation began?
His defense was always of the form "I did it but...". If the but was "I was insane at the time" wouldn't it be up to him to prove his insanity, not for the state to prove he wasn't? Why do you want such a lenient standard for self defense claims, but not other claims?
*shrug* I know what street I live on, but I don't know the cross street that's in line of sight from my front door, because it's unimportant to me.
As for how it's possible to ambush someone, dark and rain make it a lot easier to miss someone. You'll note that in the earlier pictures, which were apparently taken later at night, everything outside of the camera light is pretty dim. Given that we have an evening encounter with rain on the record, it's fairly easy to imagine someone hiding around a corner or behind a hedge and surprising someone. Now, that doesn't mean it happened for sure, but it certainly is quite plausible that it could have happened.
Insanity is a rather unusual defense. It's not really a great basis for defenses in general, and using it as such would pretty much be abandoning any pretense of the government needing to prove guilt.
sardia wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:Chen wrote:Note how I mentioned "in a brawl" implying that if you're struggling with someone and both punching and hitting each other, its probably not going to be considered violent enough to suddenly warrant one of the two pulling a gun and blowing the other guy away. I am well aware of how dangerous even a single punch can be, but I suspect if you shoot someone who punches you in the stomac you're probably not going to get away with it under "self-defense" (although I suppose if you used those types of cases as precedent there might be a chance).
Why shouldn't you be able to? I can picture a scenario in which someone is trying to kill me with hands and fists, and in which I can hit back...but see the outcome going very poorly. Why should I not be able to resort to a gun if need be?
Why should the attacker control the terms of the fight, with my actions limited to what he opts to do? How does society benefit from skewing the odds in favor of the attacker?
So cops should be trained to shoot first and ask questions later? If you're gonna differentiate between private citizens and authority figures, how about this: Your picture's in the newspapers, you've made it clear that you're very willing to fire guns, and you've made your position clear about defending yourself from aggressors. If I see you get angry or make someone else angry, should I shoot you immediately?
I think perhaps you're a bit fuzzy on what self defense means...it isn't defense unless an credible attack or threat is made. Someone being willing to defend themselves is not aggression. Even anger is not necessarily aggression. Someone being upset is not an attack. If you think that feelings are an analogue to actual, physical violence and respond by shooting, then you're the aggressor.
Eomund wrote:All things considered, from what I've seen I would be very scared if he had been convicted. I am hearing a lot of theories about how Zimmerman could have been the aggressor but no evidence. And if a theory is enough to convict someone... *shudder*
Yup. That's what it all comes down to in the end. No evidence, but people want to convict him on the base of what "could have" happened. The verdict of "not guilty" is not "innocent". We cannot know with perfect certainty what happened in all cases. However, if we hand the government the power to convict people without any evidence, the potential outcomes of that are quite ugly.