Man shoots black kid cops do nothing

[m52nickerson]

Wait a minute here. It is all good and well to say that a person in a public space can use lethal self defense, but this man first phoned 911 and was advised by them to do nothing and wait for the police. Instead he chose to leave his property into the public space and that resulted in the altercation that cost the boy his life. Now if we assume best possible scenario for the shooter, we can say that the boy saw the man following him and accosted him demanding to know why he was being followed. Still, to pull a gun on an unarmed individual who is 100 pounds lighter, makes no sense.

Also, the state should prosecute regardless of the risk with regards to paying for the defense if he is innocent. If accountants decide the what laws should and should not be tried because of cost it would be a great travesty of the justice system.

According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you.  All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.

You are not going to get the state to prosecute unless it thinks it has a chance at a conviction.  Even if they did not have pay for the man's defense if they lose, it is still a waste of money.

[m52nickerson]

Doesn't matter. He has admitted to a crime, namely shooting someone. He hasn't denied shooting the kid, just said that he had a good reason. He has to be arrested, because he's admitted to a crime. His reasoning behind the shooting doesn't come out before the arrest; it comes after, at the trial. It's not the job of the police to judge whether or not he shot in self-defense: that's a judge's job.

Shooting someone in self-defense is not a crime, so unless the police see evidence that it was not self-defense they are not going to arrest the man.  Plus arresting the man on the spot is not that important unless they feel he is a flight risk.

[m52nickerson]

You have to remember that the police and districts attorneys in Florida have to deal with the stand you ground law.  That law say that if you are in a place you can legal be in you may use force, including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm, without the need to retreat.

Actually, not quite. I posted FL's Castle Doctrine law on the last page. It requires the victim to actually have been on the shooter's property, among other things.

Also, as an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of proof to show the defense is valid. The state still has to prove all the elements of the crime (probably manslaughter here), and the defendant would have to show the Castle Doctrine applied. (IMO, it doesn't in this situation.) There is no reason the State couldn't file charges and start the process. Maybe it turns out that the shooter does have a Castle Doctrine defense. If so, he would be able to put on evidence of it (and remember, the defendant only has to create reasonable doubt) and maybe get acquitted.

Plus the law also says that if the state does bring charges and the person is found innocent because of this law they are owed the cost of their defense.

Not quite. The defendant isn't liable for "costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody." They are liable for attorney's fees, and the law does not say the state has to pay the defendant fees. The fees are just waived.

Read the link I posted.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

This is not the first time this law has caused problems....

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/feb/20/stand-your-ground-law-faces-another-court-test-ar-360570/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-saves-15.html

[clockworkgirl21]

I thought everyone who killed someone was arrested, and later they determined whether it was self defense.

The fact that this didn't happen proves something.

[davedan]

Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.

Oh and to be clear here is the onus.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.

He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.

Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.

Edited:  Because I no engrish

[Sylvana]

According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you.  All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.

We also believe murderers when they say they didn't do it either.

While I can understand the stand your ground laws, I don't see how they apply to someone who was actively pursuing the victim especially after the person was instructed by authorities not to leave their property. It is pretty obvious that even if the child did actually attack Zimmerman, that attack was provoked by Zimmerman.

The state has a responsibility to arrest Zimmerman because someone is dead, killed by the weapon Zimmerman owns. That is a crime in itself. Secondly Zimmerman has admitted to shooting the child and thus has to stand trial for at least manslaughter. It is here where the judge or jury can decide if he did so in self defense. That is not a call for the police to make.

Lastly, given what is known about this case, the previous conviction of Zimmerman, as well as the conversation on the 911 recording, a pretty solid case can be made for not only murder but also a hate crime. At the very least a straight up manslaughter charge because none of this would have happened if Zimmerman did not pursue the boy and provoke an altercation. The age, weight difference, contents of pockets and witness reports all prove that the boy would just have continued on walking home back from the shops if Zimmerman had done as he was told by the 911 dispatch.

Further, all of what I have stated is still the best case scenario where the boy actually attacked Zimmerman for following him, and not the more likely event that Zimmerman accosted the boy which caused a struggle probably, and resulted in Zimmerman killing the child.

Oh and police are expected to arrest everyone who commits a crime, they then have the option of bail which can be denied by a judge if the person is considered a flight risk. Regardless though they first have to be arrested.

[m52nickerson]

Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.

Oh and to be clear here is the onus.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.

He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.

Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.

Edited:  Because I no engrish

No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime.  Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.

[m52nickerson]

According to the "Stand you Ground Law" can shoot an unarmed individual if they are trying to harm you.  All the man has to say is that the kid attacked him.

We also believe murderers when they say they didn't do it either.

While I can understand the stand your ground laws, I don't see how they apply to someone who was actively pursuing the victim especially after the person was instructed by authorities not to leave their property. It is pretty obvious that even if the child did actually attack Zimmerman, that attack was provoked by Zimmerman.

The state has a responsibility to arrest Zimmerman because someone is dead, killed by the weapon Zimmerman owns. That is a crime in itself. Secondly Zimmerman has admitted to shooting the child and thus has to stand trial for at least manslaughter. It is here where the judge or jury can decide if he did so in self defense. That is not a call for the police to make.

Lastly, given what is known about this case, the previous conviction of Zimmerman, as well as the conversation on the 911 recording, a pretty solid case can be made for not only murder but also a hate crime. At the very least a straight up manslaughter charge because none of this would have happened if Zimmerman did not pursue the boy and provoke an altercation. The age, weight difference, contents of pockets and witness reports all prove that the boy would just have continued on walking home back from the shops if Zimmerman had done as he was told by the 911 dispatch.

Further, all of what I have stated is still the best case scenario where the boy actually attacked Zimmerman for following him, and not the more likely event that Zimmerman accosted the boy which caused a struggle probably, and resulted in Zimmerman killing the child.

Oh and police are expected to arrest everyone who commits a crime, they then have the option of bail which can be denied by a judge if the person is considered a flight risk. Regardless though they first have to be arrested.

It does not matter if Zimmerman provoked the kid.  You are not allowed to attack someone even when provoked.  The law states that Zimmerman had to be someplace he legally was allowed to be, which he was, has to fear for his life or great injury, which is reasonable to believe since he substantiated injuries.  With what other people heard during the incident there is little evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

As far a it being a hate crime, based on what.  Their is no evidence of Zimmerman being a racist.  His previous arrest had nothing to do with race.

Now I'm not saying he is innocent, or that I like Florida law, but to look at this and immediately start calling Zimmerman, the police and possible the state attorney racists is jumping the gun.

[Witchyjoshy]

Ok except this guy wasn't attacked and didn't stand his ground. He chased and pursued this kid.

Oh and to be clear here is the onus.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot the kid. Done as the guy admits it.

He then has to fairly raise self-defence. Which I would say is arguable here but let's assume it is fairly raised.

Zimmerman then has to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self defence.

Edited:  Because I no engrish

No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime.  Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.

Except you're wrong.

He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.

This is all that has to be established first.

Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.

This is how the process has been explained to you.  Several times.

Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.

[Dantes Virgil]

I believe what Nickerson is trying to point out (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that cops do not always arrest someone de facto just for shooting someone, especially if it's a claim of self-defense.  That may seem shocking, but it happens more often than you'd imagine.  If someone claims self-defense, the cops don't have enough evidence to believe otherwise, and the cops don't think he's a flight risk, they are not required to arrest him.  Even if he admitted it.  He did admit to the shooting but said it was self-defense.  So unless the cops have evidence to think otherwise, them not arresting him now doesn't mean they won't arrest him later, once they have reason beyond suspicion (and better proof) to think it's other than self-defense. 

[m52nickerson]

Except you're wrong.

He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.

This is all that has to be established first.

Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.

This is how the process has been explained to you.  Several times.

Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.

Yes, he is guilty of shooting someone.  That is not a crime when done in self-defense.  The police found Zimmerman injured.  Witnesses heard the struggle and one found came upon Zimmerman still on the ground after he had shot the kid.  How is that not enough evidence?  Even more so when you remember that Zimmerman had not requirement to try and flee.  The police made a decision not to arrest him at that time and turn it over to the state attorney.  That does not make them racists.

It also does not make the state attorney racist if he thinks that Zimmerman has enough evidence to show he acted in self defense.  The state is not going to prosecute if they think the person acted within the law.

Yes, I was wrong about who has the burden of evidence when it comes to an affirmed defense.

[Lt. Fred]

Except you're wrong.

He is proven guilty, by his own admission, of shooting someone.

This is all that has to be established first.

Now that he's guilty of shooting someone, by admission, he has to prove that he killed in self-defense.

This is how the process has been explained to you.  Several times.

Repeating yourself over and over again in the face of evidence that has been presented to you, while you yourself have presented a lack of evidence, does not a counterpoint make.

Yes, he is guilty of shooting someone.  That is not a crime when done in self-defense.

As you've pointed out, the accused murderer has no evidence on which to substantiate (as you admit) his responsibility to bear the onus of proof.

[erictheblue]

No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime.  Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.

I explained this on the previous page and I know you saw it since you quoted my post above.

Shooting someone is a crime. Shooting someone in self-defense is not, true, but that is not at issue at this moment.

Police only need reasonable suspicion of a crime to arrest. Dead kid, guy holding a gun and saying "I shot him" is reasonable suspicion. Once he is arrested, the State Attorney's Office can look further into the case to determine if there is enough evidence to prove a crime. At the same time, the defense attorney can talk to the guy and find out if there is enough to argue self-defense.

If this goes to trial, the state puts on the evidence of the crime. They must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the defense puts on their case and tries to prove self-defense. (As I said before, the defense must prove this. However, their burden of proof is lower. The defense only has to create reasonable doubt.) Then the fact-finder (judge in a bench trial, jury in a jury trial) determines if the man is (1) guilty of charged crime, (2) guilty of lesser included crime, or (3) not guilty.

[m52nickerson]

As you've pointed out, the accused murderer has no evidence on which to substantiate (as you admit) his responsibility to bear the onus of proof.

His injuries and what witnesses saw as they came up after the shooting is evidence.

[m52nickerson]

No the state has to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime.  Shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, and because of innocent until proven guilty that state has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  Which will be hard since he was bloody from the scuffle he had with the kid.

I explained this on the previous page and I know you saw it since you quoted my post above.

Shooting someone is a crime. Shooting someone in self-defense is not, true, but that is not at issue at this moment.

Police only need reasonable suspicion of a crime to arrest. Dead kid, guy holding a gun and saying "I shot him" is reasonable suspicion. Once he is arrested, the State Attorney's Office can look further into the case to determine if there is enough evidence to prove a crime. At the same time, the defense attorney can talk to the guy and find out if there is enough to argue self-defense.

If this goes to trial, the state puts on the evidence of the crime. They must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the defense puts on their case and tries to prove self-defense. (As I said before, the defense must prove this. However, their burden of proof is lower. The defense only has to create reasonable doubt.) Then the fact-finder (judge in a bench trial, jury in a jury trial) determines if the man is (1) guilty of charged crime, (2) guilty of lesser included crime, or (3) not guilty.

While the police only need a reasonable suspicion to arrest, it does not mean they must on the spot.