tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post3422030240425976317..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Self defenseLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-1835397335446274762013-08-25T19:37:05.738-06:002013-08-25T19:37:05.738-06:00You have not quite got the legal standard right. ...You have not quite got the legal standard right. As a defendant, you can claim self-defense, assuming there are facts to support it. If you do so, and bring forth a sufficient basis to raise the defense, the burden then shifts to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did NOT kill in self defense. So the defendant has the initial burden, but if that is met (as it at least arguably was in the Zimmerman case) then it is not up to Zimmerman at that point to prove anything. It then becomes the prosecutor's burden, and like every element a prosecutor must prove, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-3051218118417457242013-08-13T01:03:10.806-06:002013-08-13T01:03:10.806-06:00The problem I see is with language and with the re...The problem I see is with language and with the relativist philosophy. In USA there is too much immoral-relativism used in poltics and in law. In which the meaning of words can be deconstructed. Just like Bush who killed 1 million people, but instead of mass-murdering 1 million people in Iraq, he "liberated" IraqAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-29699047310879894242013-07-27T14:50:10.478-06:002013-07-27T14:50:10.478-06:00True Zimm and his ilk should NEVER be in-charge of...True Zimm and his ilk should NEVER be in-charge of defending the public. You can make a case that the police are stretched and that extra eyes are good, but they are EYES only. They should not confront but report to the police. Video is OK from a distance as 'witness'.L.Longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-28506619007475921332013-07-27T09:34:22.807-06:002013-07-27T09:34:22.807-06:00There are two issues here. The first is rules abou...There are two issues here. The first is rules about individual to individual self defense. I'm not particularly happy about relaxing the rules (i.e. one must have only the subjective perception of danger to one's life, instead of an objectively determinable threat, to begin establish self defense), but that's not my biggest issue.<br /><br />The bigger issue is relaxing <i>institutional</i> protection against abuses of self defense. When we start allowing individuals such as Zimmerman to "defend" public spaces without any sort of institutional control, we are turning our streets into a war zone. Even a neighborhood watch acts with some institutional control, as you pointed out. Zimmerman intentionally and knowably placed himself in a situation where he presented a danger to others without any sort of institutional control, and we let him do it. To me, this precedent is the greater danger.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-62729744950127507372013-07-27T09:05:36.762-06:002013-07-27T09:05:36.762-06:00Ignore Tray & Zimm that is over as Bum states
...Ignore Tray & Zimm that is over as Bum states<br />In terms of self defense things can be complicated very quickly.<br />In my classes we teach avoid, if not then enough pain to escape and run to public area.<br />But when you are a part of neighborhood watch then being assaulted is a very good chance. If you are doing so alone then you are stupid or looking to be attacked. Before video you would usually go in 2s or 3s for protection and for backup witnesses. With video 1 to operate and 1 to question and that makes 2 to watch each others backs.<br />Back to defense...if some one hits you his fist and you shoot him dead, then you had better be at least 1/3 his mass. In most places using excessive force beyond what is used by the attacker puts the defensee in a bad place with the law. e.i. defense=gun attack=fist. Usually attack with fist means defend with club MAX!!! But my experience in this is 30yrs ago, many laws have changed. About the only thing I see as the same is that kill the other, no witnesses and you are basically home free.L.Longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-30974595934243341462013-07-27T06:32:22.956-06:002013-07-27T06:32:22.956-06:00Or that Zimmerman left the house looking to provok...<i>Or that Zimmerman left the house looking to provoke anyone who is black?</i><br /><br />I did not assert so. We know that Zimmerman left the house looking to provoke <i>Martin</i> for no better reason than that Martin was black.<br /><br /><i>Or that Zimmerman only shot the man on top of him and beating him because he was black? Does it hurt less if a white man has you on the ground and is pummeling you?<br />Revisit your premise.</i><br /><br />If you tell me to revisit my premise, you must introduce evidence that I am actually <i>using</i> that premise.<br /><br /><i>What I KNOW, is that this case would never have gone to court if Trayvon wasn't black. And THAT is racist. </i><br /><br />Bullshit.<br /><br /><i>AND therefore anyone who thinks the proper verdict was rendered is racist too. Then you, sir, are worse than Hitler. (yes, that is dripping with sarcasm)</i><br /><br />There is a serious issue under this. You and I have a conflict of preferences. I prefer that people have a positive duty to avoid situations that could foreseeably end in a person's death. <br /><br />You seem to prefer a much narrower obligation to avoid death. <br /><br />I also know that a lot of people have racist preferences about the obligation to avoid death: they prefer a much stricter duty to avoid the death of white people than of black people. Because it is unfashionable to appear racist, they cloak their racism in a set of pseudo-legal theories that mutate according to the race of the victim. Indeed, if the theory that exonerated Zimmerman were universally applied, a lot of white folk would be getting shot. The Zimmerman defense works only if it is differentially applied.<br /><br />Our conversation is at an end. You have expressed your opinion, both of the case and of my own opinions. You believe me to be "worse than Hitler," and I assure you I hold you in no higher esteem.<br /><br />Because I am polite, I hereby <i>invite</i> you to leave, having had your say. If you want a parting shot, feel free, but I have nothing left to say to a racist, murderous, entitled, privileged asshole, whom I believe will never peaceably accept a civilized society that includes all our citizens. GoodbyeLarry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-920265779605375532013-07-27T06:32:08.966-06:002013-07-27T06:32:08.966-06:00Once Trayvon returned assaulted Zimmerman the rest...<i>Once Trayvon returned assaulted Zimmerman the rest of the considerations became moot.</i><br /><br />First, we do not know that Martin (and please do not be a racist and refer to the parties differently; it's Trayvon and George, or Martin and Zimmerman) assaulted Zimmerman. We have no credible evidence as to who actually began the physical confrontation; Zimmerman has too obvious a motive to conceal or distort his own culpability, and circumstantial evidence points more towards Zimmerman's culpability than Martin's.<br /><br />Second, the point at issue is whether or not the rest of the considerations are indeed moot. I argue that they are not. Even if we grant <i>arguendo</i> that events were as Martin described, the fact remains that he had no good reason to be there in the first place, and I argue that ethically and politically, he should be held accountable for those actions.<br /><br /><i>According to the law...</i><br /><br />Again, I am not arguing the case on the basis of existing law. I am arguing what the law ought to be, which, as a citizen of a democracy, is a legitimate topic.<br /><br /><i>... once you are on the ground and the assailant is kicking or punching you or knocking your head into the ground, it is now assault with the intent to kill.</i><br /><br />I will repeat that we have only Zimmerman's unreliable testimony as to these alleged facts. Second, you are obviously not a lawyer: if you are "on the ground are on the ground and the assailant is kicking or punching you or knocking your head into the ground" as a result of an illegal act, then the assailant may be exercising his own right to self-defense; regardless of the provocation, killing in the commission of a crime is felony murder, and self-defense is not an affirmative defense.<br /><br /><i>Why do you assume that Zimmerman provoked Trayvon to attack him?</i><br /><br />I do not <i>assume</i> so. First, Zimmerman testified that he followed Martin in his car, and then left his car to approach him on foot. These are obviously provocative acts; if someone did the same to me, I would conclude he had hostile intent. Second, we know that Zimmerman left the house armed, so he expected a violent confrontation, and there is circumstantial evidence ("Punks and assholes") that he had hostile intent before the confrontation.<br /><br />More importantly, the burden of proof is on Zimmerman to establish by the preponderance of evidence that he did <i>not</i> provoke Martin; I do not believe it is possible for him to do so. Maybe Zimmerman threw a punch at Martin or made some other overt act; at that point, Zimmerman would have committed assault*, and Martin was within his rights to defend himself. I don't know that's what happened, but because self defense is an affirmative defense, the burden is on Zimmerman to exclude the alternative.<br /><br /><i>*Remember that assault is the </i>threat<i> to commit harm; battery is the actual infliction of harm.</i>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-9400529064135063972013-07-26T14:24:12.032-06:002013-07-26T14:24:12.032-06:00From Major Nav:
No need to point out that you are...From Major Nav:<br /><br />No need to point out that you are not a lawyer.<br /><br />The one person who should have fled "very far" and then reported being harrassed (if that was the case) was Trayvon. Once Trayvon returned assaulted Zimmerman the rest of the considerations became moot.<br /><br />According to the law, once you are on the ground and the assailant is kicking or punching you or knocking your head into the ground, it is now assault with the intent to kill. And self-defense automatically kicks in because there is nowhere for you to retreat or avoid serious injury/death. Literally, between a rock and a hard place.<br /><br />Why do you assume that Zimmerman provoked Trayvon to attack him? Or that Zimmerman left the house looking to provoke anyone who is black? Or that Zimmerman only shot the man on top of him and beating him because he was black? Does it hurt less if a white man has you on the ground and is pummeling you?<br />Revisit your premise.<br /><br />All that rambling (yes, unfortunately, I read it all) to conclude that you KNOW Zimmerman was a racist and you KNOW he shot Trayvon because he was black.<br /><br />AND therefore anyone who thinks the proper verdict was rendered is racist too. Then you, sir, are worse than Hitler. (yes, that is dripping with sarcasm)<br /><br />What I KNOW, is that this case would never have gone to court if Trayvon wasn't black. And THAT is racist. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com