I think the term you've been looking for, or at least need to find, in your arguments up above is 'affirmative defense', and as a little reminder to you an the others beyond a reasonable doubt is only one of several accepted legal levels of proof, there's also 'preponderance of evidence', e.g. a thing more likely then not to be true, and 'clear and convincing evidence', e.g. something much more likely to be true then not. People hear those in legal dramas so much I think they don't realize they mean something specific. Those lower levels are often used in civil cases or in cases like affirmative defense, for self-defense, crimes committed under duress ["Kill him or I shoot your kid!"], insanity, and so on, all related to culpability.
By the way I'm not siding with you or against you in those arguments up higher in the thread I'm just getting irritated everyone keeps trying to claim the scepter of expertise and doesn't bother using any of the standard terms which tend to accompany a proper claim to that scepter. I happen to think you're all way in hell out of line to be debating this, but I'm neutral on what you're saying.
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; "
From the way I see it, Martin has every right to use force against Zimmerman since Zimmerman is actively pursuing Martin from the time Martin entered the community. Both from his car and then on foot, Zimmerman is being aggressive in his determination to stop the "fucking punks" from "always get[ting] away".
The jury, and yourself and others here, have determined that Martin has no right to self-defense if he believes his life is in danger for whatever reason. I can point to the inherent and institutional racism in the US as the main culprit in determining that Martin's actions are automatically suspicious despite the fact that he did nothing other than walk home from the store, but of course that is the rather large elephant in the room. Somehow it is perfectly fine for one citizen to actively pursue another but be absolved of causing the pursued to fear for their safety.
This is the glaring error in the law, and one of the reasons it should be changed. I should not be justified in shooting you dead if, through my own actions, I inserted myself into a situation which led to deadly force being applied against you. Actively pursuing someone the way Zimmerman did to Martin should have been grounds for a manslaughter conviction. Unfortunately, the jury did not agree this time, but I can completely agree that occasionally a guilty person will be set free as long as the process is applied fairly. In this particular case, the law was not applied fairly, even if the process was.
Well, again, I'm pretty much specifically not going to comment on this case, I consider it immoral to do so. For me anyway, that's my personal ethics. I'm not sure where you get the remark that I have determined Martin had no right to self-defense, I don't recall ever saying such a thing.
What you're suggesting however is that a person being pursued has a right of self-defense. That's absolutely true but also not true. A person has (depending on the state laws and the case law) the right to take any reasonable action to protect themselves. That is not necessarily running away, stopping to demand why one is being followed, or to keep walking but be wary. It can, conceivably, justify attacking first, or even outright turning around and shooting them. The problem is, whatever action one takes, if it involves hurting someone else you have to prove (yes, prove as a defendant, hence the affirmative defense commentary above) that this was a reasonable action.
Obviously that would be very hard to do for the case of turning right round and shooting them before ever a word was exchanged or punch thrown. One of those nastier jokes about why you should always carry a spare gun, so you can wrap the dead guys hands around it. Twin to the other, abut it being better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Nonetheless it is, in some potentially sane fashion, a thing that could occur. That's a bit easier to do justifying a physical, non-lethal attack but the concepts the same.
You're essentially arguing that to be the case. That someone was justified in attacking another person for being followed. And again, that can be true. Their justification doesn't matter at the other person's trial very much though. Its sort of like military conflict, we judge actions on two standards, what was actually going on and what the commanding officer could reasonably have known was going on. Oft times, for an inquiry, the latter is all that matters. Many a great victory has been won through sheer luck, and the leader rightly deemed a fool in spite of winning, because what they knew at the time didn't justify what they did, even though the real events did. A person can have a self-defense case even if the other person also has an entirely valid self-defense case. They're not mutually contradictory. Now pursuit alone would be a tricky one to justify, and again it depends on the state, but it can be done, yet it still would not automatically negate the pursuers self-defense claim. Same as two people chasing a bad guy into a dark warehouse, turning the corner to see an armed man, and shooting at each other. Both have a fairly decent self-defense case because its not about who killed who, or the best action they could have taken, its about culpability for shooting.
Now this is mostly wide of the point, I didn't ask you about this case, I explicitly asked you not to, and I explicitly asked what part of the law you'd change and in what fashion. I don't mind discussing vague hypothetical with you but none of that avoids the real issue. You've said the law is flawed, you really did not explain how, I know you think you did but you didn't, and you definitely did not suggest a change of wording or a clause that should be added or removed. HR looked up the law for you, I made a request, I've even replied to your own remarks unrelated to them, and I think I deserve a proper answer now.
So again, what specifically do you believe this law should say? If it makes it easier you can just paste the law and use strikethrough for negations and red text for additions. However if you can't do that, then you need to drop this 'the law is flawed' rhetoric.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
