feelz wrote:
Quote:
I don't have to. The burden is on the state to prove that Martin's death was manslaughter and not self defense.
In most jurisdictions, self-defense is an affirmative defense to criminal charges. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is upon the accused. In some jurisdiction, the defense can only be asserted and the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable. In all jurisdictions this happens in a criminal court ... well except in Florida where the cops are also judge and jury it seems.
It's not the cops who made the call. The DA did. And let me quote the relevant portion of the law:
Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution†includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution†includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Bolded section clearly shows that the burden is on law enforcement to prove that the use of force was unlawful (assuming the use of force meets the requirements, which it absolutely does in this case.
And just in case some are still confused about whether Zimmerman following Martin matters, or even if Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation (for which we still have no evidence):
Quote:
.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
The point being that if Martin started the fight as Zimmerman claims, then Zimmerman is absolutely covered and is immune to arrest, prosecution, or civil action *unless* the police can find sufficient evidence to prove that this conflict does not meet the requirements (which is pretty much impossible in this case btw). Here's the thing though: Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he's still covered by the law. Because the witness statements show that Martin was the aggressor at the end of the fight, Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help and was clearly unable to escape the fight. What this means is what I've been saying all along. Under Florida law it simply does not matter what lead up to the conditions at the end of the fight. What matters is that as long as Martin is pursuing and continuing the fight (as was clearly the case when he's on top of him beating on him), Zimmerman has the right to use deadly force in self defense. Period. It doesn't matter how they got there. The moment Martin gets himself into a controlling position in the fight and does not let up, he gives Zimmerman the right to shoot him in self defense.
That's why the police did not arrest him. That's why the DA did not press charges. And right now, despite massive public outcry and pressure, there's probably like 100 people at various levels of law enforcement in Florida looking over the evidence, and the witness statements, and the law, and scratching their heads trying to figure out any way that they *could* justify arresting him. But the law is incredibly clear, and the evidence that this falls under the heading of self defense is incredibly clear. The only way they can arrest him is if they basically just ignore their own laws and make new ones up on the spot.
And as I've been saying all along, that would not be justice.