'If you’re in a heated argument & there aren’t any witnesses-It's Always best to kill other person'

[kpete]

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy.

But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php

[notadmblnd]

1. I wouldn't say it is the best thing to do.

but I do know now that if I do, I can get away with it.

[truebluegreen]

2. Well, there you go then. Problem solved!

I'll remember that if I ever set foot in Florida again, which is not likely.

[kpete]

3. here:

[truebluegreen]

6. Excellent!

Wasn't watching the trial and am by no means an expert, but I thought it strange when Z didn't testify...now I know.

[geek tragedy]

4. Yep, Martin's downfall was in not being old

enough to own a gun so he could have shot Martin on sight.

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. And as "the law" becomes more oppressive and punitive, this becomes the right

answer in more and more cases.
& R #5

[JimDandy]

7. These 'Kill the Other Witness' laws are insane.

[Turn CO Blue]

8. So let me get this straight.

Only in Florida could this verdict have ever happened. Is that right?

This attorney on TPM is writing that in most places proving a killing was self-defense is the burden of the defendant. Ordinarily and CORRECTLY in other states/places/countries, the shooter/killer has the burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she acted in self-defense.

And further... that in other states, the defendant HAS to testify. Zimmerman did not testify.

This guy is saying that the burden of proof is the OPPOSITE in Florida -- that it is the state/prosecution that has to prove (beyond doubt) that it was NOT self-defense.

IF so, the US Justice Department should be swooping in to clean the entire set of laws in Florida. If so, this is ass-backwards. AND WRONG.

Do I have this right?

There could be no justice for Trayvon in Florida, because it's always opposite day in Florida.

[Laelth]

9. That is a very odd feature of Florida law.

In Georgia, it is the Defendant's burden to prove self-defense. If Florida law is as it appears (and I am not an expert on it, so don't rely on me), then you are right. Shoot, kill, and then be silent. The state has no way to prove that you did not act in self-defense. That law is quite odd, to put it mildly.

-Laelth

[Kablooie]

20. And if you claim SYG they can't even question, or arrest you. You are free to go.

If you remember that was Zim's defense in the beginning and it was working. It was public pressure that forced the trial.

[anomiep]

10. The law in florida kind of sucks for other reasons

(in that I think it should have *at least* a 'not involved in the commission of a crime' and 'did not provoke' components explicitly laid out)

But to me, it's really a matter of, do you want more guilty people to go free and more innocent people going free, or more guilty people being jailed and more innocent people being jailed, for circumstances in which it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt what actually occurred. The standard should be based on a balance of that, with (imho) the scale tipped towards not sending innocents to jail.

It does, however, seem like a terribly bad plan to kill people just because you're in a heated argument, given that there is a level of proof a self defense claim has to meet in Florida, it's just not a 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' burden. You're not reasonably in fear of death or great bodily injury if you're engaged in a 'heated argument', and if there is absolutely no evidence to support a claim that you were defending yourself you will likely find yourself in prison very quickly.

[Rex]

11. Actually, if you see someone strange in your neighborhood and you feel murderous

intentions, call the police FIRST then stalk and kill your prey before they get there!

[moondust]

12. Marissa Alexander finds out too late.

She only fired warning shots and got 20 years in prison. She should have just killed the guy, then bashed her face into a wall hard enough to break her nose and put a couple scratches on the back of her head. Voila! Problem solved forever!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

(I don't know all the details. Maybe there were witnesses or something that could have worked against her.)

[X_Digger]

13. Yeah, that's a bit of a red herring to this..

Alexander went back to her truck, retrieved her gun, then re-entered the house (that she wasn't currently living in), and fired a 'warning' shot.

i.e., she wasn't in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm.

[uncle ray]

16. GZ was in the safety of his truck too.

he chose to exit and face "danger".

[HiPointDem]

18. +1

[moondust]

17. If there weren't any witnesses,

she could simply say he attacked her and she defended herself from imminent death by killing him. Self-inflict a few minor wounds on her body and she's home free.

[X_Digger]

19. Hypothetically, she could jump in a time machine and do just that..

.. but this being reality, that's not what she did.

Of course, she'd also have to coach her kids on what to say, since they were standing right there next to the father when she shot at head height.

[mick063]

14. This is NRA vision. This is ALEC vision.

Folks can delve into legal technicalities, reference instructions to the jury, and come to the conclusion that the justice system worked as intended.

These are folks that are so wrapped up into specifics, they cannot grasp overall injustice.

Fascism is alive and well with defenders of atrocity referencing, enabling, legitimatizing unjust law.

[Skittles]

15. GZ is a gutless coward; he was NEVER going to testify

his ridiculous story would have been torn to shreds