Request a clarification of "justifiable homicide" defense. [View all]

[krispos42]

I was discussing the Zimmerman case with my uncle (the public-university graduated, unionized public-school teachers that watches Faux News and probably votes Republican; irony, thy name is "Steve&quot , and we got into how the "justifiable homicide" defense was applied to cases.


My position was that claiming justifiable homicide is a matter of the defendant acknowledging that he (or she) killed a person but making the case to the jury that there were circumstances that justified it. The jury must then accept the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, or else it is murder.

My uncle's position was that claiming justifiable homicide is a matter of the defendant admitting that he or she killed a person but making a case to the jury that there were circumstances that justified it. The jury must then reject the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, or else it is justified homicide.



Basically, in my view the defendant must convince a jury it was justified, while my uncle's viewpoint is that the prosecutor must convince a jury that it wasn't.



My two points specifically to the Zimmerman case is as follows:

If the jury finds that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the situation, then Zimmerman did not have the right to defend himself at any point from Martin. Martin, who was not a martial artist, nor armed with an improvised or dedicated weapon, was not able to respond to Zimmerman's attack with disproportionate force.

If the jury finds that Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor, and thus had the right of self-defense, he still has to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he believed he was in grave and imminent physical danger. If he is unable to prove this, the defense of justifiable homicide is rejected. And since Zimmerman did indeed kill Martin, he is then guilty of at least some form of murder or manslaughter.



What say you, DUers?