General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

13. Your unreasonable risk assessments are irrelevant to the jury

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 02:15 PM

Jul 2013

what you claim you would "take every time" is irrelevant. Nobody is as dumb as you are claiming to be for effect, but even if we stipulate that you really think that, whatever defect of mind that might cause you to think the way you are pretending to think here would not be evidence of reasonability.

A jury weighs what a hypothetical REASONABLE PERSON would think, not what you think. Your state of mind is not decisive in a self-defense argument.

You might believe your neighbor to be an alien monster.

That would not be self-defense, it would be insanity... that you lacked the capability to think right.

If a reasonable person would not have thought your neighbor an alien then nobody cares what you think.

(vis-a-vis self defense. Again, what you think would be quite relevant to an insanity plea.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So suppose a woman is walking alone along a dark road. [View all] DanTex Jul 2013 OP

Only if the person who gets shot is black. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #1

Understand your point, but disagree lark Jul 2013 #28

+1 LiberalLoner Jul 2013 #131

More like "only if the person who does the shooting isn't black" muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #124

and the shooter is white. nt Deep13 Jul 2013 #126

I won't say "only" if the person is black but it's way more likely if the person is black. live love laugh Jul 2013 #127

If you live in Florida, madaboutharry Jul 2013 #2

Easy-peezey... ReRe Jul 2013 #75

Yeah but she was wearing a hoodie bluedeathray Jul 2013 #3

+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #6

There is a female equivalent, of course lolly Jul 2013 #112

Correct. Avalux Jul 2013 #4

Moral of the story - make sure you kill the kid, not just wound him VWolf Jul 2013 #133

Unlike reasonable states, a self defense claim does not have to be demonstrated by the defense Blackford Jul 2013 #5

TM had Z pinned and Z could not retreat according to eye witness testimony (John Good) dkf Jul 2013 #7

And the rapist in this hypothetical story is blinded and in extreme pain from being maced. DanTex Jul 2013 #8

What is the credible theory about how this woman would have killed him dkf Jul 2013 #9

There's no credible theory that TM was going to kill Zimmerman either. DanTex Jul 2013 #11

Witness testimony had TM pinning Z to the ground. dkf Jul 2013 #12

Z had minor injuries. He was in much better shape than had he been maced. DanTex Jul 2013 #17

Well that is the standard...beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. dkf Jul 2013 #38

Yes, and by that standard, the hypothetical rapist would get off also. DanTex Jul 2013 #40

Apparently only if there are jurors who believe as you do. dkf Jul 2013 #46

No--only if there are laws written to shift the burden to the defense lolly Jul 2013 #113

He had 2 band aids on his head and never went to the hospital. mbperrin Jul 2013 #39

Sigh. Did anyone read the jury instructions? dkf Jul 2013 #41

Yes, I read the entire set. mbperrin Jul 2013 #98

Exactly... PsychGrad Jul 2013 #51

Childbirth is definitely more life-threatening. mbperrin Jul 2013 #99

He is that much of a coward laundry_queen Jul 2013 #116

Oh wow... PsychGrad Jul 2013 #119

Why would TM have Z DNA under his nails rl6214 Jul 2013 #120

The only injuries that required band aids were SCRATCHES mbperrin Jul 2013 #122

You're wrong, concrete can scratch rl6214 Jul 2013 #123

I poured concrete for a decade before I went into teaching. mbperrin Jul 2013 #125

Um... PsychGrad Jul 2013 #49

Why don't you provide any evidence John2 Jul 2013 #64

CDC: Traumatic Brain Injury dkf Jul 2013 #69

It's O.K., You Can Put Down That Bucket Of Water SoCalMusicLover Jul 2013 #82

I said about John2 Jul 2013 #83

I remember the Judge saying to the jury.. truth2power Jul 2013 #66

This the first time I have heard that Travon had injury to his knuckles. Please verify. olegramps Jul 2013 #71

See #8. You do not understand what "reasonable" means in law. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #15

You seem to have trouble with the concept of "reasonable doubt". DanTex Jul 2013 #22

She saw his gun and went for it. John2 Jul 2013 #62

Your unreasonable risk assessments are irrelevant to the jury cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #13

good heaven05 Jul 2013 #29

If Zimmerman was pinned... ellisonz Jul 2013 #54

That is what I've been wondering, too... xocet Jul 2013 #73

Then how did Z get his gun? Sparkly Jul 2013 #93

The man would be convicted of murder in a heartbeat, under the SAME LAWS that acquitted Zimmerman cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #10

Not true at all. And who's stipulating assault? DanTex Jul 2013 #14

You think you have a point. You do not, in fact, have a point. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #16

You think you have found a clever way to dodge my argument, but you have not. DanTex Jul 2013 #19

. Lurker Deluxe Jul 2013 #129

neither heaven05 Jul 2013 #30

Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #130

I agree Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #18

Yeah, but nobody was there to witness the man grabbing the woman first. DanTex Jul 2013 #20

True Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #25

I think if you claim self-defense, the burden of proof should shift, at least somewhat. DanTex Jul 2013 #26

Yes. This. lolly Jul 2013 #114

This is a double edged sword with unintended consequences Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #121

disingenuous heaven05 Jul 2013 #32

There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin Art_from_Ark Jul 2013 #115

she would have no duty to run away in any state cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #24

Some states Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #27

A reasonable person would also assume that a teen alone in the dark ... Daalalou Jul 2013 #48

in the travon Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #103

Lack of evidence was indeed the issue, but that was almost wholly caused by the PD's Nay Jul 2013 #134

Dumb HockeyMom Jul 2013 #102

Was she wearing a "menacing" black hoodie and holding a can of ice tea in a "threatening" manner? nt MADem Jul 2013 #21

seriously, this case is a hideous precedent on so many levels. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #23

The Zimmerman apologists billh58 Jul 2013 #31

Well if something "good" comes out of this, at least it's waking people up to just how far the NRA DanTex Jul 2013 #33

This verdict was bullshit. smirkymonkey Jul 2013 #74

This is an interesting take on that: savalez Jul 2013 #34

Thanks for the link. That's basically what I was getting at. DanTex Jul 2013 #35

if he had posted a bit more of the article onenote Jul 2013 #88

According to Eugene Volokh, gun rights advocate and right-winger... DanTex Jul 2013 #90

Okay. Would the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research convince you? onenote Jul 2013 #91

If CA and WI have the same laws as FL, then I think those laws are bad as well. DanTex Jul 2013 #94

this law in florida removes any burden, they just have to say 'I was afraid for my life' pasto76 Jul 2013 #36

Wow. Not often that a lawyer publicly reveals himself to be a walking malpractice case onenote Jul 2013 #87

Yep. And this is the perfect way to commit First Degree Murder and kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #37

It's an extremely bad precedent. NutmegYankee Jul 2013 #42

suppose the woman is only 600 yards from home hfojvt Jul 2013 #43

So this woman would want to lead this guy EC Jul 2013 #45

Embrace the gunner mindset HockeyMom Jul 2013 #47

easy enough to ditch them hfojvt Jul 2013 #50

You are right. polly7 Jul 2013 #56

Thank you! Daalalou Jul 2013 #57

excellent idea! 7962 Jul 2013 #80

A Black kid in a hoodie calling the cops? RC Jul 2013 #84

It would be a good place for somebody who wants EC Jul 2013 #44

That's exactly what the jury decided - bully protection. gtar100 Jul 2013 #52

Her FAULT if she wasn't ARMED HockeyMom Jul 2013 #53

And arming oneself with a sidewalk, like protect our future Jul 2013 #79

If someone fights you in self defense you can kill them and the law says YOU exercised self defense. Kablooie Jul 2013 #55

There is a duty to retreat in Florida under the facts of the hypothetical onenote Jul 2013 #70

Wrong charge 1Greensix Jul 2013 #58

+1 leftstreet Jul 2013 #68

Except what he was doing doesn't constitute stalking under FL law onenote Jul 2013 #78

You are mistaken onenote Jul 2013 #59

Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the rapist grabbed the woman first. DanTex Jul 2013 #60

Actually there would be evidence that the woman was grabbed. onenote Jul 2013 #67

Really? Evidence of who grabbed who first? Like some form of short-term carbon dating? DanTex Jul 2013 #81

Okay, I'll give you that point. Now care to respond to my other point? onenote Jul 2013 #86

The result would be different if the burden of proof shifted when claiming an affirmative defense. DanTex Jul 2013 #89

Other than Ohio, can you cite to any other states with such a burden of proof? onenote Jul 2013 #92

I don't know the exact laws in every state. Are you a criminal lawyer? DanTex Jul 2013 #95

I have practiced criminal law, although its not my principal area onenote Jul 2013 #96

OK. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll take your word on it. DanTex Jul 2013 #97

I didn't watch the trial in its entirety onenote Jul 2013 #100

Neither did I, but from what I've seen/read, I can't really argue that there wasn't reasonable doubt DanTex Jul 2013 #101

Done Lurker Deluxe Jul 2013 #132

Ooh, I like to play pretend. rrneck Jul 2013 #61

Lets be honest, because John2 Jul 2013 #76

I don't think there was a jury nullification. rrneck Jul 2013 #85

I think you nailed it. nt Ilsa Jul 2013 #63

White women, once they process what this verdict protect our future Jul 2013 #65

Uh, white woman here, in the know all along. I have been thinking today that we are all at greater WCLinolVir Jul 2013 #105

Very well said. I, too, am a white woman. protect our future Jul 2013 #107

intelligent white gals already know Skittles Jul 2013 #117

I should have been more specific. protect our future Jul 2013 #118

He can't stand his ground on her ground. ileus Jul 2013 #72

Silly. You left out the physical evidence that the woman had beaten up the tiny boy.... Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #77

Moral of the story-If you are being attacked and have an advantage follow through. WCLinolVir Jul 2013 #104

And if you fail to kill them, they can use the Zimmerman defense protect our future Jul 2013 #108

Yes they could, but wasn't that the point of your story? I could feasibly do the same. No witness, WCLinolVir Jul 2013 #109

I just wanted to make sure the meaning was clear. protect our future Jul 2013 #110

With the Stand Your Ground Law bloom Jul 2013 #106

I think the man would probably be guilty ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #111

This message was self-deleted by its author Tugboat Jul 2013 #128