General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

56. bullshit back at you. Every change suggested is either unconstitutional or

Reply to Dawgs (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:53 AM

Jul 2013

gives the state more power.

it's fucking moronic.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

238 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution [View all] cali Jul 2013 OP

Voice of reason Cali, thanks. Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #1

Yup naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #2

I give you post #3. nt. premium Jul 2013 #11

I think claims of self-defense should require testimony by the claimant. GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #3

Unconstitutional. Not even remotely arguable. You'd need to amend the Constitution cali Jul 2013 #8

Stand your ground was not used by the defense. Lasher Jul 2013 #130

I heard on CNN he may request the SYG hearing now... Pelican Jul 2013 #174

I believe the immunity hearing would occur if someone now files a civil suit against Zimmerman Lasher Jul 2013 #178

It was, however, used by Zimmerman Cronus Protagonist Jul 2013 #181

yeah heaven05 Jul 2013 #139

Yep pipoman Jul 2013 #4

How is the deck stacked against defendants in criminal cases? EOTE Jul 2013 #5

How about the effects of pipoman Jul 2013 #9

Isn't that what discovery is for? EOTE Jul 2013 #15

But the state is not specifically looking for evidence that will exonerate the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #23

I wouldn't. EOTE Jul 2013 #29

Given the relative balance of power between the state and the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #35

I definitely want the accused to be afforded all protections. EOTE Jul 2013 #65

There will always be cases that are nearly impossible to try hack89 Jul 2013 #72

A defense team can't establish reasonable doubt if they don't know it is there.. pipoman Jul 2013 #44

Discovery shows up at your lawyer's office in 6 file boxes pipoman Jul 2013 #41

Just for starters, despite what folks think of the prosecution in Zimmerman cali Jul 2013 #14

Doesn't the state also have many magnitudes of order more cases to focus on? EOTE Jul 2013 #21

not as overwhelmed by caseload as any PD office n/t cali Jul 2013 #32

That is not true lawwolf Jul 2013 #180

In my experience, juries tend to be very pro-State. Laelth Jul 2013 #16

I would agree with that, especially the race factor. EOTE Jul 2013 #26

That was certainly my experience with the jury that I served on earlier this year. Arkansas Granny Jul 2013 #92

The biggest problem with juries Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #114

I Am Completely in Favor RobinA Jul 2013 #177

Well some people can't actually afford to miss a day or two of work. alarimer Jul 2013 #226

A lot of young black males would say it is.. Inkfreak Jul 2013 #27

Yes, the justice system is without a doubt racist. EOTE Jul 2013 #31

I think you're right... Whiskeytide Jul 2013 #78

The deck is often immediately stacked against the defendant. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #110

I'd start with the money and resources available to the state for prosecution rpannier Jul 2013 #119

Clarification: the deck is stacked against POOR defendants (n/t) thesquanderer Jul 2013 #147

That certainly seems to be the case. In the legal system and pretty much everywhere else. EOTE Jul 2013 #150

Oh, I dunno. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #172

I know that poor and minorities are at a disadvantage by default. EOTE Jul 2013 #175

By money. Orsino Jul 2013 #183

Agreed. Things are bad enough for criminal defendants. Laelth Jul 2013 #6

Thanks for your informed post, Laelth cali Jul 2013 #18

I didn't either until quite recently. Laelth Jul 2013 #34

That is exactly the standard used in all COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #19

Really? I do not practice criminal law and was unaware. Laelth Jul 2013 #49

Florida is in line with 49 of the 50 states hack89 Jul 2013 #28

As I mentioned above ... Laelth Jul 2013 #50

This is almost always the case pipoman Jul 2013 #62

Well, that's my problem. Laelth Jul 2013 #89

I disagree with that characterization.. pipoman Jul 2013 #104

I see the correction in this sub-thread about the number of states... NCTraveler Jul 2013 #113

My pleasure. I deeply regret that I was in error (or so it appears). n/t Laelth Jul 2013 #170

in indiana lawwolf Jul 2013 #231

Indeed, that some of the posters here want to pick and choose when the law Lurks Often Jul 2013 #7

Thank you for injecting reason premium Jul 2013 #10

Holy shit. You call the OP reason? Dawgs Jul 2013 #40

Holy shit. premium Jul 2013 #48

Exactly. n/t Dawgs Jul 2013 #69

The changes need to come at the beginning of the process shawn703 Jul 2013 #12

On that we agree. The state needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt pnwmom Jul 2013 #13

SYG defense wasn't used in the Z trial. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #17

I realize that. Never said it was used. I just think that instead of cali Jul 2013 #24

The price of justice is that sometimes the guilty get to walk BlueStreak Jul 2013 #20

Well some would say then that you don't care if kids die and such The Straight Story Jul 2013 #22

Burden should be on defense for self-defense claim. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #25

So guilty until proven innocent? hack89 Jul 2013 #30

No, just make it a prepondernace of the evidence standard. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #58

Under that standard Z still walks hack89 Jul 2013 #61

There was no testimony that he tried to escape and leave. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #71

There is no evidence he had the opportunity to escape and leave. hack89 Jul 2013 #81

The unserious nature of his 'injuries' seems to indicate he didn't try but rather geek tragedy Jul 2013 #85

The nature of his injuries are irrelevant to prove state of mind hack89 Jul 2013 #93

The standard is 'reasonably in fear" but that language gets ignored geek tragedy Jul 2013 #98

You want a system that allows people to legally beat other people to death hack89 Jul 2013 #103

Better than allowing kids to get shot because they're black. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #105

So as long as the right people are killed, it is ok with you? hack89 Jul 2013 #109

Pretty hard to beat someone to death with mere fists. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #112

Happened 745 times in 2010 hack89 Jul 2013 #121

Compared to 11-12,000 homicides by hand guns. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #125

More like 6,000. Which is too high hack89 Jul 2013 #133

No, I'm advocating not letting them start fights and end them by shooting the other person. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #140

Reasonable goal - lousy way to get there. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #144

that's a problem with our gun saturated culture more than anything else. cali Jul 2013 #189

The gun lovers want to have it both ways. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #193

I agree with that. cali Jul 2013 #195

Yeadley Love onenote Jul 2013 #142

Since he broke into her home with the intent of killing her, I would presume geek tragedy Jul 2013 #145

What if she had invited him over? Or she had gone to his apartment? onenote Jul 2013 #154

And he started beating the shit out of her? Same difference. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #155

He had grabbed her, but hadn't yet beat the shit out of her onenote Jul 2013 #156

We can do this dance all day. If he initiates the conflict, she can shoot him geek tragedy Jul 2013 #157

And if there is no witness? What then? onenote Jul 2013 #160

So, in this completely hypothetical example one person goes to the other's geek tragedy Jul 2013 #162

No , she ends up dead from her boyfriend's gun onenote Jul 2013 #165

You're asking me to serve as the jury without seeing actual forensics or testimony. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #166

Or maybe its evidence of a desire to be able to protect oneself. onenote Jul 2013 #168

To me, if you need to carry a gun into a place for self-protection, you ought geek tragedy Jul 2013 #171

based on a real world example onenote Jul 2013 #79

There would be forensic evidence available, there would be fingerprints on the gun geek tragedy Jul 2013 #84

How would any of that evidence indicate who pulled their weapon first? onenote Jul 2013 #91

Er, in such a case the defendant has admitted to killing someone treestar Jul 2013 #67

Not all homicides are a crime hack89 Jul 2013 #77

What state is that? Lasher Jul 2013 #148

Ohio. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #149

Thanks. Lasher Jul 2013 #151

They have the burden of proof that there was a homicide treestar Jul 2013 #232

Only one state in America puts that burden on the accused hack89 Jul 2013 #235

The one state must be Delaware treestar Jul 2013 #236

Use of force in self defense is not an affirmative defense in Delaware - it is a justification hack89 Jul 2013 #237

There was a story about a year ago christx30 Jul 2013 #158

It is a major thing treestar Jul 2013 #233

So help me out here, then Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #187

His actions are not the issue here - he did nothing wrong hack89 Jul 2013 #198

Well, IMO there is a Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #200

The state has to prove guilt. Which requires hard evidence hack89 Jul 2013 #201

that I well know... Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #202

Make sure there are no witnesses or you are off to prison. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #203

LOL...Witnesses or no, the state will find a way to lock me up Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #205

Well, being a Mets fan that is perfectly understandable hack89 Jul 2013 #206

Once you start down that slippery slope of making the defense prove a claim premium Jul 2013 #33

The law as it is protects white people's ability to kill blacks. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #46

Do you think the 5 white jurors on the Zimmerman jury were racists? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #57

See this video: geek tragedy Jul 2013 #63

Thanks for posting that.. SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #196

You can post all the graphs you want, premium Jul 2013 #60

This wasn't SYG. This was "white jury must find no reasonable doubt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #66

Well then... pipi_k Jul 2013 #163

How was that graph actually made? anomiep Jul 2013 #230

Not so, there have always been such rules treestar Jul 2013 #70

You're right, premium Jul 2013 #82

No. Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #38

Preponderance of the evidence standard. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #53

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #83

The law in Florida makes vigilantes agents of the state and presumes geek tragedy Jul 2013 #88

No... I would change the law, not simply go to one side or the other with it Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #97

What about the law would you change? nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #99

I am very poor at 'legalese' speak... Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #117

The problem is that legally nothing Zimmerman did before the two geek tragedy Jul 2013 #118

Agreed Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #127

Another hypothetical for you onenote Jul 2013 #86

You're damn right it should. Dawgs Jul 2013 #43

no, it shouldn't. that's not how our system works. cali Jul 2013 #47

The system has failed miserably. Dawgs Jul 2013 #54

Some people=white people. Black people almost never get away geek tragedy Jul 2013 #75

I fear it happening much more often now Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #191

in regards to defendants testifying... disillusioned73 Jul 2013 #36

Short answer - the defense didn't present the video wercal Jul 2013 #45

really... disillusioned73 Jul 2013 #52

They were trying to point out discrepancies in Zimmerman's story wercal Jul 2013 #73

I think they did it because otherwise the defense would have? Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #220

The problem is Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #102

Bullshit. The desired outcome is to not make murder easy to get away with. Dawgs Jul 2013 #37

bullshit back at you. Every change suggested is either unconstitutional or cali Jul 2013 #56

Defending our crappy laws is still not a good argument when people get away with murder. Dawgs Jul 2013 #68

How do you feel about Miranda rights? onenote Jul 2013 #94

I want laws and rights to make sense. Dawgs Jul 2013 #107

Or The, Er... Fourth Amendment RobinA Jul 2013 #184

how many innocents are wrongly convicted rdking647 Jul 2013 #39

Agreed wercal Jul 2013 #42

knee-jerk reactions just deflect from the real issues DrDan Jul 2013 #51

"...make it against the law to NOT follow dispatchers orders." friendly_iconoclast Jul 2013 #111

not sure I see the danger in asking one who calls a dispatcher and DrDan Jul 2013 #128

A dispatcher is not a sworn officer Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #132

Dispatchers aren't cops, and even cops don't have the right to just order others... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2013 #136

well that being the case - and I have no reason to doubt that it is - DrDan Jul 2013 #173

And no department would want the liability Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #131

There's an old saw lawyers quote about "Hard facts make bad law." DirkGently Jul 2013 #55

it does need better prosecutors, in this particular case. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #59

I don't see a problem with going back to the traditional burden of proof on self defense treestar Jul 2013 #64

That's a good point, too. randome Jul 2013 #87

The approach taken by Florida has been the majority approach for over a decade onenote Jul 2013 #96

See posts 79 and 86 onenote Jul 2013 #115

Agree - this case should not change centuries of law ksoze Jul 2013 #74

Neither side should be allowed to show animation to the jury. Eric J in MN Jul 2013 #76

the fact that the cops even helped him make it was appalling Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #186

Good call. randome Jul 2013 #80

I think you and many others are looking at this the wrong way. DCBob Jul 2013 #90

That makes sense nt Progressive dog Jul 2013 #101

If someone were to force me into a life-or-death situation... Silent3 Jul 2013 #123

Why should the killer get preferential treatment? DCBob Jul 2013 #213

It's too late after such an event to do much for the dead person. Silent3 Jul 2013 #218

Its never too late for justice. DCBob Jul 2013 #219

I missed where people said a defendant should be forced to testify. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #95

Let's face it, our justice system looks good on paper.. mountain grammy Jul 2013 #100

Yesterday, in my frustration, I was toying with the idea of altering HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #106

I believe it should be easier for the state in one area of prosecution. BlueJazz Jul 2013 #108

That's pretty much what happened Shrek Jul 2013 #135

Oh..I didn't know that. Thanks! BlueJazz Jul 2013 #138

Not exactly. Original Prosecutor called for a Grand Jury leftstreet Jul 2013 #204

Thank you rpannier Jul 2013 #116

Agree completely. K&R. closeupready Jul 2013 #120

Reasonable and rational. marble falls Jul 2013 #122

I couldn't agree more. Bake Jul 2013 #124

Correct. Relaxed gun laws are more to blame for this than the court system. AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #126

Without any constitutional changes . . . caseymoz Jul 2013 #129

I'd just be happy if states heavily revised the so-called "self-defense" laws Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #134

What would you revise? Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #137

Find some way to make it truly "self-defense" instead of Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #169

Saw somebody on the DU facebook page advocating for "Dexter" style justice. MadBadger Jul 2013 #141

yikes. that is alarming. cali Jul 2013 #227

combine all that with support for NSA surveillance markiv Jul 2013 #143

There are actually some things the prosecution did in the zimmerman case that are troubling anomiep Jul 2013 #146

Zimmerman shouldn't have been able to walk after murdering someone Politicub Jul 2013 #152

Ben Franklin said our system was set up so that.. scheming daemons Jul 2013 #153

been on jury duty and in my county in wisconsin if the cop says you did it you are guilty dembotoz Jul 2013 #159

A widespread phenomenon. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #182

I agree, avaistheone1 Jul 2013 #161

They say justice is blind, and they say that for a reason Android3.14 Jul 2013 #164

pretty much agree... Deep13 Jul 2013 #167

I want to make it easier for a kid to walk home mzmolly Jul 2013 #176

I'd be happy to discuss the issue Savannahmann Jul 2013 #179

Great. Make it easier for racists to stalk, hunt down and murder black teens. Fucking great Cali. nt DevonRex Jul 2013 #185

gad. and what do you suggest? cali Jul 2013 #188

A judge that doesn't cripple the prosecution by ruling out racial profiling? DevonRex Jul 2013 #190

the judge could have done that under existing law, couldn't she? cali Jul 2013 #192

The part that's weird is that even though SYG was not the defense, DevonRex Jul 2013 #197

I agree. midnight Jul 2013 #194

Have you seen this? Jamastiene Jul 2013 #199

Exactly. Plus, she gave SYG instructions even tho they didn't claim SYG, DevonRex Jul 2013 #208

I think a person should have a right to hire a prosecutor Rex Jul 2013 #207

In the vast majority of criminal cases... jberryhill Jul 2013 #209

Why then did Zimmerman get to have a private lawyer then? Rex Jul 2013 #210

Because he has a Constitutional right to hire an attorney jberryhill Jul 2013 #211

I take your word for it, it is your profession. Rex Jul 2013 #212

Get a copy of the Bill of Rights jberryhill Jul 2013 #214

Very interesting. That makes a lot more sense now. Rex Jul 2013 #215

Apply it to occupy... jberryhill Jul 2013 #216

Yes I could see how that would lead to unfairness. Rex Jul 2013 #217

what a great exchange. thanks very much for it cali Jul 2013 #224

donations. cali Jul 2013 #223

that makes no sense. crime is against the state. cali Jul 2013 #222

Zimmerman did, how did that turn out? Rex Jul 2013 #225

Yes, ONE case where there was a defense fund cali Jul 2013 #234

How about we only do it with defendants we don't like? Freddie Stubbs Jul 2013 #221

Recced. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #228

It Would Have Been Easy Enough to Convict Zimmerman Under Existing Law… AndyTiedye Jul 2013 #229

So the decision is clear to me, then Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #238