Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
7. Yes. But this prosecutor is explaining how it is supposed to work.
Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:50 PM
Apr 2012

I think she made a good statement. We shall see what really happens.

I am uncertain from what the prosecutor said as to whether due to the Stand Your Ground law the issue of an affirmative defense, in other words, Zimmerman's claim that he was justified in killing Trayvon in self-defense will be heard first, before other issues are decided.

Seems rather awkward to me because by pleading self-defense, a defendant essentially admits having committed the act -- here the killing. Wouldn't it be better to require the prosecutor to prove first that the defendant committed the unlawful act?

Alternatively, the prosecutor seemed to suggest that she had already considered the self-defense issue. How would she have the authority to decide that? Wouldn't the court have to decide? And how can a court consider the self-defense argument without first hearing the prosecutor's case? I can't picture how this would work under the SYG law.

Another problem with the SYG law that has become apparent to me in this case is that we have a defendant who may or may not have committed a crime. Here we know that the defendant shot Trayvon, but in many cases we would not. And in this case, we had a defendant running around without being charged, not communicating properly with his lawyers and talking not only to the press but perhaps also the prosecutor outside the presence of his lawyer.

That is a horrible situation as many commentators have pointed out. No matter the crime, no matter the situation, a defendant, it seems to me, is better off charged and awaiting trial.

If there is an arraignment, then the defendant will either be assigned an attorney or be represented by one he has hired. And once the defendant really has appeared with an attorney, it would be easier for the attorney to explain things to his client and thereby, hopefully, control the defendant. That is far better for the defendant.

I don't have much experience with this particular kind of situation, but this is what I see here.

The SYG law does not seem to work well either for the defendant or the victim.

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Zimmerman Charged With 2n...»Reply #7