It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.
Originally posted by elysiumfire
Muzzlebreak:
These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.
This is not a thread about 'race', it is about the law and how it is and may be used. Please stay on topic, I welcome any view that does so.
Originally posted by elysiumfire
Muzzlebreak:
These "protests" make it abundantly clear which folks are the real rascists in this country--and it's not Zimmerman and the white folks.
This is not a thread about 'race', it is about the law and how it is and may be used. Please stay on topic, I welcome any view that does so.
Originally posted by elysiumfire
I'm not fully sure how to feel about this, except I have this unease gnawing away at me.
www.bbc.co.uk...
Here's my understanding. A security guard (Zimmerman) for a housing estate became suspicious of an African-American youth (Martin) and at some point challenged him.
A scuffle and then a fight ensued between them, and from the evidence, it looks like Martin gained physical advantage over Zimmerman, but Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest and killed him.
Initially, Sandford Police Department did not charge Zimmerman because they believed he acted out of a genuine fear for his life,.
and that his actions were supported by a lawful right for a person to stand their ground and use lethal force if necessary.
Nevertheless, Zimmerman eventually was called to trial, but was found not guilty by a six woman jury. .
Originally posted by boymonkey74
Hold on I thought you had double jeopardy laws in the states?
He has been found not guilty at state level? but they can go after him again at federal level?
Iam confused
In fact, neither the Florida nor federal courts care whether his intent was to stop the assault by firing, or kill Martin by firing.
Surely, to successfully prosecute this, it has to be proven that Zimmerman 'meant' to kill Martin whilst fearing for his life, that his intention was not to merely subdue Martin by wounding him, but to deliberately kill him in order to stop his assault upon him? This point has to be the crux of any successful prosecution against Zimmerman.
Our laws allow lethal force in a situation where you can't retreat and you're getting your brains splattered over the sidewalk. Alternatives are not necessary, and Zimmerman didn't have any alternatives.
I doubt very much if deliberate intent to kill Martin rather than just wound him could be proved, even though it could be argued that Zimmerman failed to act with alternative and less lethal force, and in doing so, violated Martin's civil rights.
I hope you'll excuse me, but I'm quite unable to see the sense in these sentences. perhaps if you rephrased them?
The act of murder is inclusive of civil rights violation right from the off, but it has to be successfully prosecuted as intentional, otherwise, it lowers to a lesser charge of manslaughter. Yet, if it could be proven that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was intentionally to kill and not to wound, then it falls within the category of murder, even though he was fearing for his life at the time.
At the point when you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
The fact that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin is without doubt. The question remains: at what point does lethal force become justified as a defence, especially if alternative and less lethal options are available?
Originally posted by elysiumfire
My question now is, how logical is it to bring a charge of civil rights violation after a jury has found Zimmerman to be 'not guilty' of unlawful killing due to a successful defence of fearing for his life? Surely, to successfully prosecute this, it has to be proven that Zimmerman 'meant' to kill Martin whilst fearing for his life, that his intention was not to merely subdue Martin by wounding him, but to deliberately kill him in order to stop his assault upon him? This point has to be the crux of any successful prosecution against Zimmerman.