Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Canada actually puts the most emphasis on what might be called "reasonable force", and the context the force was used in, when deciding self-defense cases. However, I'm not 100% sure you don't have a point in terms of a murder charge, or possibly manslaughter, so fair enough. Other laws in Canada would easily apply, even if we ignore the ones related to gun control. There is no way he wouldn't do time for reckless endangerment here.

Touché.

I'd assume in the UK or Canada, he wouldn't get the US equivalent of Murder 1 or 2. That was my line or reasoning with mens rea. There could be other laws, as you indidcated, that could land him in trouble: mos def.

If we take Zimmerman's account which, as Ush points out correctly, we really have to due to reasonable doubt, he wouldn't get murder 1 or 2 of course. I do think manslaughter would be the outcome here. And of course Florida's "stand your ground" laws are the underlying reason for why Zimmerman got off, as shooting someone in a fist fight as described would never be deemed a reasonable application of self-defense here.

Sorry, that's not true. Assuming it is legal to carry a gun, which of course it wouldn't be in many other jurisdictions, firing it in self-defence would be a valid defence to a murder charge, even against an unarmed opponent. Again. this is not a Florida thing.

Taking the Tony Martin case in the UK, for example (man who was repeatedly burgled and eventually lay in wait for the burglars to come and shot them with a legally owned shotgun when he did), he was convicted for murder because he a. planned it (though this later got appealed out on grounds of diminished responsibility) and b. because the burglars ran away.

If, however, one of them had attacked him and he'd shot one dead, he would have walked. Of course that's very unlikely, as he would have had to retrieve the gun from its securely locked cabinet you have to keep it in in the UK, which makes a spontaneous self-defence plea difficult, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what tool you use for self-defence.

Whereas if you use, say, a knife, you can still be done for murder in the UK if you strike repeatedly; a single stab to defend yourself is fine, but anything beyond that (unless you can establish that your life was still in danger after the first stab) and you are in trouble.

It's never the implement that matters, but the circumstances.

I'm really not sure people are fully clued up on what manslaughter is here. A self-defence plea invalidates a manslaughter charge as much as a murder charge. It would make no difference. Manslaughter is not some sort of simple 'we can't get him on murder so we'll get him on this instead' magic button. It always involves an illegal act, and a self-defence plea, by definition, is a claim that a person did nothing illegal.

Florida's 10-20-Life is also a reason they wouldn't convict Zimmerman. As to your assertion for Zimmerman's acquittal, how about a simple "the jury believed Zimmerman and the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof"? That's a little more factual, don't you think?

Originally posted by you get thorns
It is surprising how many refuse to see this.

you especially.

innocence that a court and jury presumes is based on the presence of a reasonable doubt. this is not synonymous with being factually innocent. consider that the next time you post about how you were right all along and zimmerman was innocent, etc.

know what? forget all that. try this:

by your and many others' assertions of factual innocence based on a court's decision, you are also suggesting that O.J. never slit his wife's throat, because he was aquitted.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, that's not true. Assuming it is legal to carry a gun, which of course it wouldn't be in many other jurisdictions, firing it in self-defence would be a valid defence to a murder charge, even against an unarmed opponent. Again. this is not a Florida thing.

Taking the Tony Martin case in the UK, for example (man who was repeatedly burgled and eventually lay in wait for the burglars to come and shot them with a legally owned shotgun when he did), he was convicted for murder because he a. planned it (though this later got appealed out on grounds of diminished responsibility) and b. because the burglars ran away.

If, however, one of them had attacked him and he'd shot one dead, he would have walked. Of course that's very unlikely, as he would have had to retrieve the gun from its securely locked cabinet you have to keep it in in the UK, which makes a spontaneous self-defence plea difficult, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what tool you use for self-defence.

Whereas if you use, say, a knife, you can still be done for murder in the UK if you strike repeatedly; a single stab to defend yourself is fine, but anything beyond that (unless you can establish that your life was still in danger after the first stab) and you are in trouble.

It's never the implement that matters, but the circumstances.

I'm not sure it would be a valid defense in Canada:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another

Especially under the new provisions mentioned at the bottom. This is different from saying he would get a murder conviction, because there is no evidence of intent, but a fail to convict doesn't mean the self-defense plea met the legal standard for acquittal.

Even in the Zimmerman case, it wasn't self-defense that got him off, it was acquittal by jury. He was found not guilty of any crime, he wasn't absolved of guilt because he was acting in self-defense. The judge had, I believe, 3 (at least 2) chances to accept a motion for acquittal for that very reason and she decided the case should go to a jury.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Whereas if you use, say, a knife, you can still be done for murder in the UK if you strike repeatedly; a single stab to defend yourself is fine, but anything beyond that (unless you can establish that your life was still in danger after the first stab) and you are in trouble.

It's never the implement that matters, but the circumstances.

That seems like a crazy law, considering a single stab to a given area can be lethal, while multiples to another can not be. ie stabbing someone once in the throat compared to stabbing them three times in the foot.

It's nothing to do with how much damage you cause, it's about what you were trying to do. A single stab to get an assailant off of you is self-defence, and if he dies of the wound it is still self-defence. Continuing to stab them afterwards is a crime, though whether it is murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or GBH depends on the circumstances.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure it would be a valid defense in Canada:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another

Especially under the new provisions mentioned at the bottom. This is different from saying he would get a murder conviction, because there is no evidence of intent, but a fail to convict doesn't mean the self-defense plea met the legal standard for acquittal.

Even in the Zimmerman case, it wasn't self-defense that got him off, it was acquittal by jury. He was found not guilty of any crime, he wasn't absolved of guilt because he was acting in self-defense. The judge had, I believe, 3 (at least 2) chances to accept a motion for acquittal for that very reason and she decided the case should go to a jury.

The jury acquitted because they believed he was acting in self-defence. That's exactly the same in terms of defence as a technical dismissal or refusal to bring charges for the same reason. It was Zimmerman's defence and the jury accepted it. That is pretty much how legal defences work. There's no magic 'jury acquitted him' that supercedes legal defences. Properly functioning juries can ONLY acquit for such legal reasons.

I'm pretty sure it would be the same in Canada- if the jury accepted self-defence, he'd get off, and for the exact same reason- there's too much room for doubt about what happened in the fight, which is turn down to the crappy witnesses. Remember, the prosecution has to prove, beyond doubt, that the defence cannot apply.

there is a difference between acquittal by judge and acquittal by jury though.

Literally, obviously, but that's nothing to do with the validity of a self-defence plea, which is still why he got off.

Originally posted by Oliver North
there is a difference between acquittal by judge and acquittal by jury though.

In the case of the US laws?

Why is there a significant difference? I thought it was due to the judge not being able to reconcile the defense's evidence of "clearly not-guilty" because there was too much doubt so the judge defers to a jury for consideration.

That's how I saw it. Am I wrong?

well, no, technically he got off because the jury found him not guilty of a crime. Whether that be because they, as individuals, thought he was acting in self-defense, is immaterial. A juror could have just as easily thought there was insufficient evidence to convict, though not believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense. They could also have thought he looked handsome in his suit. A jury acquittal means you are found not-guilty of the crime, period.

Self-defense as a legal defense has a certain threshold it needs to meet for an acquittal outright, and that is done by a judge. Unlike the jury, the judge can rule on questions of whether the standard for a defense is met, whereas the jury rules on guilt.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In the case of the US laws?

Why is there a significant difference? I thought it was due to the judge not being able to reconcile the defense's evidence of "clearly not-guilty" because there was too much doubt so the judge defers to a jury for consideration.

That's how I saw it. Am I wrong?

in practice there would be almost no difference, it is just that jurors aren't technically the ones who rule on whether the legal standard for a defense has been met. It might be that they think it has and therefore vote the way they do, but it is a different type of legal test.

Like, I think the judge throwing the case out would be much more significant in terms of legal precedent regarding self-defense than is a jury verdict.

Well you can speculate that all you like, but the fact remains that the defence Zimmerman offered was self-defence, all the legal arguments in court revolved around that defence, and from everything we have heard (like the interview one of the jurors gave) it seems very likely that that was what the jury accepted, and frankly I can't see any other reasonable defence open.

But you are being very academic anyway. This whole case was about self-defence, and that is what the debate surrounding it comes down to, and it is what all legal experts are analysing. If there was no self-defence law, he'd now be in jail. You trying to differentiate this by means of jury is pretty irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well you can speculate that all you like, but the fact remains that the defence Zimmerman offered was self-defence, and from everything we have heard (like the interview one of the jurors gave) it seems very likely that that was what they accepted, and frankly I can't see any other reasonable defence open.

But you are being very academic anyway. This whole case was about self-defence, and that is what the debate surrounding it comes down to, and it is what all legal experts are analysing. If there was no self-defence law, he'd now be in jail. You trying to differentiate this by means of jury is pretty irrelevant.

I don't disagree in terms of this case, no

Even Jimmy Carter can see it.

How can our current administration miss it.

Lol. Notsreifsrs

Originally posted by you get thorns
Even Jimmy Carter can see it.

How can our current administration miss it.

right. this is obama's fault.

So those people who were like "we trust the lord will make the right decision" (about Zimmerman's sentence) are all pissed off, protesting, calling for civil rights case. Wheres their trust in God now? As far as I remember it was the Jury who decided his fate and if they thought God had some control, why aren't they voicing dissaproval at him?