Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[mistermack]

Seth, you claim to have been in the police, but I have severe doubts.

Injuries like Zimmerman's are nothing, you would see tens of thousands of people with worse, most weekends in the US. Fights happen all the time. Any cop would know that.

Does every person who gets involved in a fight, and is losing, have the right to pull a gun and shoot the person they are fighting? Because if you are in a fight, then by definition, you are defending yourself, and so is your opponent. Absolutely ANYBODY could claim that they feared serious injury, if they were in a fight.

You could have tens of thousands of deaths by shooting every weekend, all perfectly legal.

Zimmerman's injuries are insignificant, compared to most people who have been fighting. So according to your 'logic' practically every person in a fight has the right to blow someone away. It's the american dream. For gun-nuts.

In reality, Zimmerman's ONLY hope is that he can convince a jury that he had a reasonable fear of very serious injury or death. Not just that he was losing a fight.

If he just leaves it to his lawyer to argue, he's fucked. If he takes the stand, he'll get ripped to shreds. So he's fucked either way.

[Tyrannical]

Zimmerman passed a lie detector test, and the forensic evidence matches his reenactment.
I'm still betting the Judge is going to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence that a crime was committed.

[kiki5711]

Seth, you claim to have been in the police, but I have severe doubts.

Injuries like Zimmerman's are nothing, you would see tens of thousands of people with worse, most weekends in the US. Fights happen all the time. Any cop would know that.

Does every person who gets involved in a fight, and is losing, have the right to pull a gun and shoot the person they are fighting? Because if you are in a fight, then by definition, you are defending yourself, and so is your opponent. Absolutely ANYBODY could claim that they feared serious injury, if they were in a fight.

You could have tens of thousands of deaths by shooting every weekend, all perfectly legal.

Zimmerman's injuries are insignificant, compared to most people who have been fighting. So according to your 'logic' practically every person in a fight has the right to blow someone away. It's the american dream. For gun-nuts.

In reality, Zimmerman's ONLY hope is that he can convince a jury that he had a reasonable fear of very serious injury or death. Not just that he was losing a fight.

If he just leaves it to his lawyer to argue, he's fucked. If he takes the stand, he'll get ripped to shreds. So he's fucked either way.

[kiki5711]

Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody mentioned a defendant refusing to testify.

the usual merry go round!

[Coito ergo sum]

Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody mentioned a defendant refusing to testify.

the usual merry go round!

Refusing to cooperate with police is covered by the same right as refusing to testify. It's called the right to not self-incriminate, or the right to remain silent. That's why the Miranda warnings in the US are "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...." This is supposed to mean that if you don't cooperate with police by answering their questions, that it won't be held against you. But, if you do answer their questions, it will.

Law and order conservatives hate the Miranda warnings for that reason, because their theory is that if someone is innocent they should have no worry about cooperating with police. People who think it through, though, understand that the innocent do have a lot to fear from the police.

[mistermack]

Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody mentioned a defendant refusing to testify.

the usual merry go round!

Refusing to cooperate with police is covered by the same right as refusing to testify. It's called the right to not self-incriminate, or the right to remain silent. That's why the Miranda warnings in the US are "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...." This is supposed to mean that if you don't cooperate with police by answering their questions, that it won't be held against you. But, if you do answer their questions, it will.

Law and order conservatives hate the Miranda warnings for that reason, because their theory is that if someone is innocent they should have no worry about cooperating with police. People who think it through, though, understand that the innocent do have a lot to fear from the police.

Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody is suggesting that people should be compelled to co-operate, or to answer questions.
I just made the observation that if you decide to keep silent, this FACT should not be withheld from the jury. Why should such FACTS be withheld from a jury? The defendant has a lawyer to defend him, to argue about what the facts mean. And the judge is there to direct the jury as to what should and should not be given weight.
Withholding facts is saying that the jury is too stupid to handle them. . . . . .


***
Actually, you might be right. Perhaps in the US, it is better to keep it simple.

[Coito ergo sum]

You suggested that people should have their decision not to cooperate held against them.

Why should the "fact" of remaining silent be held against you? Because remaining silent is your right, and it does not indicate guilt or innocence. To highlight it for the jury suggests that there is something wrong with doing it. There isn't.

And, your final statement is the typical Napoleon complex that Europeans have. You folks always come from the basis point of thinking you are superior to everyone else, particularly smarter. There isn't any evidence of that, and all the evidence that we do have is dead against it. But, do keep going on. Tell us again how smart you are.

[mistermack]

You suggested that people should have their decision not to cooperate held against them.

Well done, you've totally missed the point. I suggested that it should not be kept secret from the jury.
That's all.
It's open to the prosecutor to try to make something out of it, and the defense to make it clear that the defendant has every right to refuse to speak. The judge has a duty to instruct that jury that everybody has the right to silence, but the jury can take that silence into account if they think it's relevant.
Of course, the defendants can always take the stand, and explain why they didn't want to answer questions.

I don't see why all questioning shouldn't be filmed, anyway, and shown to the jury in it's entirety, unless both parties agree otherwise.
If the police are aggressive, or intimidating, or speech-making, or putting words in the mouth of the defendant, or if the defendant can't cope with the stress, then that's information that the jury should have.

[Coito ergo sum]

You suggested that people should have their decision not to cooperate held against them.

Well done, you've totally missed the point. I suggested that it should not be kept secret from the jury.
That's all.

The prosecution doesn't raise evidence that it thinks helps the defendant. They would only introduce the lack of cooperation to argue that it should be held against him.

It's open to the prosecutor to try to make something out of it,

That, you see, is anathema to good, modern, criminal justice systems, which is why the right to remain silent is guarded so carefully. The prosecution ought not be allowed to "make something out of it," because a person's right to remain silent is fundamental to due process of law.

You are missing the point. Probably because you're so smart. Tell us again how smart Europeans are.

and the defense to make it clear that the defendant has every right to refuse to speak. The judge has a duty to instruct that jury that everybody has the right to silence, but the jury can take that silence into account if they think it's relevant.

See, that's the point you're missing. The silence of the defendant is not relevant to guilt or innocence. It's merely prejudicial, unfairly so. Your position is the law and order conservative one, though, and in that regard you fit in well with the "rack 'em and stack 'em" and "hang 'em high" folks.

Of course, the defendants can always take the stand, and explain why they didn't want to answer questions.

They can only do that if they waive their right against self-incrimination in that case.

I don't see why all questioning shouldn't be filmed, anyway, and shown to the jury in it's entirety, unless both parties agree otherwise.
If the police are aggressive, or intimidating, or speech-making, or putting words in the mouth of the defendant, or if the defendant can't cope with the stress, then that's information that the jury should have.

No argument here. I certainly have no problem with the police being recorded. However, if a person says "I'm not talking to the police" that ought not be held against the defendant.

[Tero]

When Zimmerman gets released, he is going to need all his guns again. To defend himself from the gubment telling him to buy insurance. And he is going to have to shoot all evil doers before they touch him. Because he won't have healthinsurance.

[Coito ergo sum]

When Zimmerman gets released, he is going to need all his guns again. To defend himself from the gubment telling him to buy insurance. And he is going to have to shoot all evil doers before they touch him. Because he won't have healthinsurance.

The implication here being that those who support due process, ethical prosecutions, and the rights of the accused are for some reason gun nuts and anti-health insurance?

Silly. Dershowitz proves that wrong.

For all we know, Zimmerman is a democrat. And, the fact that all the "liberals" here are adopting "law and order" conservative positions on this is actually somewhat puzzling.

[Tero]

All gun nuts like Zim are libertarians and teapartyers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Having a gun doesn't make him a gun nut.

And, actually, most people who have guns in the US are neither libertarians nor tea partiers.

Gun ownership is fairly common. 4 in 10 Americans say they own a gun, or that there is a gun in their home or on their property. 30% say they personally own a gun. 32% of Democrats report having a gun in their home. 23% of Democrats say the personally own a gun.

[laklak]

Juries are specifically told, by the judge, that a defendant's decision not to testify cannot be a consideration in their deliberations. The prosecution is not ALLOWED to make a point of it.

[mistermack]

You still don't get it.
Mentioning a defendant's silence is NOT holding it against him. A prosecutor can argue that it's significant.
A defense attorney can argue that it's just someone exercising their rights. A judge should make it clear that it's anybody's right to remain silence.

In the end, the silence could only be held against the defendant, if the JURY decides it should.
And they are instructed that the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I was very much against it, when the UK brought in the ability to mention a defendant's silence.
I agreed with all the stuff that you've been saying. In fact I said much of it myself. But having seen it working, I don't agree that it impacts on the innocent. And that's all that matters.

I don't give a fuck about the rights of the guilty.