Verdict is in........NOT GUILTY

[TFred]

Analysis of the alternative

Among all the great RKBA writers out there, has anyone run across a column or blog post presenting an analysis of what the implications might have been if the jury had found Zimmerman guilty?

I was pondering the question today, and it really sobered me to think where we might be in terms of self-defense if this had gone the other way. At least until it would be overturned on appeal.

TFred

 

[marshaul]

Among all the great RKBA writers out there, has anyone run across a column or blog post presenting an analysis of what the implications might have been if the jury had found Zimmerman guilty?

I was pondering the question today, and it really sobered me to think where we might be in terms of self-defense if this had gone the other way. At least until it would be overturned on appeal.

TFred

Don't see that there would be any implications. A conviction would hardly be much precedent as cases like these are always so dependent on the specific circumstances. A guilty verdict would simply mean they didn't buy his story about being attacked (if you listen to the prosecution's side of it, Martin was the one defending himself) – not that self-defense is inherently somehow an invalid defense now and forevermore.

There always has been – and always will be – a chance that, if you take someone's life with a firearm and claim self-defense, your side of the story won't be believed and you'll go to jail. It's the nature of the beast.

It's why they say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" (although in FL they might as well drop the numbers). It's why we do our best to record as much as possible, and to be squeaky-clean when it comes to getting involved in altercations.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Don't see that would be any implications. Such a conviction would hardly be much precedent as they are always do dependent on the specific circumstances. A guilty verdict would simply mean they didn't buy his story about being attacked (if you listen to the prosecution's side of it, Martin was the one defending himself). Not that self-defense is inherently somehow an invalid defense now and forevermore.

There always has been – and always will be – a chance that, if you take someone's life with a firearm and claim self-defense, your side of the story won't be believed and you'll go to jail. It's the nature of the beast.

It's why they say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" (although in FL they might as well drop the numbers). It's why we do our best to record as much as possible, and to be squeaky-clean when it comes to getting involved in altercations.

It is a shame GZ was not using a recorder, there is a valuable lesson with this case.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Any law abiding citizen that is exercising his/her 2A right should if you haven't already done so go out and purchase a video/audio recorder and make it your second best friend.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[Ca Patriot]

Zimmerman should have been wearing or using a video/audio recorder.

 

[SouthernBoy]

The Zimmerman case is yet another which completely and thoroughly confirms HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] which, for anyone who has forgotten, is:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] is a supremely important conceptualization for all gun owners and gun carriers.
It has never been rebutted or refuted.

This is such a generalized statement that it is simply not based in fact. There are exceptions.... a ton of them to this "rule". I could begin a list but I'm pretty sure most of us know and fully understand what they are. And there is this.

Martin used a weapon.

 

[carolina guy]

Not to mention using aircraft...

 

[TFred]

Don't see that there would be any implications. A conviction would hardly be much precedent as cases like these are always so dependent on the specific circumstances. A guilty verdict would simply mean they didn't buy his story about being attacked (if you listen to the prosecution's side of it, Martin was the one defending himself) – not that self-defense is inherently somehow an invalid defense now and forevermore.

There always has been – and always will be – a chance that, if you take someone's life with a firearm and claim self-defense, your side of the story won't be believed and you'll go to jail. It's the nature of the beast.

It's why they say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" (although in FL they might as well drop the numbers). It's why we do our best to record as much as possible, and to be squeaky-clean when it comes to getting involved in altercations.

Apparently I don't see it the same way you do. Considering that ALL the evidence corroborated Zimmerman's account, and NONE of the evidence corroborated the fiction made up by the prosecution, the situation as I see it is that if they had convicted him, it would have put EVERY self-defense case in jeopardy, no matter how much evidence one had to bring to the table.

That is what I think people need to think about.

TFred

 

[autosurgeon]

For those of you responding to HankT it is a troll and is best ignored.

Sent from my Optimus G using Tapatalk 2

 

[eye95]

Not to mention using aircraft...

Or some looked at it from the Moon.

Oh, wait, we didn't go there. Nevermind.

 

[marshaul]

Apparently I don't see it the same way you do. Considering that ALL the evidence corroborated Zimmerman's account, and NONE of the evidence corroborated the fiction made up by the prosecution, the situation as I see it is that if they had convicted him, it would have put EVERY self-defense case in jeopardy, no matter how much evidence one had to bring to the table.

How do you figure? It's still nothing more than a jury saying they didn't believe his story. It's not them tossing out self-defense law itself.

You act like your determination that the prosecution had zero evidence is an Indisputable Truth, or even has any weight. In fact, only the jury's determination has weight. A conviction indicates nothing more than that they believed the prosecution had valid evidence.

An acquittal does nothing to eliminate the inherent possibility that the next time around, a jury will believe the prosecution, right or wrong. This possibility is inherent and doesn't depend on anybody else being acquitted or convicted.

And anyway, that's just not how it works. Self-defense cases are too specific to derive much broad precedent from.

But I already said all that.

 

[eye95]

For those of you responding to HankT it is a troll and is best ignored.

Sent from my Optimus G using Tapatalk 2

He definitely behaves trollishly, but I wouldn't call him a troll.

When he trollishly posts his silly postulate (and, since he constantly tries to prove it, it cannot, by definition, be a postulate), since (lately) he does it so rarely, it is worth the effort to post a simple refutation, as I have done in this thread, and then let it go. New folks here should be presented the opposing view, lest they think his bit of idiocy is generally accepted here.

Fortunately for Z, he did not follow Hank's stupid "postulate." He'd be dead if he did!

 

[marshaul]

Fortunately for Z, he did not follow Hank's stupid "postulate." He'd be dead if he did!

+1

I won't say it with certainty, but it's a risk no man should have to take for the sake of an aggressor.

 

[WalkingWolf]

But-but-but Trayvon didn't want to kill Zman, he only wanted to give him a Azz Whuppin.

 

[Grapeshot]

Thanks for your suggestion, OC.

The statement:

HPCSD[SUP]©[/SUP] is a supremely important conceptualization for all gun owners and gun carriers.
It has never been rebutted or refuted is correct as stated because it is in the context of HPCSD[SUP]©[/SUP], which describes its scope, viz., non-LEO and non-military shootings. LEO shootings are a whole 'nother ball game, as you sagely imply.

My evidence that HPCSD[SUP]©[/SUP] has "never been rebutted or refuted" is that all attempts do so have failed. You're free to look them up via the search function. ("Postulate" is a heckuva search term in this instance.)

HankT is back after being absent without leave for over 4 years.

We have missed him.