Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
TM would be guilty.
i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.
Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.
|
Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.
Also, you draw the factual conclusion that Z "was punched a few times" and the direct of Dr. Rao provides objective support for that factual conclusion. At the same time, I think the course of the fight is somewhat speculative beyond Z's injuries and Good's testimony. Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjective fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense.
a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)
ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)
1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.
- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense
2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.
- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.
now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.
|
My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this (it's akin to letting OJ try on the gloves) instead of simply bringing it out in final argument. That way, instead having it manipulated against you, you get to couch it in a way consistent with your case. This was just not a witness I would have put on.
I get your analogy and don't think it is all that flawed. A modification that might make it more applicable would be, in the second case: B can't tell if gun is loaded, in the moment thinks it might be and shoots A. After the fact, a reasonable person who reviews the incident - w/out the gun being pointed at them - believe it obvious that the gun was unloaded. In that case, I
believe, but am not positive, that the subjective belief is sufficient defense because the objective person has to place themselves in the shoes of person B and attempt to review it from the reasonableness from that position -- not as neutral observer. It seems to me, if person A engages in actions that create a subjective doubt as to fear of life, person A cannot then benefit from objective hindsight to say the B was unreasonable.
Here, through his statements to police, interviews on TV and in statements to friends, Z has consistently (with tangential inconsistencies) asserted his subjective belief that he was in fear for his life
during the fight - a subjective belief that, in concert with his injuries, is supported by the EMT's and Good's testimony. On the other hand, in hind sight, and with no knowledge of the exact specifics, neutral observers (Chico and G84C) see a simple fist-fight with one guy clearly losing but in a manner which doesn't appear to them to be life threatening. To me, finding someone guilty of a crime based on hindsight and speculation is patently unfair. Barring clear evidence that Z's subjective belief was patently unreasonable, I don't think the State has met its burden.
In light of Z's injuries, Good's testimony, and the testimony of the on-site EMT, I think the State simply has got to come up with more than Dr. Rao's speculative hindsight to prove Z's belief was unreasonable.