Update (III): Finally, via Legal Insurrection, some decent
video. I’m not going to link to a
specific post. Just go over there and keep scrolling.
They do have a lot more
videos. Expect the next part of this
story to be prosecutors being “Nifonged.”
And deservedly so.
Sadly we might also see a civil
suit against Zimmerman. On one hand, he
really doesn’t have very many assets in the first place. Indeed this has probably financially ruined
him. But the family might want to get
the moral victory of a finding of liability.
Hopefully the family can finally understand that their son was not
murdered, that maybe he did something wrong, or maybe he just made a mistake,
but Zimmerman in any case did not murder their kid and shouldn’t be held liable. But I am not sure we can count on that.
I mean at the risk of bragging, I
called this right in the beginning. I
wrote in my first post on the subject, entitled Reasonable Beliefs: Prejudice,
Myth and Reality in the Trayvon Martin Shooting (Or “Why Han Solo Had the Right
to Shoot Greedo First), when I said this:
And remember folks, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable
doubt. Bearing some surprising evidence (such as entry wounds in Martin’s
back) or a confession, I don’t see how they can get there.
The evidence improved slightly since
then for the prosecution, but they never got close to proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. I was convinced by the end of it
that this was a case that shouldn’t have been brought. So Zimmerman’s innocence—or at least the fact
they were not going to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—was never on
trial. We were on trial.
There were two tests before
us. First could this Florida jury put
aside emotion and the fear of racial strife and find him not guilty. That test was passed. George Zimmerman was found not guilty of all charges.
Now, the question is if the
public can accept this finding of not guilty.
Will there be riots? Will there
be vigilante “justice” against George Zimmerman. Of course time will tell, but I did note
something on Twitter:
Please note to vigilantes thinking of harming George #Zimmerman... He's already killed once to protect himself. Just saying'.
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) July 14, 2013
So maybe all those big talkers on
twitter won’t have the nerve to step up.
But then I think maybe the jury should have followed my advice:
If I was on the #ZimmermanTrial jury, I'd wait until 6 a.m. and acquit. Potential rioters will be dead asleep about then.
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) July 14, 2013
Next up? Bar complaints for the prosecutors. This case shouldn’t have been brought and
there are serious allegations of misconduct, of withholding evidence and so
on. Remember Nifong? I think it is time to make another example of
a prosecutor who ignored the law and went with the politics. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be
one of the protections against unjust imprisonment. They had a duty to stand in the way of mob sentiment. Instead they joined in.
Anyway, enough recriminations for
one evening. Let us celebrate this
victory and hope that the people of Florida show the dignity we have a right to
expect from us. And let us celebrate that George Zimmerman's victory. Because truly it was our victory, too.
Update: You can watch the
verdict as it was recorded live, here. I cannot embed this video. What was confusing is they delivered one
verdict for both charges at once.
By the way, a spooky
confluence. Seconds before the video
ends, do you see what I see?:
Look closer, on the outside shot (my circle added):
Oy, what a bad juxtaposition. I presume this was coincidental.
Update (II): This is a subtle but important legal point to be
made. Self-defense law doesn’t require a
finding of fault by anyone. Let me quote
myself in
a different context:
[T]he guilt or innocence of the person
threatening you is not determinative of whether you can kill to defend
yourself.
For instance, take a person who is really,
really insane. Like a classic example is a man thinks he is squeezing
oranges to make orange juice but in fact he is strangling someone. The
law says in that case that the person is innocent of murder because he
literally doesn’t understand what he is doing (but such a person almost
certainly will be in a looney bin for the rest of his life).
Now imagine that this person hallucinates that
a person is shooting at him and he then picks up a gun and shoots in what he
thinks is self-defense. Again, if he kills a person this way it is not a
crime because he is literally so far gone insane he doesn’t understand what he
is doing. So if he is captured, the law says he is not guilty of a
crime. He will, once again, just be sent to a looney bin.
But the fact he would not be held morally
responsible for any deaths doesn’t mean you have no right to defend yourself
against him. If he is hallucinating a killer and in shooting at his
hallucination he is shooting at you, an innocent bystander, you have the right
to pull out your own gun and kill him. In that case it’s not that the
lunatic is a bad person or at all morally culpable. It’s that he presents
you with a situation where your life is in danger and the only way to get out
of it safely is to kill him.
This is not to say that fault
plays no role in this. If Zimmerman as
the aggressor in the initial fistfight, the law would have imposed a duty to
attempt retreat. But sometimes there isn’t
anyone properly described to be the aggressor.
Dan Collins imagines a plausible
scenario where he might have been the aggressor (thanks for the linkage!),
but he might not have been. He might
have himself reasonably feared that Zimmerman was about to attack him and, as the
law allows, he decided to attack pre-emptively.
That doesn’t make him the aggressor, and it doesn’t make Zimmerman the aggressor
either. In that scenario, where Martin
strikes Zimmerman first, acting in reasonable self-defense, there is no
aggressor, just two people defending themselves against the other. It could have been cascading self-defense.
Which is not to say Martin made
not mistakes. If he struck first, he
made a mistake. He should have run, he
should have called the police. I don’t
say this to beat him up, but maybe if we want to squeeze any good out of the evil
of the fact that this young man is dead, we need to realize that any person can
be armed and govern ourselves accordingly.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such
as the criminal justice system. I do not
want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such
violence. This kind of conduct is
not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part because
under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to
happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
This is cool!
ReplyDelete