A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who was following him around a mall food court earlier this year

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The issue in that case if memory serves is that nobody actually knew and could testify as to what happened during the confrontation.

    The privilege of self defense can be gained and lost in the course of an altercation. If an initial aggressor says “sorry, I’m outta here” and starts walking away, the initial victim’s privilege ends. If you shoot them in the back while they leave, it’s a crime. I didn’t believe a word that Zimmerman fuck said but the burden of proof was on the state. All Zimmerman had to do in the criminal case was say nothing, which is what he did. In the Martin family’s wrongful death suit against the homeowners association, I believe the association’s insurer settled for seven figures or more. Guess they thought Zimmerman wouldn’t make a very credible witness when he’d be required to testify in civil court. They knew why was he was hastling Martin in the first place, knew Zimmerman’s story had gaping holes in it.

    The right to remain silent and the reasonable doubt standard rightly freed Zimmerman, in my view.

    In the story above, there were numerous witnesses and video. I didn’t follow the trial, though.

    • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So theoretically if someone shot someone else and there weren’t any witnesses or video and the shooter said exactly what happened in this case happened in this hypothetical situation do you think it would be equally justified?

      • Good question, I think.

        It’s not a great fit because of two factors the food court patron knew there were others around and saw the YouTuber’s posse standing there with cell phone cameras. If I were on the jury, that would make it less reasonable for the patron to claim he was in fear for his life. He had no reason to assume the YouTuber was armed, and with that evidence of so people around and it being so open and public, and again, no weapon, patron was at best about to catch a beating, which I think even is a stretch because there was no verbal threats or display of intent to do violence.

        Anyway, to your question, assuming the jury is going to disregard the public location and cameras everywhere, if the patron gave the exact same story, I think it would remain unjustified. The shooter claimed that, given the circumstances, he drew the inference that his life was in danger, a danger of serious bodily injury. That’s the standard.

        I think there the facts support only an inference of a threat to bodily injury. The shooter could have safely waited before escalating to shooting. Shooting a YouTuber in the chest was disproportionate to the facts, in my view. The proportion has to be objectively reasonable, such proportion as society is willing to accept. I think, if everyone shot in this sort of situation, nobody would like it, and there would be many, many more deaths by gun violence.