Their conclusion doesn't seem to match the facts presented in the article nor the comparison they made.
There were several HUGE differences in the cases that they pointed out. Trying to use this as an "if Trayvon was white and Zimmerman was black" example makes little sense unless you're working with the assumption based on no evidence that Martin was on drugs and up to no good which would make him similar to the victim in the Scott case.
Les, we've differed on this topic primarily because I've approached it from a moral perspective and you've approached it from a legal perspective necessary in a court of law.
These cases seem very legally different. What is your take?
First, we don't differ that much on the "moral" perspective. Although, I don't know if I'd use that word.
Second, I think I've said this before but I'm not a huge fan of comparing cases to make a point because its too simplistic and there are so many variables that come into play. I really only posted a link to the article because I remembered bmoney had asked about any similar kind of cases and I thought it would be an interesting talking point.
From a legal perspective, there are three huge differences: 1) there's a duty to retreat in New York, 2) there was no physical violence between the parties before he fired the shot and 3) the deceased actually was committing a crime beforehand and was intoxicated.
Numbers 1 and 2 actually make it a tougher case from a legal perspective for the defense in my opinion. However, number 3 would make it tougher for the prosecution from a jury appeal standpoint.
The one thing I said I would've been concerned with as Zimmerman's lawyer is that, in spite of the law, the jury will know who killed Martin and they may feel compelled to find him guilty of something.
Given that the deceased was breaking into cars and high on drugs, the defense didn't really have to fight against that. I doubt there was much sympathy for the victim in that case as there was for Martin.
Not knowing much about the case or trial, I would imagine the big issue would've been the duty to retreat. I think a jury would understand using deadly force against some high as a kite criminal running at you.
So, I think factually there are certainly some similarities, but legally, the considerations are much different. In Zimmerman, the issues were could the State fill in the gaps and could the defense convince the jury to put aside the sympathy and emotion. In this case, the concerns for the State was probably trying to overcome the jury thinking the victim "deserved it" or if the defense could show that the defendant could not retreat.
*One other thing I will note and that is I'm assuming one still has a duty to retreat in NY if they're right outside their home on their driveway or something. If that's considered to be their home for purposes of the castle doctrine (which I doubt), then that would obviously change my opinion on things.
