山中在美國的Zimmerman案 一文留言，指出很多人舉起美國這人權民主的明燈照路，而漠視這大佬的種族歧視及公義不彰的問題。或者有人以為我們反美及反民主自由，因為我們不斷批評美國、泛民及佔中行動，真的這樣想我就無興趣去澄清，我相信山中亦然。我們沒有興趣跟智慧負值的人辯駁，請繼續去like你的政治明星，跟你那些charismatic的教授一起在天秤上自稱自讚，吹捧吹噓，你們真棒，當頭棒折了也喝不醒悟的人。標少贈你一句：有了大佬，沒了頭腦。也罷，言歸正傳，再談Zimmerman。
Zimmerman雖然被判無罪，訴訟未必因此了結。聯邦政府仍然可以重新檢控Zimmerman，那是美國司法制度賦予的權力，以前也曾經發生過，並不構成double jeopardy。除此之外聯邦政府也可以考慮檢控Zimmerman侵犯死者的公民權利(civil rights)，死者家人也可以提出民事索償。
美國人又一次對擁有槍械權作出辯論，相信又一次的不了了之。有美國法律學者指出，刑事訴訟限制多多，法庭往往未能找出事實真相。唉！這還用講，標少都不知講過多少次了。我們雖然不能用香港的法律概念對此案作批評，但法律概念上大家也有共通處。以自衛作抗辯而言，被告無需先退讓(retreat)，究竟被告是否合理自衛殺人，在控方缺乏證據下，本案的裁決，難以視為司法不公的例子。這件案也並非種族歧視的好例子，至少沒有足以下定論的證據。雖然美國種族因素引發的案例不少，這一宗卻並非表表者，以此課題引起輿論，有譁眾取寵之嫌，不期然使我想起香港的社會的風氣。
"聯邦政府仍然可以重新檢控......"
回覆刪除-- A famous case is Rodney King's case in 1992(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King).
Thanks. Fortunately, we work in a different system. We don't have a state court and a federal court. Relying on the same set of facts, conviction or acquittal in the end, no one can be prosecuted for the second time. In the Zimmerman case, if he is to be prosecuted for violating the deceased's civil rights, the prosecution is virtually not relying on the same or substantially the same set of facts. Otherwise it would be against the cardinal principle of ne bis in idem (prohibition of double jeopardy) and at the same time against human rights. From another perspective, there is no reason justifiable here to bring charges at different time. It is also against double jeopardy. I think probably because the civil rights prosecution can only be instituted in the federal court level. It is the only reason I can think of to enable the second bit of the cherry.
刪除In retrospect, in 古思堯's most recent conviction of burning regional flag case, there is one more ground of appeal, if there is an appeal, That is to say, it violates the principle of double jeopardy for bringing a charge which was available to prosecute when an early prosecution was instituted. There is no justification to divide up the charges at different times when these charges could be conveniently brought together. The defendant had unnecessarily gone through an ordeal of numerous trials. It is also against the Bill of Rights.
Thanks Bill! This also reminds me of a case in Hong Kong, even though it is not strictly double jeopardy. AU Pui Kuen, a police detective, fatally shot a young man after a quarrel due to a minor traffic matter. The coroner's court made the finding of lawful killing, but the detective was then charged with murder and convicted. After appeals, the murder charge was overturned and he was convicted of manslaughter. I suppose disagreements between the coroner's court and the CJ did not happen too much in colonial Hong Kong?
刪除Reading the NYT today, they say one of the issue is the Stand Your Ground law, in which a self-defense claim would be legit, provided that the claimant had "reasonable belief" that grievous harm would come to himself or others. That means the claimant or others do not have to be actually threatened and facing risks in order to claim self-defense.
回覆刪除Stand Your Ground law is something foreign to me. My understanding of this kind of legislation is that there are 2 tiers. The defendant has to subjective feel the threat and objectively the fear is a reasonable fear applying a reasonable man's standard. It is very loose in this kind of claim in Florida. It will be very difficult for the prosecution to rebut what Zimmerman said. The bigger issue arising from this case is gun control rather than the racial element. Without a drastic change to the gun law, this kind of shooting incident will occur again. In a way, I subjectively feel the barbarity in the Americans, living in cyber age with a primitive mind. Many of them just enjoy using weapons to guard against threats and protect personal rights. Why turn a home into an arsenal? Why can't they exchange fire with pens? I can portray them wearing suits with cowboy boots and hats.
刪除Some suggested, jokingly, that the gun issue is a race issue, because white people on average are not as good as the black people in terms of fist fighting ability.
刪除And "the right to bear arm thing" was meant to give the South a method to control their slaves, so it definitely started as a race issue.
American shall confiscate all of gun from both good guy and bad guys at the same time if they want their country become gun free country, it's a mission impossible. USA is still rich enough to satisfy its underdogs, otherwise America will be more barbaric
刪除案件被指涉及種族歧視，有2個原因。(1)如果死者是白人，被告未必會懷疑死者，繼而發生爭執；(2)陪審員全是白人女性，有了這2個原因，縱使被告是黑人(不過可能是上等黑人)，種族歧視的指控依然會揮之不去。
回覆刪除案件被指涉及種族歧視，最主要的原因為黑人在美國普遍受到歧視，本案引起輿論因奧巴馬也加入而激化。
刪除陪審員其中一個是拉美矞，為何一個黑人也沒有真的天曉得。動輒就講種族歧視，以本案而言，也欠公允。
In the O. J. Simpson case, all jurors were African Americans, and he was acquitted.
刪除In the case of four police officers assaulting Rodney King, the jury (with no African American) acquitted the officers despite video evidence.