Is Manslaughter Likely for Zimmerman? (1 Viewer)

[Josie]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

 

[MaggieD]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

I think it all hinges on the judge's instructions to the jury -- explaining to the jury just what they must find him guilty of to find him guilty of what. (Does that make sense?) I won't be surprised if they find him guilty of manslaughter if the judge's instructions allow it. But I think, since that carries a max of thirty years in this instance, the jury will be stunned if he receives that harsh a sentence.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's found guilty of a lesser charge.

 

[Josie]

I could see them convicting him of manslaughter because he got out of his car and followed Trayvon. I still think it's iffy though, since GZ said he stopped following Trayvon and started walking back to his car when he was jumped. You just never know.

I won't be surprised if he's convicted of manslaughter. I will be surprised if he gets more than 10 years for it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

I don't see how #1 would contribute to negligence. If you're in a 911 situation just because the police are coming doesn't mean you have to disarm. In fact most people keep and carry guns because of police in-transit times.

 

[Josie]

Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?

 

[Goshin]

I could see them convicting him of manslaughter because he got out of his car and followed Trayvon. I still think it's iffy though, since GZ said he stopped following Trayvon and started walking back to his car when he was jumped. You just never know.

I won't be surprised if he's convicted of manslaughter. I will be surprised if he gets more than 10 years for it.

Manslaughter is still iffy, since following a suspicious person is not illegal.

It wasn't a GOOD idea, but it wasn't illegal.

But you never know for sure with a jury...

 

[Oceandan]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

Very fair observations, although I would claim there is reasonable doubt as to the weight given each or any of those four premises.

1. He is heard telling the NEN operator "ok" after being told "we don't need you to do that" (meaning following)
2. See above
3. a--holes always get away was uttered prior to leaving the car. "effin punkS" was uttered while outside although each of those was a "global" statement and not a SPECIFIC reference. Yes it's fair to say it can be implied GZ is referring to TM "inclusive" in these statements but it does not, in my opinion prove negligence.
4. He is under no obligation to identify himself in any manner shape or form.

One thing omitted in this scenario is the state must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ did NOT have self defense available.

 

[sharon]

I don't see how #1 would contribute to negligence. If you're in a 911 situation just because the police are coming doesn't mean you have to disarm. In fact most people keep and carry guns because of police in-transit times.

George didn't call 911.. he called NEN because Trayvon was not committing any crime.

 

[AGENT J]

manslaughter is likely compared to murder2

actually i think manslaughter is what they want because IMO thats the only logical reason to go for murder2, shoot for the stars and if you just get the moon thats ok.

I think manslaughter is still tough though

 

[AGENT J]

Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?

i dont consider those parallels at all because if someone is in my home the opinion of immediate danger is much more sever, rational, real and understandable

BUT

people have been charged with types of murder/manslaughter for defending house/property

 

[Oceandan]

Someone correct me if I"m wrong, please.

If one is to believe, George Zimmerman "followed" Trayvon Martin the night of the incident, one must ALSO believe, it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he lied to the NEN operator. On top of that one must believe he lied about the encounter, ie: Martin did not surprise him/ambush/jump out/startling. One must also believe due to a non known encounter, he caught up to TM, got in a fight, where in the words of an EYEWITNESS he suffered an "MMA style ground and pound" and then somehow got his gun and shot TM. By inference one must also believe that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even IF all of the above is accepted, that during the fight, GZ did NOT as a "reasonable" person fear great bodily harm or death??

In other words, not only has the state proven beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ acted with negligence during all of the events preceding the physical encounter, but ALSO once the physical encounter commenced, it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ had no reason to "fear great bodily harm or death".

 

[CanadaJohn]

In my view, from what I've seen, this jury will not convict Zimmerman of any crime because no crime has been proven. There is never a case where reverse jury nullification leads to inventing a crime where none exists. Sometimes, juries will ignore the commission of a crime and acquit a defendent because they feel the person either didn't mean to do it or because they feel the law is an ass. They never invent or shop around for a crime to convict upon in order to satisfy what the media and we might see as needed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

Not really. Which of those actions, or even the sum total of all of those actions, would a juror consider as grounds to justify them deserving a severe beating from another person over? Remember that even being a total jerk is not grounds for a "justified" assault/battery. The shooting was in response to the assault/battery, what was the assault/battery justification? Surely not simple negligence justifies a "good ass whooping"?

 

[Lutherf]

Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

If Trayvon Martin's actions are taken out of the equation then we have intentional homicide....first degree murder. Then again, there WERE actions by Trayvon Martin so not including those actions would be a monumental miscarriage of justice.

 

[soot]

I've been arguing pretty much since the beginning that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

(Yes, I know that a great many GZ fanboys disagree with that, your objections are noted, and I honestly don't care what you think and won't be debating it, AGAIN, here.)

So if the jury convicted him of the same I'd be gratified, though perhaps a little surprised.

Why surprised?

47% of Americans are collecting government handouts, tens of millions of Americans owe far more than they can ever hope to repay, the divorce rate is about 50%, people don't read the fine print and then act all surprised when their ARM resets and they lose their home, only something like ~30% of Americans have college degrees (and far fewer have useful college degrees) in what has clearly become a technology and information economy.

In short? Americans are idiots.

I expect them to acquit this idiot because they (at least the majority of the jury) are likely idiots.

 

[Oceandan]

I've been arguing pretty much since the beginning that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

(Yes, I know that a great many GZ fanboys disagree with that, your objections are noted, and I honestly don't care what you think and won't be debating it, AGAIN, here.)

So if the jury convicted him of the same I'd be gratified, though perhaps a little surprised.

Why surprised?

47% of Americans are collecting government handouts, tens of millions of Americans owe far more than they can ever hope to repay, the divorce rate is about 50%, people don't read the fine print and then act all surprised when their ARM resets and they lose their home, only something like ~30% of Americans have college degrees (and far fewer have useful college degrees) in what has clearly become a technology and information economy.

In short? Americans are idiots.

I expect them to acquit this idiot because they (at least the majority of the jury) are likely idiots.

Always gotta admire the "everyone is an idiot" logic.

 

[Lutherf]

Someone correct me if I"m wrong, please.

If one is to believe, George Zimmerman "followed" Trayvon Martin the night of the incident, one must ALSO believe, it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he lied to the NEN operator. On top of that one must believe he lied about the encounter, ie: Martin did not surprise him/ambush/jump out/startling. One must also believe due to a non known encounter, he caught up to TM, got in a fight, where in the words of an EYEWITNESS he suffered an "MMA style ground and pound" and then somehow got his gun and shot TM. By inference one must also believe that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even IF all of the above is accepted, that during the fight, GZ did NOT as a "reasonable" person fear great bodily harm or death??

In other words, not only has the state proven beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ acted with negligence during all of the events preceding the physical encounter, but ALSO once the physical encounter commenced, it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, GZ had no reason to "fear great bodily harm or death".

As I'm sure you are aware, the principle crimes that Zimemrman is guilty of are:
1. Not being black
2. Being suspicious of individuals who resembled other individuals who had been committing crimes in his neighborhood
3. Carrying a firearm
4. Getting beat up by a tree

If we look at all of this objectively then there can be no question that Zimmerman deserves, at minimum, life in prison.

 

[Oceandan]

As I'm sure you are aware, the principle crimes that Zimemrman is guilty of are:
1. Not being black
2. Being suspicious of individuals who resembled other individuals who had been committing crimes in his neighborhood
3. Carrying a firearm
4. Getting beat up by a tree

If we look at all of this objectively then there can be no question that Zimmerman deserves, at minimum, life in prison.

Have I mentioned....I LIKE the way you think!! With all due respect Sir/Madam, one, being intellectually honest, #4 ALONE requires jail time. (-;

 

[Josie]

Don't forget about the sprinklers....

Stay away from those tree branches and sprinklers, people!

 

[j-mac]

Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?

In cases like that, as tragic as they are, they are not criminal in some jurisdictions. For example, in Maryland, you must retreat, and only use deadly force if there is no other option for you to avoid it. Whereas, in SC, we have the castle doctrine codified in law, so I have the right to protect my person, family, or property. In the instance of the homeowner shooting a family member that gets in late, I would say that the homeowner did not follow sound id and safe handling procedure. Although I don't think that he would be charged depending on the location, I think that it is negligent discharge of a firearm.

You should always know what/who you are firing at, that is why anyone with training never keeps their finger on the trigger for example.

 

[spanky]

George didn't call 911.. he called NEN because Trayvon was not committing any crime.

yes, but what crime was TM committing when GZ claimed he "went for my phone to call 911"?

 

[sharon]

As I'm sure you are aware, the principle crimes that Zimemrman is guilty of are:
1. Not being black
2. Being suspicious of individuals who resembled other individuals who had been committing crimes in his neighborhood
3. Carrying a firearm
4. Getting beat up by a tree

If we look at all of this objectively then there can be no question that Zimmerman deserves, at minimum, life in prison.

The Retreat is about 50 % white.. The rest are Hispanic or Black..

 

[spanky]

Not really. Which of those actions, or even the sum total of all of those actions, would a juror consider as grounds to justify them deserving a severe beating from another person over? Remember that even being a total jerk is not grounds for a "justified" assault/battery. The shooting was in response to the assault/battery, what was the assault/battery justification? Surely not simple negligence justifies a "good ass whooping"?

Pulling a gun?

 

[soot]

Always gotta admire the "everyone is an idiot" logic.

You disagree?

You can look at the state of this country, its economy, its politics, and argue with a straight face that Americans, by and large, are intelligent, clever, well educated, well informed, selfless, hard working people?

Well, then bless your heart.

 

[Lutherf]

The Retreat is about 50 % white.. The rest are Hispanic or Black..

OK.....what's your point?