Zimmerman 2nd degree murder (3 Viewers)

[barbarian_style]

depends, in some cases the DA does not charge a lesser included offense and in some jurisdictions manslaughter is not a LIO to murder. you'd be surprised how many times that bites ADA's in the butt

I am surprised that I have heard nothing on this either, it would be interesting to know if charges can be lowered by the jury in this case.

 

[Leo]

While there may have been mitigating factors - Zimmerman's state of mind, and his unreasonable fear during the scuffle - I doubt the prosecution could legally bring any charge other than unlawful homicide, more commonly known as murder. The US legal system is based upon English Common Law, and the elements which comprise murder and manslaughter would essentially be the same.

In New South Wales Law, which is identical in most important respects to British Law, unlawful homicide is divided into four categories -

Murder
Constructive Murder (or Felony Murder)
Voluntary Manslaughter (analogous to 2nd Degree Murder)
Involuntary Manslaughter

For murder (except in the case of “constructive murder”), the prosecution must prove that the accused killed with:

* an intention to kill; or
* an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, being bodily harm of a really serious kind; or
* a reckless indifference to human life, meaning that the accused foresaw the probability that death would result from his or her act or failure to act.

For voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution is required to prove the same mental state as is generally required for murder. That is, the accused must be shown to have either intended to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, or to have been recklessly indifferent to human life. However, the accused will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder where his or her mental state was affected in a way which is recognised by law to reduce his or her culpability for the killing. The factors so affecting the accused’s mental state must be shown to constitute either provocation, diminished responsibility, or infanticide. These are known as the partial defences to murder, and require proof of some form of mental impairment or loss of self-control which significantly affected the accused’s culpability at the time of the killing.

Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing by a person who cannot be proven to have the requisite guilty mind for murder, but whose conduct falls short of conduct expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. An accused may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act or by criminal negligence. Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act requires the prosecution to prove that death was caused by a sufficient kind of unlawful act and that a reasonable person, engaged in the same conduct as the accused, would have realised that he or she was exposing another to an appreciable risk of serious injury. Manslaughter by criminal negligence requires the prosecution to prove that the accused’s act or omission causing death involved such a great departure from the standard of care to be expected from a reasonable and prudent person as to deserve to be called a crime against the community generally and conduct deserving punishment.

Lawlink NSW: 2. The Murder/Manslaughter Distinction in Unlawful Homicide

Felony murder deals with killings occurring during the commission of other crimes (such as bank robbing), and does not concern this case.

It cannot be reasonably claimed that Zimmerman, at the time of shooting Martin, did not intend death or grievous bodily harm. His intent was obviously malicious at that moment, but what makes his crime different from murder, is that he did not set out at any time prior to the scuffle, to kill the 17 year old. It was not therefore a planned homicide, and there was no obvious malice aforethought.

The circumstances indicate however, that it was not an accidental shooting, nor was it merely the result of criminal negligence on Zimmerman's part (as might be the case with leaving a loaded firearm where it might be misused, or the case with reckless driving causing the death of another motorist, or a pedestrian.) So involuntary manslaughter (simple manslaughter in US terms) cannot be held to apply.

So, without setting out with the intent to kill, but killing with the intention of doing so at the moment, does not allow a charge of murder in the first degree, and it does not allow a charge of involuntary manslaughter (manslaughter in the US,) so it only really only leaves voluntary manslaughter - or murder in the 2nd degree - as the logical charge to be brought.

 

[j-mac]

concerned that at yesterday's press conference corey said she is seeking "justice for trayvon martin"
that indicates a bias on her part
she should be seeking justice
but appears to lean towards zimmerman being found guilty
guess that is what much of the public wants
let's just hope a fair trial is possible
if so, based on what little i know, i think zimmerman will be found not guilty

I agree totally. That struck me as odd as well. But, Prosecutors often throw the kitchen sink out of the gate. Now it is up to her to prove it.


j-mac

 

[Boo Radley]

He's in jail, not 1 minute of hearing or 1 item of evidence, so he has already been found guilty summarily. The only question is will a judge or jury at some point in the future months or a year or more from now decide if actually he was not guilty and should have never spent a minute in jail? Regardless, he now loses everything he had.
They can try to break him with solitary, threats of putting him in general population, tell him that his family will be finally be safe if he pleas and that even the President is against him - and that he'll probably get a life sentence.

They can also tell him that even if finally found not guilty, they will just keep him in jail months or a year or two longer while they try him again in federal court for civil rights violations - for which he now is looking probably at 2 to 3 years in prison before a possibility of being twice found not guilty. In short, there is no not guilty - he already has been found guilty. All he can hope to do is get that reduced to 2 or 3 years at best.

With all that ahead of him, at some point they will offer him a plea to manslaughter - giving him time served and only maybe 2 or 3 years longer and then probation, for which he at least gets out of county jail and to a bigger prison where he actually might be able to have visitors, make phone calls and watch TV - and avoiding him getting a life sentence in his President Obama V George Zimmerman trials.

He's already been found guilty. He is already serving his sentence. It is only the question of how much time he serves. That is the only question a juries get to make over the next 2 to 3 years.

Welcome to the new America, where everyone is now presumed guilty and summarily imprisoned, unless months or years later they can get a jury they were wrongly imprisoned and have to be released.

As noted, this is the process. What evidence there is or isn't, I can't say we know yet. But the process is moving as it does normally.

 

[Boo Radley]

I agree totally. That struck me as odd as well. But, Prosecutors often throw the kitchen sink out of the gate. Now it is up to her to prove it.


j-mac

Agreed. If she goes into this with no reasonable evidence, this would likely hurt her career. With this serious a charge, I hope she can't present a lot more than we've seen.

 

[justabubba]

Agreed. If she goes into this with no reasonable evidence, this would likely hurt her career. With this serious a charge, I hope she can't present a lot more than we've seen.

actually, i hope she can if the evidence exists
if zimmerman is guilty, he should be found guilty based on the facts

but now that there will be a trial
what will happen if zimmerman is found not guilty because the prosecution was without basis to make its case
i am guessing that public outcry, and the way it is made known, will not be good
if that happens, i do hope this politician will be held responsible for that bad outcome

 

[ric27]

actually, i hope she can if the evidence exists
if zimmerman is guilty, he should be found guilty based on the facts

Getting to see the evidence is pretty hard even for those inside

A lock down on comp system is in effect

 

[Boo Radley]

actually, i hope she can if the evidence exists
if zimmerman is guilty, he should be found guilty based on the facts

but now that there will be a trial
what will happen if zimmerman is found not guilty because the prosecution was without basis to make its case
i am guessing that public outcry, and the way it is made known, will not be good
if that happens, i do hope this politician will be held responsible for that bad outcome

I agree. They have a responsibility.

 

[barbarian_style]

concerned that at yesterday's press conference corey said she is seeking "justice for trayvon martin"
that indicates a bias on her part
she should be seeking justice
but appears to lean towards zimmerman being found guilty
guess that is what much of the public wants
let's just hope a fair trial is possible
if so, based on what little i know, i think zimmerman will be found not guilty

Of coarse she is going to show bias from the states position being that they charged him with a crime they feel he is guilty of, If Corey didn't it would really look political. Same to say that a defendants lawyer is going to show bias that their client is not guilty.

 

[justabubba]

Of coarse she is going to show bias from the states position being that they charged him with a crime they feel he is guilty of, If Corey didn't it would really look political.

one does not say they are going to be seeking justice - in which the possibility that the person being tried will be found 'not guilty' - and then make statements biased against the person being charged

what does the prospective juror think if they heard corey's remark that "the state is seeking justice for trayvon martin"
if she had stopped at saying the sate is seeking justice in this matter, no problem. it was when she effectively said this trial is to be a form of retribution for the loss of life that travon martin suffered, her objectivity - and that of the state, conducting the trial, was lost

 

[barbarian_style]

one does not say they are going to be seeking justice - in which the possibility that the person being tried will be found 'not guilty' - and then make statements biased against the person being charged

what does the prospective juror think if they heard corey's remark that "the state is seeking justice for trayvon martin"
if she had stopped at saying the sate is seeking justice in this matter, no problem. it was when she effectively said this trial is to be a form of retribution for the loss of life that travon martin suffered, her objectivity - and that of the state, conducting the trial, was lost

If a crime was committed and it left a victim then yes it would be justice for that victim of that said crime. What about the attorney that shows bias towards their client saying we will prove no crime has been committed, they made claims of justice also if there client is found not guilty, right?

 

[Oberon]

Alan Dershowitz says the 2nd degree murder charge is bogus, and there is no probable cause. This is just a railroad job, over-charging a defendant and hoping for a plea bargain, unethical but the usual tactic of prosecutors. That way the 'system' can pretend to be 'serving justice' by tossing the racist mobs a sacrifice, and cover up the fact that the state utterly failed to protect towns like Sanford from anarchy and criminal predators. With a rating of 3 out of 100, 100 being safest, the town would have been under martial law long before Martin assaulted Zimmerman and got himself shot in any civilized country, or even most uncivilized ones, but we know it's about Zimmerman being the wrong color, not 'justice', so why elaborate.

 

[Boo Radley]

Alan Dershowitz says the 2nd degree murder charge is bogus, and there is no probable cause. This is just a railroad job, over-charging a defendant and hoping for a plea bargain, unethical but the usual tactic of prosecutors. That way the 'system' can pretend to be 'serving justice' by tossing the racist mobs a sacrifice, and cover up the fact that the state utterly failed to protect towns like Sanford from anarchy and criminal predators. With a rating of 3 out of 100, 100 being safest, the town would have been under martial law long before Martin assaulted Zimmerman and got himself shot in any civilized country, or even most uncivilized ones, but we know it's about Zimmerman being the wrong color, not 'justice', so why elaborate.

I'm always weary of "we all know" comments. I'm willing to withhold judgement, as I did for Zimmerman, until we see exactly what happens.

 

[Phoenix]

Alan Dershowitz says the 2nd degree murder charge is bogus, and there is no probable cause. This is just a railroad job, over-charging a defendant and hoping for a plea bargain, unethical but the usual tactic of prosecutors. That way the 'system' can pretend to be 'serving justice' by tossing the racist mobs a sacrifice, and cover up the fact that the state utterly failed to protect towns like Sanford from anarchy and criminal predators. With a rating of 3 out of 100, 100 being safest, the town would have been under martial law long before Martin assaulted Zimmerman and got himself shot in any civilized country, or even most uncivilized ones, but we know it's about Zimmerman being the wrong color, not 'justice', so why elaborate.

I'd like to see a judge with cojones enough to throw it out!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He's in jail, not 1 minute of hearing or 1 item of evidence, so he has already been found guilty summarily.

LOLWUT?

They can try to break him with solitary, threats of putting him in general population, tell him that his family will be finally be safe if he pleas and that even the President is against him - and that he'll probably get a life sentence.

They can force him to submit to the trials of St Victor.

They might induct him into a secret society too

Welcome to the new America, where everyone is now presumed guilty and summarily imprisoned, unless months or years later they can get a jury they were wrongly imprisoned and have to be released.

You have had too much. You're cut off. Puff, puff, pass, man

 

[justabubba]

If a crime was committed and it left a victim then yes it would be justice for that victim of that said crime.

the key word here is "IF"
and at this point there is a presumption of innocence UNTIL a guilty verdit is rendered
if that happens, THEN we will have seen justice for trayvon martin
but we are not there, yet
we may never be
which causes corey's statement to have been ill advised

What about the attorney that shows bias towards their client saying we will prove no crime has been committed, they made claims of justice also if there client is found not guilty, right?

corey's client is the state and its citizens. her loyalty is NOT to the possible victim (recognizing he may well be found to have been the perpetrator, thereby causing zimmerman to then be found the victim)
but the point i want to make is who the parties represent
zimmerman's legal representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to represent zimmerman
corey has a fiduciary responsibility to represent the state - NOT trayvon martin
corey, by her comments about "seeking justice for trayvon martin", has already betrayed that fiduciary responsibility which should be required by the state's judiciary

 

[ric27]

Of coarse she is going to show bias from the states position being that they charged him with a crime they feel he is guilty of, If Corey didn't it would really look political. Same to say that a defendants lawyer is going to show bias that their client is not guilty.

BS...she's over the top with comments like....

"Treyvon's sweet parents"

"Finding justice for Treyvon"

Using the word "profiled" with no statements to support this vague charge plus, the US Attorney, White House, NAACP, state leaders worrying about rioting, and others throwing their weight around

When pressures, especially political and career pressures, are exerted. Ambition can be a powerful motivator.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

concerned that at yesterday's press conference corey said she is seeking "justice for trayvon martin"
that indicates a bias on her part
she should be seeking justice
but appears to lean towards zimmerman being found guilty
guess that is what much of the public wants
let's just hope a fair trial is possible
if so, based on what little i know, i think zimmerman will be found not guilty

Isn't a prosecutor supposed to try to have the defendant found guilty?

 

[Excon]

They then had an interview or presser with his new attorney Mark O'Mara. He was very well spoken and at ease talking and answering questions. He should be very good for Zimmerman.

He may be a great attorney, but for some reason he reminds me of this hack.

concerned that at yesterday's press conference corey said she is seeking "justice for trayvon martin"
that indicates a bias on her part
she should be seeking justice
but appears to lean towards zimmerman being found guilty
guess that is what much of the public wants
let's just hope a fair trial is possible
if so, based on what little i know, i think zimmerman will be found not guilty

It is also troubling that she thanked the family's Lawyer.
Her position does appear to be too prejudicial, to be objective.

but now that there will be a trial

Not necessarily.

 

[Excon]

While there may have been mitigating factors - Zimmerman's state of mind, and his unreasonable fear during the scuffle - I doubt the prosecution could legally bring any charge other than unlawful homicide, more commonly known as murder. The US legal system is based upon English Common Law, and the elements which comprise murder and manslaughter would essentially be the same.

In New South Wales Law, which is identical in most important respects to British Law, unlawful homicide is divided into four categories -

Murder
Constructive Murder (or Felony Murder)
Voluntary Manslaughter (analogous to 2nd Degree Murder)
Involuntary Manslaughter


Lawlink NSW: 2. The Murder/Manslaughter Distinction in Unlawful Homicide

Felony murder deals with killings occurring during the commission of other crimes (such as bank robbing), and does not concern this case.

It cannot be reasonably claimed that Zimmerman, at the time of shooting Martin, did not intend death or grievous bodily harm. His intent was obviously malicious at that moment, but what makes his crime different from murder, is that he did not set out at any time prior to the scuffle, to kill the 17 year old. It was not therefore a planned homicide, and there was no obvious malice aforethought.

The circumstances indicate however, that it was not an accidental shooting, nor was it merely the result of criminal negligence on Zimmerman's part (as might be the case with leaving a loaded firearm where it might be misused, or the case with reckless driving causing the death of another motorist, or a pedestrian.) So involuntary manslaughter (simple manslaughter in US terms) cannot be held to apply.

So, without setting out with the intent to kill, but killing with the intention of doing so at the moment, does not allow a charge of murder in the first degree, and it does not allow a charge of involuntary manslaughter (manslaughter in the US,) so it only really only leaves voluntary manslaughter - or murder in the 2nd degree - as the logical charge to be brought.

?
Why not just stick with what Florida's law says?

It makes sense to do that, doesn't it?

 

[justabubba]

BS...she's over the top with comments like....

"Treyvon's sweet parents"

"Finding justice for Treyvon"

Using the word "profiled" with no statements to support this vague charge plus, the US Attorney, White House, NAACP, state leaders worrying about rioting, and others throwing their weight around

When pressures, especially political and career pressures, are exerted. Ambition can be a powerful motivator.

agreed on all points

also recognized that she was all decked out; the excessive jewelry and makeup
betrayed that this is simply a political adventure for her and not a genuine pursuit of justice
she 'gussied up' for the stage
combined with her intemperate remarks and her need to discuss the prayer she engaged in with trayvon martin's parents, it was apparent what she is seeking has nothing to do with fact finding and objectivity and justice

 

[ric27]

I'm always weary of "we all know" comments. I'm willing to withhold judgement, as I did for Zimmerman, until we see exactly what happens.

Whoa there!

Dershowitz is a Harvard Law prof. He didn't just fall off a banana truck

 

[barbarian_style]

the key word here is "IF"
and at this point there is a presumption of innocence UNTIL a guilty verdit is rendered
if that happens, THEN we will have seen justice for trayvon martin
but we are not there, yet
we may never be
which causes corey's statement to have been ill advised


corey's client is the state and its citizens. her loyalty is NOT to the possible victim (recognizing he may well be found to have been the perpetrator, thereby causing zimmerman to then be found the victim)
but the point i want to make is who the parties represent
zimmerman's legal representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to represent zimmerman
corey has a fiduciary responsibility to represent the state - NOT trayvon martin
corey, by her comments about "seeking justice for trayvon martin", has already betrayed that fiduciary responsibility which should be required by the state's judiciary

Of course it is IF as the result of any trial is IF they can prove it or disprove something. Presumption of innocence is in the essence of the state not the states prosecutor. Hacking this into a political arena is how Zimmerman will end up being an automatic looser, as he isn't as of yet even if you are unsatisfied of the words Corey is using.

 

[barbarian_style]

Whoa there!

Dershowitz is a Harvard Law prof. He didn't just fall off a banana truck

So what he didn't see any evidence to be the judge or jury. He is smart enough to know that his guess work comments are left better unsaid.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So what he didn't see any evidence to be the judge or jury. He is smart enough to know that his guess work comments are left better unsaid.

Being an attorney, he may have qualified his statements in ways that are not being reported here. idk. Just guessing.