Zimmerman jury may consider lesser charge of manslaughter: judge [W:87] (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Jurors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman may also consider convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a judge ruled on Thursday.

OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.

On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.

So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:

Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty

Article is here.

 

[Excon]

OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.

On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.

So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:

Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty

Article is here.

Oh gee. Another person who doesn't have the evidence correct.
He did not continue following after it was suggested he not do so.

And the prior following, was not, and is not, reckless.

And frankly, the only evidence is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him when Zimmerman acted out in self-defense. That is not manslaughter, but self-defense.

 

[ARealConservative]

OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.

On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.

So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:

Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty

Article is here.

following someone is legal.. you can't be found guilty of manslaughter by engaging in legal activities.

 

[American]

He just wants him to be found guilty of something, because many feel guilty about not finding Z guilty of something.

 

[danarhea]

He just wants him to be found guilty of something, because many feel guilty about not finding Z guilty of something.

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

 

[ARealConservative]

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

you continue to apply things that aren't the law. following someone is a right, practing your rights is not something that should be considered reckless.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

Florida Law (Emphasis added):
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Self-defense is lawful justification. If it is lawful justification for murder, it by nature is lawful justification for manslaghter.

 

[Excon]

due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death.

And that is a false narrative.
Following to keep a suspicious person under surveillance until the police arrive, is not reckless.

™ let Zimmerman pass by him twice and then approached Zimmerman in a hasty manner from his rear, yelling a question, and when he arrived upon him, immediately struck him.
™ was the cause, the one who was reckless, and the one responsible for his own death.

You should really learn the evidence.

 

[mak2]

I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.

you continue to apply things that aren't the law. following someone is a right, practing your rights is not something that should be considered reckless.

 

[ric27]

OK, this makes sense, since it never seemed to me that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. His recklessness in following Martin, after being instructed not to by the police, definitely fits the crime. My prediction? Guilty.

On another note - The jury is allowed to consider aggravated assault. Doesn't make sense to me, since nobody knows who started the altercation. My prediction? Not guilty. The judge, at this time, is considering allowing the jury to also consider third degree murder, in that Zimmerman supposedly committed child abuse when he went after Martin. This one is laughable, and if allowed by the judge, my prediction on that will be not guilty.

So here we go.... Summary of my predictions:

Second degree murder - Not guilty
Third degree murder (if allowed for consideration) - Not guilty
Manslaughter - Guilty
Aggravated assault - Not guilty

Article is here.

Wrong...

Stick with what the laws says and it's self defense..any way you slice it. It's justifiable homicide

 

[ARealConservative]

I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.

your imagination is laughable.

the known evidence indicates that the dead person engaged in assault without provocation.

 

[ric27]

I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.

WTF?

Go back to the bar and call a cab

 

[Fisher]

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

I would not be surprised if the jury tries to split the baby in half since Zimmerman did not testify. All the arguing with the judge by the defense is to create as many issues to appeal as possible if Zimmerman is convicted.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about truth and justice according to the law. It was not wreckless, it was legal.

 

[mak2]

What? I am at work. Sobreity isnt good for me...

WTF?

Go back to the bar and call a cab

 

[danarhea]

Wrong...

Stick with what the laws says and it's self defense..any way you slice it. It's justifiable homicide

Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case. However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.

 

[mak2]

Of course. Cause the other side of the story is...dead.

your imagination is laughable.

the known evidence indicates that the dead person engaged in assault without provocation.

 

[American]

I have said from the very beginning that Zimmerman did not deserve a charge of murder, but have maintained that manslaughter would be the proper conviction, due to Zimmerman's recklessness, which resulted in the altercation that led to Martin's death. However, the prosecutor wants to win, as does the defense lawyer. Neither has scruples.

He defended himself, he has that right. The jury has to consider the evidence presented and determine if he did something wrong BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The prosecution failed to remove doubt in most everyone's mind. There is plenty of doubt about a lot of this case. The only reason anyone wants to try to convict him is because they feel personal guilt, are afraid another "LA Riot" and/or because those two idiots (Obama and Holder) cursed the legal process from Day One.

 

[danarhea]

And that is a false narrative.
Following to keep a suspicious person under surveillance until the police arrive, is not reckless.

™ let Zimmerman pass by him twice and then approached Zimmerman in a hasty manner from his rear, yelling a question, and when he arrived upon him, immediately struck him.
™ was the cause, the one who was reckless, and the one responsible for his own death.

You should really learn the evidence.

Zimmerman told police investigators the night of the killing that Trayvon was circling his car and that he was frightened by him. But, throughout his entire call with the non-emergency dispatcher, Zimmerman does not mention once that Trayvon was circling his car, in fact he is constantly telling the dispatcher that Trayvon is running away.

 

[ARealConservative]

Of course. Cause the other side of the story is...dead.

that the other side is dead means you invent things that might of happened? that is your method of justice? make things up with zero evidence of happening?

 

[ecofarm]

the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.

Wait, what?

 

[mak2]

No, not really. I think it is because a kid is dead. But I agree I dont think it has been proven. I think he will walk.

He defended himself, he has that right. The jury has to consider the evidence presented and determine if he did something wrong BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The prosecution failed to remove doubt in most everyone's mind. There is plenty of doubt about a lot of this case. The only reason anyone wants to try to convict him is because they feel personal guilt, are afraid another "LA Riot" and/or because those two idiots (Obama and Holder) cursed the legal process from Day One.

 

[American]

Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case. However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.

The following part is totally irrelevant, and the defense doesn't have to prove guilt...the prosecution does. He was told by a DISPATCHER that following Martin was unnecessary. He received no order to stop. No where in the police recording was he told, "Don't follow Martin". And even if he was told that, he still didn't break any law in doing so.

 

[ARealConservative]

Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case. However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established, which is what I base my prediction on.

the defense doesn't have to prove it. the prosecution does. the prosecution failed to even show this belonged in court.

 

[danarhea]

The following part is totally irrelevant, and the defense doesn't have to prove guilt...the prosecution does. He was told by DISPATCHER that following Martin was unnecessary. He received on lawful order to stop. No where in the police recording was he told, "Don't follow Martin". And even if he was told that, he still didn't break any law in doing so.

the prosecution has proven manslaughter.