Zimmerman jury may consider lesser charge of manslaughter: judge [W:87]

[American]

I dont get the connection. At some point that night an armed adult made a decision that directly led to a minor dying. I dont think he will be convicted either, but the rationale for many of these arguments to defend Z flies in the face of rational thought and responsible gun rights. Of course an armed adult has more responsiblity than a minor with skittles and iced tea.

Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant to him following Martin, and Martin attacking him. Martin was unaffected by the fact that he was a minor, and it sure didn't stop him from attacking an adult.

 

[American]

Again, we are talking past each other. I am NOT referring to the altercation itself, but to the reckless actions Zimmerman took in following Martin.

His action weren't wreckless, except in your opinion. He broke no law in following him.

 

[mak2]

I dont think a wreckless act has to be illegal? I really dont know, just asking.

His action weren't wreckless, except in your opinion. He broke no law in following him.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Again, we are talking past each other. I am NOT referring to the altercation itself, but to the reckless actions Zimmerman took in following Martin.

I understand what you are saying. However, I'm saying that the circumstances of the altercation make the "reckless actions Zimmerman took in following Martin" irrelevant. To continue arguments regarding "reckless actions" prior to the altercation is utterly devoid of meaning pertaining to the laws involved in this case. If you want to get into the ethics or morals of the case, that would be relevant; but when discussing whether to judge GZ guilty or not, the actions before the altercation are at this point immaterial.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I dont think a wreckless act has to be illegal? I really dont know, just asking.

I think it is safe to assume if the prosecution could have come up with anything GZ had done that was criminal in the immediate circumstances prior to the altercation and seperate from the homocide, he would have already been charged with it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And Florida law indicates that in this case it is irrelevant. Self-defense is still equally viable regardless if GZ "provoked" the attack by following TM or not. See my post above.

I understand that aggressor flaw in the Florida SYG law, it does not exist in the Texas law. Even under the Florida law it would take more than simply following/observing a person to constitute making a threat. If simply being followed, observed and approached by another person in a public place was reason enough to "stand your ground" then total chaos would likely ensue.

If I am driving down the road, obsreve a white van following me, exit the highway and enter a mall, still see the white van following me, park and walk to a store, notice that the occupant of the white van has done the same (still following me) and getting closer. Can I beat them up for that? How about if they also happen to reach into their pocket - then can I beat them up?

 

[mak2]

In Florida I think you would be fine to just go head and shoot him.

I understand that aggressor flaw in the Florida SYG law, it does not exist in the Texas law. Even under the Florida law it would take more than simply following/observing a person to constitute making a threat. If simply being followed, observed and approached by another person in a public place was reason enough to "stand your ground" then total chaos would ensue.

If I am driving down the road, obsreve a white van following me, exit the highway and enter a mall, still see the white van following me, park and walk to a store, notice that the occupant of the white van has done the same (still following me) and getting closer. Can I beat them up for that? How about if they also happen to reach into their pocket - then can I beat them up?

 

[longview]

Again, we are talking past each other. I am NOT referring to the altercation itself, but to the reckless actions Zimmerman took in following Martin.

While Zimmerman's actions were not a good decision, they were in and of themselves completely legal.
The state had a burden to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the events DID NOT transpire
the way Zimmerman described, I do not think they have done so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In Florida I think you would be fine to just go head and shoot him.

:lol: :doh That would indeed warrant officially calling the state Floriduh. :roll:

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I understand that aggressor flaw in the Florida SYG law, it does not exist in the Texas law. Even under the Florida law it would take more than simply following/observing a person to constitute making a threat. If simply being followed, observed and approached by another person in a public place was reason enough to "stand your ground" then total chaos would likely ensue.

If I am driving down the road, obsreve a white van following me, exit the highway and enter a mall, still see the white van following me, park and walk to a store, notice that the occupant of the white van has done the same (still following me) and getting closer. Can I beat them up for that? How about if they also happen to reach into their pocket - then can I beat them up?

Easy answer: You can beat up whomever you want for whatever reason. You will probably still get charged with assault and you'd have to argue to a jury that a guy reaching into his pocket after following you compelled you to feel you were in imminent danger of great bodily harm of death and that your actions were an appropriate response to a guy reaching into his pocket in such a situation. If you want to do that: good luck, you'll need it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Easy answer: You can beat up whomever you want for whatever reason. You will probably still get charged with assault and you'd have to argue to a jury that a guy reaching into his pocket after following you compelled you to feel you were in imminent danger of great bodily harm of death and that your actions were an appropriate response to a guy reaching into his pocket in such a situation. If you want to do that: good luck, you'll need it.

And you also run the risk, as TM did, of choosing the wrong guy to beat up. The odds of successfully picking random folks that will not kill you, when you try to beat them up, are not all that good. Eventually you will encounter one that is just not in the mood to let you try that again.

 

[danarhea]

I understand what you are saying. However, I'm saying that the circumstances of the altercation make the "reckless actions Zimmerman took in following Martin" irrelevant. To continue arguments regarding "reckless actions" prior to the altercation is utterly devoid of meaning pertaining to the laws involved in this case. If you want to get into the ethics or morals of the case, that would be relevant; but when discussing whether to judge GZ guilty or not, the actions before the altercation are at this point immaterial.

In regard to murder, I agree with you. In regard to manslaughter, I do not. The reckless actions are what led to the altercation, and therefore the death of Martin, which is why this should have a manslaughter charge, and not a murder charge.

 

[danarhea]

:lol: :doh That would indeed warrant officially calling the state Floriduh. :roll:

I think it's already called Floriduh. They just passed an internet gambling law, and screwed up the wording so badly that, according to this law, it is now illegal to own a computer. LOL.

 

[mak2]

Maybe that was the plan.

I think it's already called Floriduh. They just passed an internet gambling law, and screwed up the wording so badly that, according to this law, it is now illegal to own a computer. LOL.

 

[Excon]

The reckless actions are what led to the altercation, and therefore the death of Martin, which is why this should have a manslaughter charge, and not a murder charge.

And as previously pointed out, there are no reckless actions on Zimmerman's part.

 

[What if...?]

While your theories, suspicions and suppositions may be enough to convice you that GZ might have provoked TM to attack, no evidence has been presented to the jury to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that was what actually occured.

By the same token, Z has nothing but his word to support that part of his affirmative defense.

 

[American]

The prosecuting attorney has gone off the deep end. Why? Because he doesn't have a ****ing case for the 2nd degree murder charge and needs to sensationalize and exaggerate to get Z convicted of something; like maybe the lesser charge. His briefing chart shows Martin couldn't chose anything, well duh that's true in any case where death occurs. He's pulling heart strings. If he had a real slamdunk case he wouldn't need to say all that ****. He says Z lied about not knowing the street name, like that really makes a difference about whether Martin attacked Zimmerman or not. He's reaching folks.

 

[American]

He talks about coincidences.....guess what is it a coincidence that the sky is black at night?

 

[ttwtt78640]

By the same token, Z has nothing but his word to support that part of his affirmative defense.

Really? That and the fact that no "fight" injuries where suffered by TM, other than a single gunshot, while GZ had several head injuries and witnesses stating that he was pinned to the ground, mounted by TM and screaming for help. Had TM known/suspected that GZ was armed it is very unlikely that he would not be screaming "help, this guy's got a gun" in order to expedite getting himself some help. I am not aware of any injuries to GZ's arms/eyes, as one would expect if TM was fighting to prevent GZ from shooting him.

 

[danarhea]

The prosecuting attorney has gone off the deep end. Why? Because he doesn't have a ****ing case for the 2nd degree murder charge and needs to sensationalize and exaggerate to get Z convicted of something; like maybe the lesser charge. His briefing chart shows Martin couldn't chose anything, well duh that's true in any case where death occurs. He's pulling heart strings. If he had a real slamdunk case he wouldn't need to say all that ****. He says Z lied about not knowing the street name, like that really makes a difference about whether Martin attacked Zimmerman or not. He's reaching folks.

1) Florida, as well as most states, allows "lesser included charges", so this case is not different in any other, in regard to including the consideration of manslaughter.

2) In regard to the murder charge, the prosecutor must have been on drugs. LOL.

 

[Geoist]

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.

I think manslaughter is the way to go. This is not a purely 'self-defense' case. Zimmy went looking for trouble. But on the rest he should be found 'not guilty.'

 

[Geoist]

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

One's actions do not have to be technically illegal to be found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

1) Florida, as well as most states, allows "lesser included charges", so this case is not different in any other, in regard to including the consideration of manslaughter.

2) In regard to the murder charge, the prosecutor must have been on drugs. LOL.

I would not rule out the prosecutor being on drugs. Personally, the social/media pressure to drop the prosecutorial hammer on GZ was a significant factor. They might have been playing the game and overcharged as a strategy to get a conviction knowing they had a somewhat weak case (anchoring and adjustment of the jury, for the psychologically minded). I also think if they did that it may have backfired on them becuase since it was then the primary charge of the trial, they had to go for it. Since they had very little to go off of in the first place, them having to extend what they had in the way they did made them seem preposterously silly and unprofessional to boot.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I think manslaughter is the way to go. This is not a purely 'self-defense' case. Zimmy went looking for trouble. But on the rest he should be found 'not guilty.'

Please refer to the sections of Florida law I linked to earlier explaining why Zimmy "looking for trouble" does not impact the self-defense case. Arguing self-defense in this case, considering the evidence, is a pure refutation of both murder and manslaughter charges.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

In regard to murder, I agree with you. In regard to manslaughter, I do not. The reckless actions are what led to the altercation, and therefore the death of Martin, which is why this should have a manslaughter charge, and not a murder charge.

I don't agree with your assumptions, but I understand them, now.

So, because of his acts prior to the altercation, you think he should have been charged with manslaughter. Due to Florida law and his acts within the altercation (regardless of prior acts), he should be acquitted of that charge. Am I understanding you right?