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

[jmotivator]

Isn't it funny that all the people who were ready to convict Zimmerman on Murder 2 are now supporting Manslaughter? Gee, it's like they were ready to convict the guy of something they didn't think he was actually guilty of!

The request for manslaughter to be for consideration is really strange since the burden of proof is pretty much the same. Man2 and manslaughter both require Zimmerman as the aggressor.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Isn't it funny that all the people who were ready to convict Zimmerman on Murder 2 are now supporting Manslaughter? Gee, it's like they were ready to convict the guy of something they didn't think he was actually guilty of!

The request for manslaughter to be added is really strange since the burden of proof is pretty much the same.

Considering the evidence of the case as related to the self-defense claim, it really is a distinction without a difference.

 

[ARealConservative]

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

wow.

"you did nothing wrong, but are guilty of manslaughter".

you really believe that?

 

[Oceandan]

I certainly would like to know how you find someone guilty of manslaughter BEFORE you find it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant could NOT use self defense. How did you murder someone if it was justifiable?

 

[danarhea]

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?

Correct. There were 4 charges to consider.

1) Second degree murder. Prosecution missed by a mile. Acquittal.

2) Third degree murder, caused by abuse of a child. That was laughable, and the judge threw it out, so it is not being considered.

3) Manslaughter, due to his acts PRIOR to the altercation. I believe that there will be a guilty verdict from this one, although a hung jury is not out of the question.

4) Aggravated assault. Neither side can demonstrate satisfactorily who started the fight. Therefore, reasonable doubt exists. Acquittal.

However, the mandatory sentencing for manslaughter, with the special firearms provision, will give Zimmerman much more time than he deserves, and IMHO, this sentence will be unfair to Zimmerman. So, possibly, a hung jury might be a fair outcome on the manslaughter charge. Zimmerman has spent considerable time in jail already, and has paid out a lot of money as well, not to mention the fact that Martin was no angel either.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Correct. There were 4 charges to consider.

1) Second degree murder. Prosecution missed by a mile. Acquittal.

2) Third degree murder, caused by abuse of a child. That was laughable, and the judge threw it out, so it is not being considered.

3) Manslaughter, due to his acts PRIOR to the altercation. I believe that there will be a guilty verdict from this one, although a hung jury is not out of the question.

4) Aggravated assault. Neither side can demonstrate satisfactorily who started the fight. Therefore, reasonable doubt exists. Acquittal.

However, the mandatory sentencing for manslaughter, with the special firearms provision, will give Zimmerman much more time than he deserves, and IMHO, this sentence will be unfair to Zimmerman. So, possibly, a hung jury might be a fair outcome on the manslaughter charge. Zimmerman has spent considerable time in jail already, and has paid out a lot of money as well, not to mention the fact that Martin was no angel either.

According to the Florida Law cited earlier, aquittal is the only fair and just outcome to this trial. Although, I can understand a jury being overwhelmed by the emotions of the case and want to convict of something. Juries can return some ridiculous judgements.

 

[mak2]

He did do something wrong he went hunting for M and killed him. This is a really simple concept. The speed limit in front of my house is 25 mph. Coming home last night our neighbors and a bunch of kids were out in the street. They are really nice I even stopped and talked to them for a while. But lets pretend I didnt like them and got pissed off because they were in my way. So I maintained the legal speed limit in the street, yet ran over and killed a couple of them. Everything was legal, excpet...Z walking around his neighborhood looking for trouble is legal except...

wow.

"you did nothing wrong, but are guilty of manslaughter".

you really believe that?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

He did do something wrong he went hunting for M and killed him. This is a really simple concept. The speed limit in front of my house is 25 mph. Coming home last night our neighbors and a bunch of kids were out in the street. They are really nice I even stopped and talked to them for a while. But lets pretend I didnt like them and got pissed off because they were in my way. So I maintained the legal speed limit in the street, yet ran over and killed a couple of them. Everything was legal, excpet...Z walking around his neighborhood looking for trouble is legal except...

Actually, you can get a ticket for not yielding to pedestrians. You can't get a ticket for following someone you don't know through your neighborhood to make sure they aren't doing illegal stuff.

 

[Geoist]

Isn't it funny that all the people who were ready to convict Zimmerman on Murder 2 are now supporting Manslaughter? Gee, it's like they were ready to convict the guy of something they didn't think he was actually guilty of!

The request for manslaughter to be for consideration is really strange since the burden of proof is pretty much the same. Man2 and manslaughter both require Zimmerman as the aggressor.

From the very beginning I argued that:

1.) Zimmerman is no 'hero' as many of his supporters tried to present him
2.) Zimmerman should not be found guilty of murder
3.) If he should be charged and convicted of anything it is manslaughter for his reckless behavior

 

[Geoist]

wow.

"you did nothing wrong, but are guilty of manslaughter".

you really believe that?

I never said he didn't do anything wrong. I believe that he provoked the situation. Provoking someone isn't necessarily illegal, but those actions could be taken into consideration when deciding whether to convict of manslaughter.

 

[Caine]

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.

The issue I have with everyone saying that it was Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed.

Zimmerman follows Martin, but Martin doesn't attack him...... does Martin still get killed?

If the answer is no, then it wasn't Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed... was it?


Or is it okay to excuse thugish behavior by one person but not misguided behavior by the other?

 

[Caine]

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.

The jury is not allowed to hold not testifying against the defendant.

 

[Fisher]

The jury is not allowed to hold not testifying against the defendant.

Keep believing that. Jurors can think however they want to think, and not holding it against him also includes not giving him credit for his self-defense claim since he did not get on the stand to offer it or fill in the gaps. Jurors don't have to answer as to why they voted a certain way, just how they voted.

 

[Caine]

Keep believing that. Jurors can think however they want to think, and not holding it against him also includes not giving him credit for his self-defense claim since he did not get on the stand to offer it or fill in the gaps. Jurors don't have to answer as to why they voted a certain way, just how they voted.

Okay...

But once the jurors decide they want to come out of the closet after it is all over, and write a book or some such **** to make some extra cash, and the word gets out in their book that they used that as part of their decision....

APPEAL.....WIN APPEAL...... Checkmate.

It is part of the judge's instructions that the jury is not to hold a defendant not testifying against them, or allow it to be an indicator of guilt or innocence.

 

[American]

My Way News - Jury in Zimmerman trial may consider lesser charge

The prosecutor is a jive ass turkey showboat, who ought to be frogmarched out of town.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The jury is not allowed to hold not testifying against the defendant.

Big tough guy is quick to defend himself with a gun against a kid ... but too much of a ***** coward to defend himself in court? It just don't look good.
You can tell a jury what they must think but there aren't any brain police to enforce it.

 

[Buck Ewer]

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

Especially if he were black and wore a hoodie.

 

[Oceandan]

Correct. There were 4 charges to consider.

1) Second degree murder. Prosecution missed by a mile. Acquittal.

2) Third degree murder, caused by abuse of a child. That was laughable, and the judge threw it out, so it is not being considered.

3) Manslaughter, due to his acts PRIOR to the altercation. I believe that there will be a guilty verdict from this one, although a hung jury is not out of the question.

4) Aggravated assault. Neither side can demonstrate satisfactorily who started the fight. Therefore, reasonable doubt exists. Acquittal.

I'm not quite sure where you got this information but in THIS case, the jury will consider murder 2, self defense, and manslaughter.

 

[mak2]

An adult carrying a firearm should be held to a bit of a higher standard than a kid with skittles. Before this case I would not have had to explain that.

The issue I have with everyone saying that it was Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed.

Zimmerman follows Martin, but Martin doesn't attack him...... does Martin still get killed?

If the answer is no, then it wasn't Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed... was it?


Or is it okay to excuse thugish behavior by one person but not misguided behavior by the other?

 

[Oceandan]

An adult carrying a firearm should be held to a bit of a higher standard than a kid with skittles. Before this case I would not have had to explain that.

Are you open to exploring this statement a bit? Sooooo, any adult carrying a firearm, should subject themselves to a broken nose, an "mma style ground and pound" while yelling for help and no one coming to aid. Correct?
Are you saying the adult should not be able to use the firearm at all?? If not at what point?
Can the "kid with skittles" pick up a non "firearm" object and beat the adult carrying a "firearm" bloody senseless? Can the "kid with the skittles" use his fists to kill, maim, or permanently injure the "adult carrying a firearm" before you feel the firearm can be used? How does one know when ENOUGH of a beating has occurred for you to agree the firearm can be used? As the adult with the firearm was being administered a "mma style ground and pound" by the "kid with skittles", are you saying he should have said "stop or I'll shoot"?

Your comments would be very educational to hear.

 

[j-mac]

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.

I do mak. I think it is outrageous that a hasty trial was, or could be so politicized as to be poorly constructed, and brought. But according to your theory with the Rolex, and "bad neighborhood" do these things to provoke, and instigate. Is that what you say TM was doing? You know what else you couldn't do?

Enter a non residential neighborhood, even though at the time you are visiting, in the dark, in the rain, looking in houses with your clothing obscuring your id, then attempt to intimidate someone that notices you, then instead of getting home when you notice you're being followed, you dodge your tail, and come around behind them and start assaulting them to where they believe you when you say 'you're gonna die tonight' .... people have the right whether you like it or not to defend themselves. Had TM gone home, he'd be just fine looking for his next fix of codeine, and pot.

 

[mak2]

No, an adult with a firearm should have avoided the situation entirely and waited for the police.

Are you open to exploring this statement a bit? Sooooo, any adult carrying a firearm, should subject themselves to a broken nose, an "mma style ground and pound" while yelling for help and no one coming to aid. Correct?
Are you saying the adult should not be able to use the firearm at all?? If not at what point?
Can the "kid with skittles" pick up a non "firearm" object and beat the adult carrying a "firearm" bloody senseless? Can the "kid with the skittles" use his fists to kill, maim, or permanently injure the "adult carrying a firearm" before you feel the firearm can be used? How does one know when ENOUGH of a beating has occurred for you to agree the firearm can be used? As the adult with the firearm was being administered a "mma style ground and pound" by the "kid with skittles", are you saying he should have said "stop or I'll shoot"?

Your comments would be very educational to hear.

 

[year2late]

No, an adult with a firearm should have avoided the situation entirely and waited for the police.

Exactly. The police were on their way. He followed Trayvon anyway. No way no how would he have followed Trayvon if he didn't have a gun. He followed the "suspect" anyway. He should have not followed the kid that already knew he was being followed. He had already followed him without interacting with him (when Trayvon circled Zims truck). Following him again? I would never say "creepy ass cracker" but I get his point.

 

[j-mac]

Exactly. The police were on their way. He followed Trayvon anyway. No way no how would he have followed Trayvon if he didn't have a gun. He followed the "suspect" anyway. He should have not followed the kid that already knew he was being followed. He had already followed him without interacting with him (when Trayvon circled Zims truck). Following him again? I would never say "creepy ass cracker" but I get his point.

No violation of laws there.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The issue I have with everyone saying that it was Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed.
Zimmerman follows Martin, but Martin doesn't attack him...... does Martin still get killed?
If the answer is no, then it wasn't Zimmerman's decision that got Martin killed... was it?
Or is it okay to excuse thugish behavior by one person but not misguided behavior by the other?

That pre-supposes that one find GZ's description reliable.
If you hold GZ's account suspect, then you don't have to assume that TM started the attack.
There is evidence from Jeantel that TM was telling GZ to "get off."

And if you hold that evidence as suspect too, then you have no evidence about how things started.

Either of those situations leads to a different conclusion than the one you presented.