Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Personally, I think that charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder is a mistake. I don't see how a jury would find him guilty of that... but I'm not sure what all the ins and outs are in the Florida justice system. Does anyone know if a Florida jury can consider manslaughter as well? Or is it "Murder 2" or nothing?

Yes they can if the judge allows it.

Quote :: At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”

Either side in the case could request that the judge instruct the jury to consider that middle ground, and if the evidence supports such a finding the judge will in almost all cases comply, Professor Weisberg said. A confident prosecutor may not want to risk missing the toughest conviction, however, and a confident defense lawyer may not want to risk giving the jurors a lesser charge that they can choose instead of acquittal. And so, he said, the question may come down to, “Who’s feeling lucky?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html

I've heard that also - that even if the jury does not convict on 2nd degree, a lesser charge may still be on the table. But while I was poking around, I found this:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/was-george-zimmerman-overcharged

Was George Zimmerman Overcharged?

In his latest Huffington Post column, former Reason writer Radley Balko notes the controversy over special prosecutor Angela Corey's decision to charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder, as opposed to manslaughter, in Trayvon Martin's death. Given the circumstances in which Zimmerman shot Martin—during a violent struggle in which Zimmerman claims he feared for his life—it seems unlikely that he acted "from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent," as Florida's standard jury instruction for second-degree murder requires. The affidavit supporting Zimmerman's arrest does not clarify that point, saying only that he "profiled" and "followed" Martin, after which "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." But no matter how questionable a charging decision, Balko points out, it is completely a matter of prosecutorial discretion:

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but if I am, I find it highly disturbing that Zimmerman, or any other private citizen, may be subject to arrest for profiling someone. That is about as wrong as wrong can be.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

What she obviously means is that Zimmerman didn't deliberately set out to kill her son. That's why he was only charged with 2nd degree murder.[/quote]

Tell you what, Artie - you just keep on wearing that mind-reading helmet of yours so you can tell us all "what she obviously means".
I prefer to go by what she obviously said, which was indisputably:

"I believe it was an accident."

Got it, Karnak?

Posts : 2141

edge540 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Personally, I think that charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder is a mistake. I don't see how a jury would find him guilty of that... but I'm not sure what all the ins and outs are in the Florida justice system. Does anyone know if a Florida jury can consider manslaughter as well? Or is it "Murder 2" or nothing?

Yes they can if the judge allows it.

Quote :: At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”

Either side in the case could request that the judge instruct the jury to consider that middle ground, and if the evidence supports such a finding the judge will in almost all cases comply, Professor Weisberg said. A confident prosecutor may not want to risk missing the toughest conviction, however, and a confident defense lawyer may not want to risk giving the jurors a lesser charge that they can choose instead of acquittal. And so, he said, the question may come down to, “Who’s feeling lucky?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html

Thanks for the link!

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What she obviously means is that Zimmerman didn't deliberately set out to kill her son. That's why he was only charged with 2nd degree murder.

Quote :: Tell you what, Artie - you just keep on wearing that mind-reading helmet of yours so you can tell us all "what she obviously means".
I prefer to go by what she obviously said, which was indisputably:

"I believe it was an accident."
Got it, Karnak?

Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What she obviously means is that Zimmerman didn't deliberately set out to kill her son. That's why he was only charged with 2nd degree murder.

Quote :: Tell you what, Artie - you just keep on wearing that mind-reading helmet of yours so you can tell us all "what she obviously means".
I prefer to go by what she obviously said, which was indisputably:

"I believe it was an accident."
Got it, Karnak?

Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

[b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance a drunk driver can run down a person resulting in their death. Even though it was an "accident" and the drunk did not set out to deliberately kill that person,he or she would still most likely be charged with,Reckless Homicide.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

[b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance a drunk driver can run down a person resulting in their death. Even though it was an "accident" and the drunk did not set out to deliberately kill that person,he or she would still most likely be charged with,Reckless Homicide.

A drunk driver who kills someone might be charged with reckless homicide, but not because of the accident. He would be charged with reckless homicide because he was already in the process of committing a crime when the accident occurred - the crime of drunk driving. And even had he not caused an accident in which someone died, he would still have been committing a crime the second he got behind the wheel of the car while intoxicated. The collision itself may indeed be categorized as an accident. Drinking prior to driving was most certainly not an accident, hence the possible homicide charge.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

[b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance a drunk driver can run down a person resulting in their death. Even though it was an "accident" and the drunk did not set out to deliberately kill that person,he or she would still most likely be charged with,Reckless Homicide.

A drunk driver who kills someone might be charged with reckless homicide, but not because of the accident.

Really Einstein? If there's no accident then no one dies,do they?

Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Despite your obvious lack of common sense the fact of the matter is that if she believes it's an accident than obviously she doesn't think it was planned or premeditated. The prosecutor obviously agrees too,otherwise he would have been charged with 1st degree murder.

[b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance a drunk driver can run down a person resulting in their death. Even though it was an "accident" and the drunk did not set out to deliberately kill that person,he or she would still most likely be charged with,Reckless Homicide.

A drunk driver who kills someone might be charged with reckless homicide, but not because of the accident.

Really Einstein? If there's no accident then no one dies,do they?

The crime is not the accident per se - the crime lies in the fact that the accident was caused due to someone who was driving while intoxicated, hence engaged in the commission of a felony during which a death occurred (which in the case of the 15 year-old driver in Texas who rolled a van carrying illegal immigrants, killing 9 of them, made him eligible to be charged with 1st degree murder because he was fleeing federal officers at the time, which is a felony).

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but if I am, I find it highly disturbing that Zimmerman, or any other private citizen, may be subject to arrest for profiling someone. That is about as wrong as wrong can be.

He was arrested and charged with second-degree murder caused by a criminal act.
In other words he was arrested for killing someone, not profiling someone.

Quote :: Under second-degree murder, the jury must find that a death was caused by a criminal act “demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life,”

Definition of Second Degree Murder in Florida:

The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either:
•Murder with a Depraved Mind or
•Accomplice Felony Murder

Murder with a Depraved Mind

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: The crime is not the accident

Fine,maybe that wasn't the best example. Still waiting for an answer to this:

Quote :: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: He was arrested and charged with second-degree murder caused by a criminal act.
In other words he was arrested for killing someone, not profiling someone.

Yeah, I was 99% certain that that was the case. My confusion stemmed from the wording of this sentence ….

The affidavit supporting Zimmerman's arrest does not clarify that point, saying only that he "profiled" and "followed" Martin, after which "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

…. which could give the impression that profiling in and of itself is a crime, and that it may have been a factor in the reason for the arrest.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: The crime is not the accident

Fine,maybe that wasn't the best example. Still waiting for an answer to this:

Quote :: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

I can think of no reason why I would not be positively delighted to give you an answer, but before I can do that, I'll need to see the question.
For your edification, allow me to offer you one of happy jack's Timely Tips: A question is generally represented by a sentence that ends with one of these (?), not one of these (.).

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: The crime is not the accident

Fine,maybe that wasn't the best example. Still waiting for an answer to this:

Quote :: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

[b]I can think of no reason why I would not be positively delighted to give you an answer, but before I can do that, I'll need to see the question.

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Quote :: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance suppose there are 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Anytime you're ready Matlock

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: The crime is not the accident

Fine,maybe that wasn't the best example. Still waiting for an answer to this:

Quote :: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

[b]I can think of no reason why I would not be positively delighted to give you an answer, but before I can do that, I'll need to see the question.

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Quote :: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance suppose there are 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Anytime you're ready Matlock

I see that you were able to post a quote that included me asking a question; that's a good start, and it tells me that you are familiar with this quite arcane symbol - (?). But you have yet to master the actual asking of a question posed by yourself. When you have mastered that and are ready to ask an actual question, I will do my best to give you an answer.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Quote :: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance suppose there are 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Anytime you're ready Matlock

I see that you were able to post a quote that included me asking a question; that's a good start, and it tells me that you are familiar with this quite arcane symbol - (?). But you have yet to master the actual asking of a question posed by yourself. When you have mastered that and are ready to ask an actual question, I will do my best to give you an answer.

No need to since my latest example,which you have yet to refute, proves that you were dead wrong. Laughing

Thanks for playing though! lol!

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Quote :: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this. For instance suppose there are 2 friends are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Anytime you're ready Matlock

I see that you were able to post a quote that included me asking a question; that's a good start, and it tells me that you are familiar with this quite arcane symbol - (?). But you have yet to master the actual asking of a question posed by yourself. When you have mastered that and are ready to ask an actual question, I will do my best to give you an answer.

No need to since my latest example,which you have yet to refute, proves that you were dead wrong. Laughing

Thanks for playing though! lol!

You have been demanding an answer to a question which has yet to be asked.
If you could manage to ask a direct question, I would be more than happy to answer. But until you do, I will have to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that you have pussied yourself out of this discussion.
Whenever you feel that you are ready for an answer, just ask.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: You have been demanding an answer to a question which has yet to be asked.
If you could manage to ask a direct question, I would be more than happy to answer. But until you do, I will have to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that you have pussied yourself out of this discussion.
Whenever you feel that you are ready for an answer, just ask.

I've already proved that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't come up with a coherent reply to my second example,could you? :bball:

But since you demand a direct question I'll be be happy to oblige you. Why do you feel the need to make an even bigger fool of yourself with the idiocy you posted above?

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: I've already proved that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't come up with a coherent reply to my second example,could you? :bball:

If you are ready to stop acting like an 8 year-old, and if you have a specific question relating to your second example, I will be glad to answer it. But unless or until that happens, I have no idea what sort of "coherent reply" is expected of me.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: I've already proved that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't come up with a coherent reply to my second example,could you? :bball:

[b]If you are ready to stop acting like an 8 year-old, and if you have a specific question relating to your second example, I will be glad to answer it. But unless or until that happens, I have no idea what sort of "coherent reply" is expected of me.

You certainly didn't waste any time replying after I first posted the example of the drunken driver,did you? Yet when I presented the second example of 2 sober friends playing with a gun you immediately clammed up and shifted right into troll mode since you apparently couldn't refute that example.

You lost the argument plain and simple. Accept it and move on.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: I've already proved that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't come up with a coherent reply to my second example,could you? :bball:

[b]If you are ready to stop acting like an 8 year-old, and if you have a specific question relating to your second example, I will be glad to answer it. But unless or until that happens, I have no idea what sort of "coherent reply" is expected of me.

You certainly didn't waste any time replying after I first posted the example of the drunken driver,did you? Yet when I presented the second example of 2 sober friends playing with a gun you immediately clammed up and shifted right into troll mode since you apparently couldn't refute that example.

You lost the argument plain and simple. Accept it and move on.

I have been asking you over and over and over again: which aspect or aspects of your second example would you like me to comment on?
Can you provide me with just that basic information?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: I have been asking you over and over and over again: which aspect or aspects of your second example would you like me to comment on?
Can you provide me with just that basic information?

Yeah,let's recap the conversation....

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Artie60438 wrote:: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this.

I then presented this example which proves you were dead wrong....

Artie60438 wrote:: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 people are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Do you have any rebuttal argument for the second example I presented? If not,it proves that I'm right and you're wrong.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I have been asking you over and over and over again: which aspect or aspects of your second example would you like me to comment on?
Can you provide me with just that basic information?

Yeah,let's recap the conversation....

happy jack wrote:: [b]If the prosecutor believed it was an accident, there would be no murder charge of any degree.
Common sense, anyone?

Artie60438 wrote:: Sorry,but your dead wrong on this.

I then presented this example which proves you were dead wrong....

Artie60438 wrote:: Let me try another example and maybe you'll get it this time. 2 people are in a room together and 1 of them is playing with a gun not realizing there is a round in the chamber. They point it at their companion,pull the trigger,and the other person dies as a result. Clearly this is an accident. No alcohol or drugs are involved but they are subsequently charged with reckless homicide due to the recklessness of pointing a weapon at someone and pulling the trigger.

Do you have any rebuttal argument for the second example I presented? If not,it proves that I'm right and you're wrong.

Which specific legal statute pertains to the scenario you laid out?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: Which specific legal statute pertains to the scenario you laid out?

Quote :: Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-homicide/

After all this and you still can't give me a straight answer. Pathetic!
I see you have no rebuttal and I have no intention of wasting anymore time with you on this.
Sleep

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Which specific legal statute pertains to the scenario you laid out?

Quote :: Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-homicide/

After all this and you still can't give me a straight answer. Pathetic!
I see you have no rebuttal and I have no intention of wasting anymore time with you on this.
Sleep

The following is an example of a state statute defining reckless homicide:
" Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.
a. person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.

According to your link, your hypothetical gunman would have committed involuntary manslaughter, not reckless homicide (unless he was driving a motor vehicle at the time of the shooting).

» Red Cross investigation of CIA torture at Guantonamo Bay
» Obama mishandles Kim Jong Il's death
» Right-Wing Kook Arrested in Ricin Letter Investigation
» Wisconsin parents go on trial in daughter's death
» How LOW Can These Thugs in Cal City GO? 88 Yr. Old Man Bludgeoned to Death!