Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Zimmerman had his gun out, walking around in the dark and killed Martin after a scuffle, I could see negligence. But he didn't, or so we think since no one saw and the evidence suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The gun didn't come out until Zimmerman thought he had no other choice.
no other "way" to win the fist fight...
The defense is clearly not interested in asserting involuntary anything. The defense is that GZ intentionally killed TM in self-defense. They are not trying to say it was an accident and would be opposed to agreeing to any charge involving negligence.
As for whether lesser charges are included here, I have to defer to those who seem to know that, in this case, the defense so far has been successful keeping lesser charges out and forcing the P to prove M2. Correct?
No. The defense is that GZ shot TM in self defense, not intentionally killed him. Important distinction there.
Notea,
Many, many trials have been decided on circumstantial evidence. I know someone who I believe killed his entire family, there was a book written about him and the murders. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence like stomach contents of the kids, stuff like that..
That guy is walking around free today. It's tough proving your case without real direct evidence, you need stuff like DNA reports to give you a better picture.
Anyone poo pooing these reports is simply inflexible. All evidence comes into play.
uhhh, the OJ trial, circumstantial evidence proved him the murderer, but a racist jury set him free.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
Thus the issue, is not self defense for the lesser charge of invol. manslaughter. But rather did GZ have reason to believe imminent death was upon him for those scratches on his head and the alleged smothering while he was screaming for help.
Yes, the central issue in this case, regardless of charge, is whether or not Zimmerman's belief that it was necessary to use force to prevent death/great bodily harm was a reasonable one.
Thus I suspect why the jury is all female? I would guess the defense would believe that women would be more inclined to believe that fist fight was TM trying to kill someone, than guys that have been in similar fist fights would.
or @legaleagle45
I hope I did that right.
The problem I see is the state took on the burden and charged M2, they do lesser at the end of this game, how's the look to the jury?
Like more wishy washy prosecution bs.
or @legaleagle45
I hope I did that right.
[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] and wharfrat
So even if they would have come with the charge of manslaughter he could have pleaded self defense even still and negligence is a non issue as long as he shows self defense?
That is correct; Florida's manslaughter statute provides for self-defense in 782.07. See the language "without lawful justification": Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
So let's get to the bottom of these questions: Are lesser includeds in play here? Or is the ONLY charge M2? I've heard it both ways so far.
So let's get to the bottom of these questions: Are lesser includeds in play here? Or is the ONLY charge M2? I've heard it both ways so far.
It hasn't been decided yet. The jury instructions haven't been proffered yet. But you can bet there will be argument about it.
Oh good grief..
tell us sarah, what race are you? and its a valid question since all you do is spout racial bullshit every day.
There's a lot of racial bullshit out there. It's not like we have to go looking for it. Like it or not, Spike Lee is right: There are two Americas and most whites don't have even the slightest scintilla of a notion for what it is like to be black.
Martin was not trespassing on private property as he was an invitee by his father.
Zimmerman never stalked Martin.
The testimony was that he "cut through" the gated community to get to his father's girlfriend's home. The entire gated community is private property, therefore TM was trespassing.
His father was not the owner of the home in question, which apparently was adjacent to the community, not a member. Even if the home was a member of the community TM's father was not a homeowner, therefore had no right to invite anyone.
Oh good grief..
or @legaleagle45
I hope I did that right.
The problem I see is the state took on the burden and charged M2, they do lesser at the end of this game, how's the look to the jury?
Like more wishy washy prosecution bs.
or @legaleagle45
I hope I did that right.
U be's doin dat rong...
it's bein' [MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]
I dun be fin dat fo ya.
The defense is clearly not interested in asserting involuntary anything. The defense is that GZ intentionally killed TM in self-defense. They are not trying to say it was an accident and would be opposed to agreeing to any charge involving negligence.
As for whether lesser charges are included here, I have to defer to those who seem to know that, in this case, the defense so far has been successful keeping lesser charges out and forcing the P to prove M2. Correct?
No. The defense is that GZ shot TM in self defense, not intentionally killed him. Important distinction there.
What I meant by that was that the killing was not unintentional, as in negligent. GZ intended to defend himself.
Blacks won't be happy until there are two laws. One just for them.
Never mind. He's only charged with M2, no lesser charges specified here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf
Hold on...checking...
Never mind. He's only charged with M2, no lesser charges specified here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf
Hold on...checking...
Yep.
Until some lady starts singing we are talking about M2 and running around in a manslaughter speculation circle.
I'm sorry, I am not seeing that anywhere. He's charged with M2, period. No lesser included.
So the state or the defense can include a lesser charge if they if they wish for instruction, but that's not here.
All that's here is an Angela Corey indictment. lol
Affidavit of probable cause for M2
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/...2/04/12/zimmerman_probable_cause_document.pdf
The way a lawyer explained it to me... is the lesser charge is understood to be included and will be provided to the jury per instructions from the Judge that will be forthcoming, this unless the Prosecution asks her not to.
No.
He's not charged with this. He's charged with M2.
The state or the defense can ask for lesser charges to be included/instructed.
They haven't done that. The state is full on blast stupidly trying to prove M2.
In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors, given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free, might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.
