I hardly think George Zimmerman would pull a gun for no good reason.Why do I have the feeling that Zimmerman did threaten the guy with his own gun, but this guy is going to end up in jail anyways.
I hardly think George Zimmerman would pull a gun for no good reason.Why do I have the feeling that Zimmerman did threaten the guy with his own gun, but this guy is going to end up in jail anyways.
The state's attorney fucked up by overcharging.Sometimes jury's get it wrong, and oh boy, did they fuck up in ZimmerMan's case.
This guys story isn't going to end until someone else is dead - either himself or someone else.
The state's attorney fucked up by overcharging.
Not a criminal attorney, thank god. Manslaughter would have worked, but they over reached and went for murder and as such directed all of their efforts towards proving that Zimmerman intentionally ended Martin's life. Whether you believe he did or not, is irrelevant, the evidence produced by the state made finding Zimmerman guilty of this all but impossible.Without going into discussions of what might have happened but cannot be proven one way or another... There is nothing he could conceivably be charged with, is there? A wItness had Trayvon on top of Zimmerman attacking him while he screamed for help. Before that, it is unknown what happened. But, IIRC you are a criminal lawyer... what else could they have charged him with and won? I just don't see it, given the circumstances accepted by both sides. But, I'm no lawyer. Just a regular Joe Schmo reading newspapers.
MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the
death of Trayvon Martin.
I think he's convicted with these instructions.To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of
(defendant).
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act
reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious
intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a
failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must
be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless
disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such
an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences,
or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety
and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to
an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for
the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of
conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely
to cause death or great bodily injury.
This guy has worse luck than Charlie Brown.
Not a criminal attorney, thank god. Manslaughter would have worked, but they over reached and went for murder and as such directed all of their efforts towards proving that Zimmerman intentionally ended Martin's life. Whether you believe he did or not, is irrelevant, the evidence produced by the state made finding Zimmerman guilty of this all but impossible.
Manslaughter can be a lesser included charge of second degree murder, and the jury ultimately deliberated on manslaughter. However, I believe that manslaughter by culpable negligence was ruled by the judge not to be a lesser included offense due to the state attorney's focus on Zimmerman having intentionally killed Martin, and having failed to appropriately allege culpable negligence.
Here was the jury instruction on Manslaughter that the jury received:
Had the state appropriately charged Zimmerman with manslaughter through culpable negligence, they could have had an instruction to the effect of:
I think he's convicted with these instructions.
That's more like it.Worse? He got away with murder, assaulting a police officer, and multiple accounts of domestic abuse, I would say his luck is pretty damn great.
That's more like it.
Sometimes jury's get it wrong, and oh boy, did they fuck up in ZimmerMan's case.
This guys story isn't going to end until someone else is dead - either himself or someone else.
There must always be a "Stand Your Ground" King
It might have been ironic if Zimmerman had used the stand your ground defense. This is more like "rain on your wedding day" sort of ironic.This is the purest form of irony I've seen in quite some time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/matthew-apperson-stand-your-ground_n_7472894.html
Don't see it as Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground as his defense, IIRC.This is the purest form of irony I've seen in quite some time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/matthew-apperson-stand-your-ground_n_7472894.html
Is it like highlander, there can be only one?
This dude looks for trouble at this point. Does he have a family member in the supreme court or something? He keeps dodging the law.
His dad is (or was) a judge.This dude looks for trouble at this point. Does he have a family member in the supreme court or something? He keeps dodging the law.
Other than stalking, road rage and brandishing his weapon at the same guy.I think you missed the article... Zimmerman actually didn't do anything this time.