If there was such reckless disregard for human life, why didn't he shoot the guy right away...
Printable View
If there was such reckless disregard for human life, why didn't he shoot the guy right away...
Would you buy that argument in cases where a criminal--or someone else!--accidentally kills someone in the course of committing another crime? Would you buy that argument in cases where a repeat DUI offender kills someone while driving drunk? Would you buy that argument in a case where someone picks a fight with someone else in a bar and then ends up killing that person? I didn't say this was a premeditated or planned killing. This was a killing where the criminal knew or should have known he might end up severely harming or killing the victim and did not care. I recognise of course that one can argue that Zimmerman's actions constitute voluntary manslaughter. I figure there are cases where the line between the two charges is fine and wavy :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Definition of second degree murder that may be applicable to this case:
"the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual."
What crime was Zimmerman committing?
When you're getting beat up on the floor, I find it hard to believe that your main motivation for taking out a gun and shooting your attacker is your disregard for human life. If anything, it shows you value life very much (your own of course).
Stalking, threatening, fighting and killing an innocent man without cause or legitimate provocation and against instructions? :o there is nothing in the definition of 2nd degree murder that requires the prior or simultaneous commission of another crime. I chose those examples to get at the points about premeditation, malice and recklessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proofQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Preponderance of the evidence[edit]
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases.
This is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings (which, unlike civil proceedings, are procedurally unrebuttable), and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act.
The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[5] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
Beyond reasonable doubt[edit]
Main article: Reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.
It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.
If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.
****
Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's intent was to kill Martin? Because Zimmerman may still be guilty of a crime here but 2nd degree murder isn't the case as its defined by the law.
Following a suspicious character isn't illegal. There's certainly reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman threatened or initiated the fight with Martin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not guilty. Good job, prosecutor.
facebook has already been rendered useless for the night. :sour:
No prosecutor woulda made it stickQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Thanks! I'll probably disappear again real soon and reappear in another year or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
By then I should be engaged.
No prosecutor who tries so desperately to overreach. Should have spent all her energy pushing the manslaughter conviction, not throw in the option at the last second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I hear hibernation is bad for sexual performance. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
How would anyone be able to make manslaughter stick with the evidence available? They'd basically have to have a non-biased eye-witness on the jury :o or a confession from Zimmerman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Wouldn't they just need to prove that Zimmerman was acting irresponsibly, and it resulted in Martin's death? That seems easier than proving that Martin never attacked Zimmerman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Florida's legal definitions and instructions given to the jury were the standard used, not wiki. Plus, Zimmerman's 'intent to kill' was established when he pulled the gun and shot Martin in the chest, that was never disputed. 2nd degree isn't premeditated murder, but uses terms like depravity/depraved mind, ill will or hatred....terms that don't have black/white definition lists given to juries. Legal terminology is complicated, even attorneys argue about interpretations. Lay people use those terms differently and often improperly (as Fuzzy likes to remind me :noob: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Judges aren't allowed to tell jurors how to interpret the laws as written. That can be confusing when statutes are written in legalese, and one section seems to contradict another section. We saw that in this trial, when they jury had a question about manslaughter, but it wasn't 'specific' enough for the court to answer.
If the prosecution always starts with highest charges and adds lesser charges, that's not so unusual. The media showed a lot of evidence that wasn't seen by the jury, and the prosecution thought they had enough to prove 2nd degree. The state isn't only prosecuting a crime....but has the duty to represent the dead victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In those same circumstances, I'd think any parent whose 17 year old teenager was killed by a gunman would want prosecutors to charge 2nd degree. Maybe even every teenager who's ever gone to the corner store and expects to walk home without being targeted/followed/creeped out/confronted by a stranger with a gun, or shot dead.
Well, apparently the original prosecutor, the original head of police, the arresting police officer, and the jury are all idiots, while the carpetbagger prosecutor who lost every element of the case knew what's best for everybody.
Do you really think legislative and judicial branches, and their actors, are all idiots? Are you claiming you know what's best for everybody?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Premature Congratulations then!Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
From what I've gathered, no. They basically had to prove Zimmerman was NOT acting in self-defense at the moment he pulled the trigger and preferably also establish beyond a reasonable doubt that things did not happen the way Zimmerman said they did and that they DID happen the way the prosecution said that they did. This is based entirely on various analyses I've seen on the internet so I may be completely wrong :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Oh yeah, they should perhaps have given the jurors a definition of the term "manslaughter", although I dunno if Florida's definition woulda changed things.
What bothers me is that people's outrage belies a creepy willingness/lack of understanding of our justice system, presumption of innocence and a rational look/acknowledgement of the limited facts available.
It's outrageous and immature for this to be a common sentiment: http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmer...rder-757850043
A media outlet, which has a habit of pushing boundaries (often in a good way) just calls Zimmerman a murderer. Before the verdict comes in. Without actually watching the trial or demonstrating much understanding of why we have trials in the first place.
This was an obviously difficult case and, if anything, I admire the jury's ability to ignore the public lynch mob outside. Had the racial identities been reversed, the jury would be hailed a hero in all quarters of the mainstream media.
Still, this whole case was in many ways a waste. And now the Justice Department wants to basically try Zimmerman again in Federal court? And a Florida state employee responsible for pulling Trayvon's cell phone records believes Zimmerman's prosecutors failed to hand over evidence to the defense and was just fired over the matter.
I mean, for fuck's sake, this is a terrible tragedy stemming from probable-poor judgement on the part of George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin should not be dead, and it's a horrible and anger-inducing loss. But it's terrifying to watch the left, the media and the arms of government try to squeeze blood from him.
An armed man confronted, attacked and killed an unarmed one and it's "terrifying" to see people wanting the killer to be convicted of murder?
Oh when you boil it down so simply... let me try.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"Individual assaulted on street, defends self with gun and anti-gun establishment attempt to get around initial verdict!"
Double Jeopardy is bad for a reason.
Liberals hate Zimmerman for several reasons and its not just about "race."
1. Black victim = racism motive 99% of the time unless its a black person is fingered for the crime. (At least according to the left wing media).
2. Citizens should never try to defend themselves, that's the governments job. The fact that a private citizen (rights or wrongly) tries to keep the streets safer enrages liberals like nothing else. They detested the hero in Texas who stopped a robbery in progress with a gun because its not his job - its the governments.
3. Guns are bad. This guy is a gun owner, guns cause people to die - get em boys!
A jury found the defendant not guilty of 2nd degree murder and I absolutely agree. To try to try him a 2nd time in federal court with civil rights charges is idiotic. I'd get the manslaughter charge but they won't go that route because they are going to (unless saner heads prevail, or it causes an issue in the elections for Democrats) try to push that Zimmerman is out of control racist who had the intent to kill Martin.
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. Zimmerman followed and threatened Martin who had every reason to fear for his life. Come on Lewk it's been over a year, how can you not know this by now?
Conservatives love Zimmerman for several reasons. First of all, they hate black people, even innocent ones. Further, they want to be able to go out and out of stupidity and paranoia kill black people so that they may exercise both their poor judgement and their "right" to go around killing innocent black teenagers. Finally, black people are bad while guns and gun-owners are good, black people cause people to die so go get 'em :o It's sad really.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us...to-topple.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You could argue that Zimmerman was negligent/ reckless. As a neighborhood watch, he was not supposed to be armed. When he called the police they instructed him not to confront the 'suspicious person.' He did both anyway and the kid ended up dead. I agree with you, the argument this was 2nd Degree murder doesn't hold any water at all, but I thought manslaughter was a good possibility. In any case it seems Florida's Stand Your Ground law needs to be revisited - from commentary I've heard it's apparently overly broad. I don't have a problem with self-defense generally, but what Zimmerman did could be described as recklessly looking for trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
With the law being as it is, I don't think you could have expected a different outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
For me the lesson is; if in Florida and somebody looks at you funny, you start running for your life.
Interesting to note that given the details that did come out in this case, if the kid had won in the shuffle he would have been protected under the same law that Zimmerman used in his defense. Except it would have been a black kid killing/injuring a guy that looked pretty much white. No way anyone can honestly say that the news reporting would have been the same.
and that's the problem with stand your ground, it legalizes stupidity, no matter who was truly at fault and no matter how much damage it causes to either party.
Stand your Ground was not used in the trial as a defense according to the article I thought.
that was bad recall/wording on my point. he was not initially arrested because of stand your ground, and while he did not invoke it by name in his defense, the self defense aspect of it was tied to it. he was able to put himself in the scenario that played out because of its protections.
several of our state politicians (on both sides) have used this case in their attacks/defense of stand your ground.
The same case could have played out if the kid had won. except the coverage wouldn't be anywhere near what it was. No wonder that states who have stand your ground laws see an increase in homicides.
Yeah, that's interesting isn't it? So, the lesson you take from this is; if someone looks at you sideways, you run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Is it true the jury consisted of 6 white women? That would give me the giggles if it weren't so sad.