The Manslaughter charge is a bad thing

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 12:21 PM - Edit history (3)

Encouraging juries to "split the baby" by convicting people of things they did not do is grotesque.

Zimmerman either intentionally killed someone who posed no reasonable threat to him, or he acted in self-defense.

We wasn't waving a gun around recklessly when it accidentally went off. He did not punch someone who later died due to a rare fragile-skull genetic condition. He shot someone point blank. Intentionally.

Shooting a prone and helpless person who is pleading for their life is not manslaughter. Shooting someone walking away from you is not manslaughter.

Shooting someone who attacks you and beats your head on the cement and is on top of you at the time (no opportunity to flee) is not manslaughter.

To find manslaughter one would have to disregard the whole defense AND the whole prosecution... to find some fantasy circumstance that neither side argued.

(If a juror does not believe the prosecution that is supposed to be the end of the case.)

Say you have two witnesses. One says X was on top. One says Y was on top. The single worst thing a juror can do there is split the difference... average the evidence and say, "I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they were lying side by side."

Say a juror reasoned like this:

"I think Zimmerman made up that whole story. What I think probably happened was that he got in an argument with that kid and pulled out his un to be a cowboy, and accidentally shot the kid because he's a reckless asshole who doesn't know how to handle a gun... so it is manslaughter."

A juror could think like that, but since there is no evidence for the speculation it would be entirely improper.


If a juror does not believe the prosecution side then that's the end of it. It isn't supposed to be a creative writing exercise where jurors concoct a theory of the case at odds with both sides.

Lesser includeds are a method to convict innocent people. They are.

And just because in a particular case one might want a conviction no matter what does not change that. In the next case, a few months from now, where you want an aquittal, you cannot say, "Oh... this one is different because this time I want an aquittal."

It is a bad practice, whatever one wants to happen in this particular case.


I would hope that the partisan side-taking in this case does not blind people to the fact that inclusion of lesser included offenses is, in general, a way for prosecutors to over-charge without penalty, often for the purpose of getting people to plead guilty to lesser offenses, even if they are innocent.

It is a disgusting practice.

The fact that it might serve some desired end in one case does not change that.

It is a disgusting practice.

[avebury]

1. Recklessness began when Zimmerman, a man who has been

deemed inept and incapable of physically defending himself got out of his truck, followed Trayvon Martin against the advice of the non-emergency operator at night, in the rain. I do not believe for one minute that Zimmerman did not already have his gun out when he approached Martin. The altercation most likely occurred when Martin was trying to get away from this crazy gun pointing a gun at him.

Zimmerman is a know liar (remember he looked Sean Hannity right in the eye and stated the he didn't know anything about the Stand Your Ground Law?) whose credibility is in serious doubt. I do not buy his story.

[cthulu2016]

2. "Martin was trying to get away from this crazy gun pointing a gun at him" = manslaughter???

You have proven my point. You are describing a murder.

It is murder or it is nothing.

[avebury]

5. I think that he is guilty of Murder 2 but I can

accept any verdict that has him serve time in prison.

[pnwmom]

12. Manslaughter doesn't require malice or premeditation.

It would work in the case of an impulsive shooting after a reckless action (following Trayvon around and confronting him instead of listening to the 911 operator).

I think this would have been the better charge all along, given the state's case. Since it would have been fine from the beginning, I'm glad they added it now.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.

[MattBaggins]

19. The OP does not understand the legalities of murder vs manslaughter

and why it is fine to allow the jury to consider both.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. A couple of things

1) I always thought manslaughter was the more appropriate charge. I think Zimmerman acted recklessly.

2) I do believe Zimmerman was a racialist and profiled Trayvon. I don't think he set out to kill a black kid but that's what his reckless actions resulted in.

[pnwmom]

25. I agree with you that he would have been unlikely to target a white youth

with a bag of Skittles and a soda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Of course he profiled Trayvon but it's a stretch to say he wanted to kill him

But his reckless actions resulted in just that.

That seems like manslaughter to me.

[tblue]

33. That kind of messes up the whole op.

I'm no legal scholar, but I think Zimmerman clearly showed malice--in the calls he made to non-emergency--and, if not premeditation, certainly an itchy trigger finger.

If you're just salivating over the opportunity to put a bullet in somebody and you're carrying a loaded weapon, that's premeditation. He didn't know Trayvon as an individual, but he wanted to shoot someone who fit a certain profile. That's premeditation.

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. Trayvon did not know Zimmerman was armed.

Can that be assumed? IF yes, why would he approach a mysterious person who he knew was stalking him with a gun in his hand?

[pnwmom]

16. You can't say that. We don't know whether Zimmerman showed his gun or not.

And there is no evidence beyond Zimmerman's police statement that Trayvon approached Zimmerman.

[hfojvt]

34. we do know though

that Zimmerman was on the phone for about a minute after saying "I don't know where this kid is. That it was over a minute and a half from when Zimmerman said on the phone, he's walking past me, and when that phone call ended.

In a minute a person can walk about 90 yards, jog 200 yards or run over 300 yards.

We know there was an altercation over 3 minutes after Zimmerman's call ended.

So over 4 minutes from when Zimmerman said (on the phone) "he's going by my car" and "shit, he's running" and when the altercation started. And Trayvon ended up about 200 yards from Zimmerman's car and about 400 yards from his own house. In over four minutes, Trayvon could have walked over 350 yards at a moderate pace or jogged over 600 yards at a moderate pace. Yet he only got 200 yards? With OVER 4 minutes of walking AND running, why didn't he get further than 200 yards?

To me, that is pretty strong evidence that Trayvon did not even walk away, much less run.

[pnwmom]

35. Zimmerman could have been pursuing Trayvon that whole time

on foot, causing Trayvon to move in different directions, trying to get away from him.

And you're overlooking the phone call with Rachel that ended seconds before the altercation, in which Trayvon made it clear he thought Zimmerman was going after him.

[hfojvt]

38. that other call was not recorded

so we cannot know what was on it, the same way we can with the recorded one.

Yet you conjecture there was a chase, that the person on the other end of that call did not mention? And Zimmerman, with his blazing speed, manages to cut Trayvon off and chase him away from his house? And after he talks with dispatch for a minute? Really?

There's just not a good explanation for that four minutes that fits with the theory "Trayvon was trying to escape". Trayvon had over a minute to escape while Zimmerman was on the phone to dispatch. Zimmerman could not have been pursuing for that minute - because there is no heavy breathing on the tape to indicate a pursuit. So Trayvon has at least a minute to escape - to make it home untouched and alive. Yet he didn't. That indicates to me, very strongly - he wasn't trying to escape.

[tblue]

36. And if Trayvon was unarmed,

would he pick a fight with a larger and unknown man just out of the blue? There is no explanation for that anywhere.

I know some ignint people just get scared at the sight of a black man, but many black men feel very wary of white men, especially white authorities, with very good reason. Trayvon wanted nothing to do with Zimmerman. No way does this story sound real. If you're a kid, barely 17, and you have no history of attacking strangers, you tell your dad you're going to the store and come back to watch the ballgame, and you go to the store and then you go pick a fight with a big white stranger, all by your unarmed self? Hanh???!

[Animal Chin]

3. +1

I would also go so far as to say that a conviction of second degree murder, based on the case presented by the state, would also be a miscarriage of justice.

I don't like it, don't support it, wish it was different, but that's my analysis of the state's evidence.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I don't give a rat's ass what charges stick.

Yes I know that's an analysis straight from the gut (lulz), but I firmly believe Zimmerman would not have approached a white person in this scenario.

Zimmerman with hate in his heart 7 minutes before he shot Trayvon dead:

"Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away."

[CatWoman]

26. + 1M

Sometimes DU gets on my fucking nerves

[geek tragedy]

6. He could have started the confrontation without the intent to kill, and

then panicked when Martin got in his face.

[cthulu2016]

11. Has there been any evidence presented on that?

If that were the case then the whole defense is a lie, so we would be guessing what might have happened.

I am not saying the crime could not have been manslaughter, but there has been no evidence presented such that a person could know beyond a reasonable doubt that, for instance, Zimmerman panicked when Martin got in his face.

It could have happened, but it would be a guess.

A criminal jury is never, never allowed to guess, which is why encouraging them to guess (which I think presenting a buffet of charges does) is not right, in our system.

[geek tragedy]

13. The jury could rationally conclude that the truth lies somewhere

between the prosecution case and the defense case.

[watrwefitinfor]

28. There has been an abundance of evidence presented

that Zimmerman has lied and lied about what happened. Mostly in the form of contradicting himself in the various videos made of him by the police, Hannity, etc. And a jury IS allowed to go where the evidence leads them. And I believe the prosecutors are going to drive the lies home in their argument.

And if the jurors conclude, from the evidence, that Z was lying about something, then they may reach logical conclusions based on that.

That is not guessing. That is the way it works back in that jury room.

Wat

[Igel]

39. These videos were introduced as evidence?

A lot was said in the media. On the Internet. A lot was probably said over the water cooler wherever the jurors work. A lot was accurate. A lot wasn't.

But that's not "evidence." That's just what people have said, not evidence introduced in court. Now, jurors in the jury room can say believe anything they want. Juror #8 might want to believe that it's all a conspiracy by aliens from the plant Zifflethrackx to destroy the Mongolian fishing industry for all we know, and it has to be so because her favorite website said so--with video footage!

But what they're supposed to consider is the evidence that the defense and prosecution bring before the judge and is given to them.

Doesn't matter what Zimmerman said. If it's not introduced in court, it's not evidence.

Hence the humor in the knock-knock joke. You can't unsee what you've seen. It's best to find a jury that has heard nothing about this case. That said, the judge's instructions to the jury will almost certainly be to limit their deliberations to the evidence on hand, not the "evidence" that they brought with them into the courtroom.

[watrwefitinfor]

43. "These videos were introduced as evidence?" Yes.

Several of them, as has been reported, over the course of the trial, have been introduced into evidence.

As I understand it the video (or portions of it) of the Hannity interview, the interview with the police at the station the night of the killing (or portions of it), the video of his reenactment of the killing at the apartment site the next day (or portions of it) were all introduced into evidence and were played for the jury in the courtroom. The tape of his telephone call to the police dispatcher was also introduced into evidence.

There has since been much discussion on DU about how it becomes unnecessary, in his lawyers' view, for Zimmerman to testify since his version of events (rather, his versions) is already in evidence - no need to offer him up for cross-examination.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023218454

Star Member hedgehog (30,769 posts)
1. I can't understand how so much video evidence was allowed to be
introduced which in effect allowed Zimmerman to testify without any cross examination! What a travesty!

Star Member Nevernose (9,049 posts)
5. They called the police to testify
Then they played the interrogation. They called his college professor to testify about Zimmerman's knowledge of self-defense law, and then played video of Zimmerman saying (lying) he didn't know anything about it. "Anything you say, can and will be used against you..." And the interrogation videos and reenactment s and 911 calls just demonstrated he's a liar.

And I believe one of the prosecuting attorneys is even now summing up (or just finished) based in large part on the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's stories, driving home what the jury saw on the videos that were introduced into evidence in this trial.

All that said, there was a post on DU the other day asking new DU members, or members with low post counts, to post more often. Your reply to me is a prime example of why we don't. Every time I post something thoughtful, often based on my own experience, someone on DU is BOUND to come back at me with insults, snubs, or as in this case, baseless, simplistic arguments seemingly meant to demonstrate that I have the intelligence level, experience, insight and acumen of a two year old child, as you just did.

My observations were based on my jury experience in a very controversial, lengthy, racially charged, high profile capital murder case a number of years ago, and a tense jury room that had much in common with the movie Twelve Angry Men. There were similarities to this trial in Sanford, though we were not sequestered. I came away with a deep understanding of processes (human, evidentiary, analytical, emotional, and otherwise), both before, during, and after deliberations.

I have frequently, in the past few days, felt i had something to offer about jury deliberations, based on that experience. I finally succumbed, but my attempt to share just a little of that insight here was met with your contemptuous post, instructing me what “evidence” consists of. Strange indeed, when you based your whole lecture to me on a fallacy - that the videos had not been introduced into evidence.

Wat

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. You are wrong. Deal with it.

People plead out to lesser charges all of the time. Juries should be given the same option. If one charge doesn't seem supported by prosecution's case but another does, it is better for jury to have that option and not let someone get off completely for the crime they committed.

[cthulu2016]

15. Obama would vomit if he read that.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. For some reason, I doubt it

[cthulu2016]

27. You shouldn't talk that way about Obama.

You are painting him as an ignoramus with utter contempt for the American legal system, and I doubt that he is.

[pnwmom]

8. Manslaughter should have been the charge all along and it's perfectly valid

based on the evidence.

Unfortunately, the state botched the case in a number of ways so we'll never know how strong the case could have been for murder 2.

But there's plenty of evidence for manslaughter.

[Renew Deal]

10. There are untrue statements in your opinion

After the fight started, Martin posed a reasonable threat to Martin. There is no dispute that Martin beat him up a bit.

Martin was not a "helpless person." He was a combatant.

That said, Zimmerman was likely overcharged when they charged him with murder. The investigator recommended a manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is likely a better fit since Zimmerman instigated this and chose to shoot Martin. The case isn't either murder or nothing. There's a lot of gray.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. Indeed

Manslaughter is appropriate. Being armed and taking actions which were outside the expectations of being a neighborhood watch member resulting in the taking of a life neither recklessly or wanton and not premeditated.

[brush]

42. There is much dispute that Martin beat up zimmerman

Where is all the zimmerman dna on Martin's hands if he beat up zimmy? There is none.

And consider this: Wouldn't a straddling Martin have blocked zimmy's arm from reaching for the gun under and behind his hip, because that's exactly where Martin's knee and thigh would be if he were the one doing the straddling. If what zimmerman alleges is true (not my belief), his arms may have been free to move in front of a straddler's thighs but that would be it.

He would have had to reach around and under Martin's knee and thigh and under his own hip to get to the gun tucked into the rear attached holster. That would not only take arms about a foot longer but arms of Herculean strength to lift up his big body, weighed down even more by Martin's) enough to get the gun out from under all that weight.

And wasn't wannabe boy also taking MMA classes 3 times a week for a year? Didn't he learn anything about leverage and how to use his weigh advantage instead of just allowing a teen boy who he outweighed by 40 lbs, and who he had superior adult male upper body strength over, to just pummel him like a helpless rag doll without offering any resistance?

And after all that alleged head bashing on concrete, he just needed a band-aid for treatment, no concussion, no skull fracture, no hemotoma, no blood on the sidewalk?

Sounds like he conked himself on the back of the head and nose with his own gun after he realized that he had fucked up big time by killing the kid instead of making the "heroic" citizen's arrest he had envisioned.

That would explain how it was his own blood on his own gun, not Martin's.

Sorry, zimmy's story does not compute. And neither does your belief of that killer.

[magical thyme]

17. it is not "splitting a baby" in any way, shape or form. you are confusing reckless indifference with

recklessness in general. They are not the same thing.

Each charge has a different level of behavior that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to the jury. It is entire possible for a jury to find for manslaughter. It is also possible for a jury to believe some parts of the Defense's story and believe some parts of the Prosecution's version.

Some may believe it was 2nd degree murder, but that does not make it so and that does not mean the Prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt. Some may believe that Zimmerman's fear was reasonable, but that does not mean that the Defense proved it was reasonable.

That said, I do not believe for one moment that the Prosecution overcharged. They left room for a plea down, the left room for the jury to find they didn't prove murder, but did prove manslaughter.

[pnwmom]

21. Well, if the judge had ruled against including the lesser charge

and Zimmerman had been found not guilty on murder 2, I would think the prosecution had overcharged. Fortunately, the judge allowed the lesser charge.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Justice is when the factually guilty go to prison and the factually innocent go home.

Since Zimmerman is factually guilty of unjustly taking a life he shouldn't go home. Everything else is commentary. Let the lawyers argue the law.

[Mr. David]

22. The jury will return a verdict of 'guilty' in the murder of the second degree.

And that jury requests that the charge be upgraded to first degree murder. (I wish)

Murder is murder, no matter how you try to pretty it up.

[DCBob]

24. You have a problem with the concept of the "gray area" in complex issues.

Life is not entirely black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. In this case manslaughter makes total sense to me as has been explained in several posts above.

[Deep13]

29. It's a pretty typical practice.

There is always the possibility that the state convinced the jury on some elements of the offense, but not on others. It is also possible that the jury will accept an "imperfect" self-defense. Maybe the jury thinks there is cause for self defense, but not lethal self defense. That would make it manslaughter.

[malaise]

31. As long as Zimmerman gets 10-20 years

I don't give a rat's ass

[Igel]

40. Well, then you certainly don't want 2nd degree murder.

That's apparently 25 years minimum, life maximum.

[malaise]

41. That's my first choice

[Jenoch]

32. I have not seen this mentioned

so far in this thread, but under Florida law, because Zimmerman used a gun, if he is convicted, the prison sentence is the same for either manslaughter or murder 2. The sentence is 25 to life.

[SoCalDem]

37. Our legal system has been totally tweaked to make clear verdicts hard to come by

Sometimes, it's hard to even get a conviction because of all the pre-trial nonsense that high profile cases get.

I'd like to see a TOTAL gag order on ANYONE connected with cases, as soon as an indictment is made....lawyers..family..defendants..law enforcement.. ALL of them

If we have a trial-by-jury system, it should be just that..Only random people who would truly know nothing about the particulars would sit in judgement.

AFTER the case is decided, then anyone would be able to say anything they liked.

And any official charge should also automatically include any lesser charges up to and including the official charge.

[badtoworse]

44. Excellent post! I agree 100%

[Rex]

45. I would say that too, but I guess they had to have a lesser charge

available in case the jury decided in was not 2nd degree murder.