Absolutely disagree. I think you’re picturing manslaughter by act. But Florida law also allows for manslaughter by culpable negligence.
Now, to be crystal clear, I understand you to be saying that, as a matter of law, the evidence adduced so far is legally insufficient to support manslaughter – you are NOT saying that you believe the jury just won’t find the evidence convincing; you’re saying that as a matter of law no reasonable jury could convict on this evidence. Yes?
OK, let’s review. In Florida, the key elements of manslaughter are found in § 782.07(1):
To answer the question, “Is the evidence legally sufficient to sustain a conviction?” we must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, drawing all reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s favor.
Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that Zimmerman proceeded against the advice of the police dispatcher to follow Martin, a person he believed to be an armed criminal, taking his loaded pistol with him, when there was no compelling reason to do so.
“Culpable negligence” is defined as follows:
The jury could reasonably find that Zimmerman knew, or should have known, that carrying a loaded pistol at night, while following someone he believed to be an armed criminal, was likely to result in someone’s death or great bodily injury.
The jury could also reasonably find that the death was neither excusable nor justifiable.
Truth told, I like the intricate distinctions in criminal law. I once got a guy acquitted from a theft charge because I argued that the Commonwealth proved taking but not asportation.
Knowing that there’s both manslaughter by act and manslaughter by culpable negligence in Florida is key to this discussion, and if the distinction didn’t exist then I’d be agreeing with Saraya on this point. Manslaughter by act allows Zimmerman’s justifiable / excusable defenses wider leeway. Manslaughter by culpable negligence says, in effect, he did something he knew was incredibly dangerous and could result in a death, and it did.
What gets frustrating is what sometimes happens: the other participant in the discussion does not acknowledge or rebut your point, but continues to gainsay it. That’s a bit perplexing, when it happens.
I’ll let you know if I find anything. SYG is pretty new and with trial delays, time until results are compiled/published, maybe there isn’t that much data available yet?
Fair enough. Upon conclusion Zimmerman will either be immune from civil and criminal prosecution or he will not. Correct?
Not seeing how that makes
an incorrect statement.
A) If immune he won’t be acquitted, he won’t even get tried.
B) If not immune, tried, and acquitted, a civil suit is a possibility*.
*that was me being generous to try to avoid running afoul of the SDMB pedants. :rolleyes:
In fact, if not immune, tried, and acquitted, a civil suit is almost assured.
Well, as I said above, I believe if we had a way to look back over the events and see exactly what happened, and what each participant was thinking, the result would legally amount to manslaughter.
But remember that the prosecution has an uphill battle – my recitation of evidence was from the perspective of the jury believing all the prosecution evidence and discounting all the defense evidence. We cannot assume, for certain, that this is what the jury will do.
That constitutes “many” of the posters in this forum defending Zimmerman?
Not to make excuses, but emeraldia is a 5 month poster, hasn’t been back to the thread in a month and posted stats about race and crime that could be evidence of racial bias, or could be the result of bad information. I don’t know what he meant by “victimized”.
Certainly for stranger murders, black on white is almost 4 times as frequent as white on black according to DOJ/FBI statistics.
You called out Steophan, Magiver, and Shodan specifically as making racist comments. So far I have seen a link to a comment by emeraldia that may or may not be based in racism.
I think at least one of the comments betenoire39 objects to is the observation about Martin and his “No Limit N*gga” web account or Facebook page or whatever it was.
Although, to be fair, it is possible that Martin identified more with
Yep, if Trayvon had been smoking the loco weed and listening to urban music prior to encountering George, it’s hardly surprising that he’d be riled up enough to kill a sucka as soon as look at one.
With regard to actual eye witnesses, you’re right, Z didn’t know if anyone was watching, which was why he stated that he’d been beneath Trayvon AND on top of him - because he couldn’t be sure someone hadn’t been watching and he had to account for why any witness might be saying they’d saw Z on top. He’s probably kicking himself now for even admitting diving straight on Trayvon after he wasn’t sure if he’d shot him or not, as he never needed to even go there.
The actual witness who Z seems convinced had a detailed conversation with his good self while he was sat on TM’s back, says no such thing ever happened.
I see no need to read your bullshit definition of some bullshit made up term-- coming, of course, from a legit source or word origins called “urban dictionary”.
How laughable.
How do you exactly know it referenced a rap song?
After all, I can have an online handle of sunshine…does that reference the song by that name?
betenoire, you know exactly what race baiting is as you engage in it frequently.
Bricker, regarding the idea that Zimmerman’s following of Martin is sufficiently reckless as to justify a manslaughter conviction, I have three points. Firstly, if Zimmerman was following Martin with the intention to catch and attempt to detain him, I think you’d be right. Secondly, if he was following him with the intention of ensuring that he could tell the police his location, I don’t think that’s reckless. It’s not reasonable to assume that someone will become violent simply because they notice you following from a distance.
Thirdly, the evidence strongly suggests that, when the inadvisability of following Martin was brought to his attention, he stopped following. Do you think that, even taking into account that, and the fact that their actual encounter was due to Martin returning to Zimmerman after losing him, it still counts as criminally reckless, rather that just slightly stupid?
Also, do you have any cites for courts finding, in a jurisdiction where carrying handguns is fully legal, that an act that would otherwise have been fine becomes criminally reckless due to the carrying of a gun? If not, the continued mention of following Martin with a loaded gun is a red herring, introduced for emotional purposes.