We previously discussed the effort of the defense team for George Zimmerman to introduce text messages, pictures, and history showing that Trayvon Martin had a history of discipline and drug problems. Judge Debra Nelson ruled today that most of this evidence would be kept out despite the fact that Zimmerman’s history and prior statements will be likely introduced. Zimmerman is arguing that it was Martin who attacked him and that this evidence shows a troubled teen with an obsession with guns and gangsta culture.
As I mentioned before, some of these pictures in my view can be kept out of the trial. However, the defense has a legitimate right to evidence showing a prior disposition — just as the prosecution has that right. What is striking is that the prosecution wants to introduce a host of pre-statements and actions to paint Zimmerman as a racist or violent individual. However, they oppose such evidence related to Martin. Zimmerman’s defense is that Martin attacked him and he wants to show that Martin had problems before that night, including his mother demanding that he leave the house and live with his father.
The images come from Martin’s Huawei phone including what may be a self-picture of Martin holding a Smith and Wesson handgun. However, while it appears taken by the person holding the cellphone, there is no proof it is Martin unless the defense has found contemporary witnesses. Other photos show the gun and potted marijuana plants. The defense also wants to introduce evidence that Martin was suspended for fighting from school. This includes texts from November 2011 in which he says that his mother has kicked him out of the house after “da police caught me outta skool.” His friend responds “So you just turning into a lil hoodlum.” Martin responds “Naw, I’m a gangsta.” In other messages, Martin discusses guns like one that asks “U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out).”
Images like Martin flipping the bird at the camera strike me as prejudicial and best kept out of the trial.
The judge left open the possible introduction of some evidence if it becomes relevant later. However, for now, the evidence is out. I understand the order on some of the evidence, but I am less convinced on other pieces of evidence. For example, Nelson declined for now to rule admissible toxicology tests showing Martin had enough THC — the key active ingredient in marijuana — to indicate he may have smoked the drug a couple of hours before the shooting. It seems to me that contemporaneous drug use within hours of the incident in the case would be relevant to Zimmerman’s defense.
Nelson did not appear particularly concerned by the failure of the prosecution to turn over critical pieces of evidence to the defense — a common complaint over alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
She also barred evidence on the delay to arrest Zimmerman despite it indicated that police and prosecutors viewed the case as a likely matter of self-defense. She also ruled against a defense motion to have the jury visit the crime scene, which she described as “disingenuous” in light of another defense motion requesting anonymity for the jury. I fail to see the basis for that dig at the defense and it undermined Nelson’s credibility on the evidentiary motions.
There is an obvious concern over the publicity and public anger surrounding the case and how it affected the prosecutors and the court. As stated earlier, I believe the prosecutors yielded to public pressure in overcharging the case. While Nelson came down hard against the defense today, many judges favor the prosecution in such motions. The rulings however do raise the concern that character evidence will be introduced against Zimmerman but denied to his defense in discussing Martin. It may come down to whether the prosecutor trips the wire in its examinations but the remaining evidence will not be available during the key opening arguments for the defense.
Source: CNN
Zimmerman: I wasn’t following him; I was just going in the same direction.
Zimmerman: I looked to the right, where he had gone.
Zimmerman: I said, “I don’t know; I don’t know where he’s at.”
Zimmerman: “I don’t want to give you my address, I don’t know where the kid is at.”
Zimmerman: I didn’t know how old he was; I thought he was a little younger than me.
Zimmerman: [Answering Hannity’s question: “Are you sorry you got out of your car that night to follow Trayvon Martin?”] Nossir.
Zimmerman: And I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction.
Zimmerman: Then the suspect emerged from the darkness.
Zimmerman: He said, “What’s your f*cking problem, homie?”
Zimmerman: [Answering Serino’s question: “Did he use the word ‘homie’?”] I don’t know.
Zimmerman: I had blood all over my face; I couldn’t see; there was blood in my eyes.
Zimmerman: [to a bystander] Am I bleeding?
Zimmerman: [to a bystander] Just tell her I shot somebody.
OK, let’s check it out.
1. If Zimmerman committed a manslaughter by this number 1, it would be the same as murder but WITHOUT the “depraved mind” and “ill will.” But what do you call “These a55holes, they always get away” and “f*cking punks”? Serino mentioned both of these points. You regard someone with non-ill will when you comment on him being a “f*cking punk”? How’s that? Your mind is NOT depraved when you complain that an “a55hole” might “get away” as he RUNS FROM YOU and then you follow him and shoot him? Your mind is NOT depraved when you do THAT? Does not compute.
2. Procurement and persuading doesn’t count because Trayvon Martin was NOT persuaded that he should die. He screamed, “I’m begging you!” and “Nooooooooo!” so he obviously was not nearly as persuaded as Zimmerman might have liked him to be.
3. Culpable negligence involves FAILURE to do something a person should have done. Failure to put up a fence by a swimming pool. Failure to keep a dog restrained when one should restrain a dog. That kind of thing. FAILURE to apply the brakes when plowing through a red light at top speed. NEGLECT to do some necessary thing. What would that be in the Zimmerman case? Failure to restrain himself from shooting a kid in the heart? Huh?
No, manslaughter by definition doesn’t fit the evidence of what happened on 2/26/2012 nor does it even fit the description Zimmerman gave of what he did that night. He could have NEGLECTED to follow and kill an unarmed kid but … he chose not to fail to follow…
And that was depraved. And motivated by ill will. Corey got it right.
Malisha,
LOL. I am enjoying your passion for Disney World. You’re not being realistic. Let’s try this again.
There is no jury, in this country, willing to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder. The prosecutor’s ill will or depraved mind theory will be backfire with an intelligent defense attorney like Professor JT or OMara. I am not an attorney, and even humble little ol’ me can make Zimmerman’s comments appear as if he is a dedicated community guardian who cares about the area he is suppose to be ‘patrolling’ or ‘monitoring’. I would go as far to say that Zimmerman was so dedicated to protecting the neighborhood that he not only was working when he was not on duty, but he also pursued ‘the suspect’ until police arrived. wouldn’t you want this type of law enforcement in your neighborhood if you live in a high crime area? This is going to be the defense tactic to deflate the prosecuter’s depraved mind theory.
As I said before, I hope Zimmerman receives a judgement of 2nd degree, but it’s not going to happen. He will be convicted, hopefully, of manslaughter which carries a minimun of 9.25 years in prison, according to FL Law.
LeaNDer: As I said, it is up to a jury.
If I were on the jury, I would not accept Zimmerman’s actions as a valid self defense.
Whether Martin was on top of Zimmerman or not, I still presume Martin was fighting because he had been provoked by Zimmerman. Is there a rule that self defenders not allowed to win their fight?
As for whether Zimmerman would have been unconscious; presumably Martin would have stopped beating him while he was still alive, not pulled Zimmerman’s gun and killed an unconscious Zimmerman in cold blood. As to whether Zimmerman took a beating; so what? He picked a fight and was getting his ass kicked, but he was obviously still a danger to Martin (proven by the fact that Martin ended up dead) and so Martin was continuing to fight and should have fought until Zimmerman was neutralized by unconsciousness. I will also say, having been in such fights myself at Martin’s age, with his adrenaline levels through the roof he probably did not even know how much damage he had inflicted on Zimmerman or himself, for that matter. Any claim he should have stopped presumes he was aware of that, when he probably was not at all.
It will be up to the jury. I have had success in predicting people’s reactions to proposals in meetings; and this is what I predict for this meeting: The idea that somebody can pick a fight, kill the person they picked it with, and still get away clean with a claim of “self defense” will not sit well with the average juror. With 12 to choose from, I’d be willing to bet they will find him guilty or deliberate until they are declared a hung jury. Probably the former, any holdouts that think Zimmerman should walk won’t have much ammunition to fight that cause.
Certainly if I were one of them I would refuse to acquit, in my mind you do not get away with stalking, scaring and killing an unarmed 17 year old boy.
Tony:
I have been following Jeralyn Merritt’s TalkLeft blog on the case for a while.
At one point I gave up trying to wrap my head around what could possibly attract a self-proclaimed Democrat to a blogger like Diwataman, one of the cogs in the wheels of the right wing rumor factory in support of GZ close to the Conservative Treehouse–his new blog: IAIWM
International Association for the Interests of Whites and Males -Hosted by DiwataMan. I fail to understand her attraction to these circles. Or the seemingly secret agreement on the issue from the extreme right all the way over to a Democrats. Or how an intelligent woman like Jeralyn can e.g. link to an article by Diwatman, gone meanwhile, in which he claimed the cell phone found on the scene was not Trayvon’s cell phone at all. Apparently indicating it was planted evidence. In her link she alluded to the article as a brilliant summary of developments in the case by him, or something to the effect.
Not the first time I read the argument, by the way, but here we go.MikeB on her blog TalkLeft on SYG & Provocation
That’s not the first time I read that, by the way. If I remember correctly some even had case law in support. I could even imagine scenarios in which it may even work.
But strictly, my use of SYG above was somehow careless, I think SYG is off the table concerning the upcoming trial. I doubt O’Mara can fold it into trial as he suggested, if he ever honestly intended to.
SearchingMind: I think you have Zimmerman and Martin backwards; Trayvon Martin is the kid (17) that was walking home. George Zimmerman is the overzealous citizen on patrol out profiling black teens, because some witnesses have reported to him seeing black teens running away from burglarized homes in the neighborhood.
LeaNder: Although the law reads more ambiguously, I think to a jury charged with deciding whether the law applies, “standing your ground” carries the connotation of having been attacked without provocation. That isn’t true for Zimmerman; as the jury puts together what most probably happened, here is what I think will happen:
First, I think they will first conclude Zimmerman is lying about why he got out of the car. He was following the kid, he was upset that he lost him, and he got out to search for him.
Second, having concluded Zimmerman would lie to the police (and possibly under oath, or in sworn testimony), I think they will conclude Zimmerman’s “homie” story is made up B.S. also. There is little question the two fought, but it is Zimmerman that provoked the fight, and when losing pulled his gun and shot Trayvon.
You aren’t “standing your ground” if you pick a fight, and although I do not know the law, I don’t think that after picking a fight you get to claim you killed somebody (especially somebody unarmed) in self-defense because they were winning the fight or had you on the ground. The reason I think that, is, it would be the preferred means of murder: Take a swing at somebody, let them connect on the swing back, and then shoot them!
HumpingDog, it’s interesting that you have concluded from my showing less fear than you believe Zimmerman properly exhibited that I live in a safe neighborhood. In order, I have lived as follows:
In a bungalow on a major highway about 6 feet from the street;
In a cheap split-level in a blue-collar community two blocks from the intersection of two big interstates;
In a college dormitory;
In a slum in a room in a house rented cheaply to students;
In a small apartment in a slum in Detroit the year after the “Long Hot Summer”;
In a tiny apartment in Midtown Manhattan where I worked nights;
In a house in a suburb of a major city;
In a rented room with its own bathroom;
In the basement of other people’s homes; and
In a mobile home (single-wide) in residential/farming area.
Only three of the above were SAFE.
I have been assaulted twice, once with a knife, never with a gun. As you can see, I have survived. My assailants were never caught by the police although I did make police reports in both cases. I have never carried or sought to carry a gun. I do not generally fear my neighbors, however poor or rich they may be; I get along with nearly all dogs and, in my lifetime, with one or two cats.
It is not necessary for me to hide my malice. I bear malice to Zimmerman and to his self-exculpating, other-blaming, ignorant bigoted family members who call his victim many varieties of “thug” with their subtle but discernible insults. I chose the handle “Malisha” for exactly that reason. I justify my malice according to the circumstances under which it arises.
Yes, I own my malice. Yet I have never killed anybody with that malice. If I had, it would have been second-degree (or possibly even first-degree) murder, depending upon how long before killing I realized I was choosing to kill.
Dog, here’s the thing: I have not become a person who is afraid of my own shadow and who blames my fear on big bad Blacks or big bad Germans or anyone else. If I were so frightened all the time I would seek professional help; I would NOT arm myself and run out blasting innocent people with my paranoid suspicions and my infantile rage and my unwarranted resentments. My neighborhoods were as safe as the world is, Dog. Sometimes it’s an unsafe world.
It was an unsafe world for Trayvon Martin on 2/26/2012.
Malicish or MaliceAforethought must live in a safe neighborhood.
When people think safe for the body they will war to try to protect it. That is at the root of why people call a weapon power. That is why people use it on people. Have people think of the soul saving it a gun will lose its power. People will shift their thinking of what they want to save
searching mind, I think that O’Mara is upset b/c, according to him, he later requested the report the state got after running the software and that de la Rionda said the state had no such report. What his witness was testifying to is that he had a source that said that the state had such a report for some time. Of course, what the witness had to say was cut short b/c after testifying that he told the defense that that such a report existed, all the rest was hearsay. We’ll hear more about this Friday when the actual witness to the report is to testify.
If de la Rionda lied, what happens? If he had such a report, he should have said so and then they could argue about whether or not the report should be turned over and let the judge decide. Or maybe de la Rionda didn’t lie.
It sure is interesting watching this stuff with an experienced defense lawyer ‘spainin’ what’s going on. I think I’ll take this question back to the other blog.
“As stated earlier, I believe the prosecutors yielded to public pressure in overcharging the case”
Bizarre. I believe, very bizarre.
“This kid” (aka Zimmerman) was walking home, “leisurely”, “looking around”, “looking at all the houses and stuff” and talking to his girlfriend on the phone and minding his own business.
“This kid” (aka Zimmerman) was armed with (a) skittles and (b) Arizona iced tea.
“This kid” (aka Zimmerman) was stalked in the dark, in a car, by a stranger.
“This kid” (aka Zimmerman) got scared. And “he ran”. He did not stand his ground. No, “he ran”! Confused and scared the kid ran to a place where no cars could follow him (the stranger was still in his car when Trayvon ran). He thought that the creepy episode was over and started relaxing, walking slowly again, minding his own business and still talking to his girlfriend on the phone.
But the kid was mistaken. Deadly mistaken. For, the creepy stranger did get out of his car and followed/stalked him on foot.
This stranger captured the kid. Confused and bewildered the kid struggled in vain to free himself from his captor.
“This kid” begged his captor for his life (“I am begging you”) while uttering death shriek. The creepy captor however knew no mercy. This captor shot the kid through the heart, at point blank range, shattering his heart and lung.
This stranger is no other than George Zimmerman.
There are other vanquishing evidence in this case which I will not be talking about – yet, but what EXACTLY do you, sir, need for a first/second degree murder?
While the kid lay dying and before the police arrived, this depraved killer was busy discussing the kind of bullets he used for the kill with witness.
If “this kid” (aka Zimmerman) was White of Jewish, we will not be having this kind of discussion here! (sleep over it and tell me what you think). This case is a no brainer. SIR!
RWL, Fogen didn’t claim to have committed manslaughter. He insisted on “self-defense” and did not claim any other version of events. Serino, however, TRIED to hand him “manslaughter” under a Florida statute designed to exonerate cops who accidentally kill actual SUSPECTS (as opposed to “suspects” as Zimmerman said) who are being apprehended DURING the commission of a felony. That statute was used to prosecute a cop who had killed somebody and then on appeal he got off because the victim of his manslaughter was NOT committing a crime. You can see that it does not apply to Trayvon Martin.
Other forms of manslaughter fit other fact situations. There is no Florida manslaughter charge that fits either (a) Zimmerman’s version of events (which was strict self-defense); or (b) the State’s version of events (which was killing with ill will and a depraved mind.
How depraved does a person have to be to kill someone who is trying to flee, who is not engaged in a crime, and who is begging for mercy at the time the gunman pulls the trigger? A person that the perp already described on a phone recording as “late teens”? I hope he doesn’t have to be MUCH more depraved than that to be committing murder.
Malisha said: ” Fogen didn’t claim to have committed manslaughter. He insisted on “self-defense” and did not claim any other version of events. Serino, however, TRIED to hand him “manslaughter” under a Florida statute designed to exonerate cops who accidentally kill actual SUSPECTS (as opposed to “suspects” as Zimmerman said) who are being apprehended DURING the commission of a felony. That statute was used to prosecute a cop who had killed somebody and then on appeal he got off because the victim of his manslaughter was NOT committing a crime. You can see that it does not apply to Trayvon Martin.”
Your reasoning doesn’t make sense as it applies to Florida’s Manslaughter Laws.
Let’s look at the Florida Manslaughter Laws (see: http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.html):
Manslaughter in Florida
“Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways…
1.Manslaughter by Act: Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
2.Manslaughter by Procurement: Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
3.Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence: Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.
Penalties for Manslaughter
The crime of Manslaughter is classified as a Second Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 7 offense severity ranking under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code.
If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:
•Up to 15 years in prison.
•Up to 15 years of probation.
•Up to $10,000 in fines.
Defenses to Manslaughter
In addition to the pretrial defenses and trial defenses that can be raised in any criminal case, specific defenses to the crime of Manslaughter are:
Excusable Homicide
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
•When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
•When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
•When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
Justifiable Homicide
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.
Self Defense
Also known as the justified use of deadly force, self defense is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder.
Zimmerman could have been easily charged with Manslaughter (and he is being charged with it), instead of 2nd degree murder.
There is no way the jury is going convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder (although I wish they would), but they will convict him of Manslaughter.
If he is convicted of 2nd degree murder, the Florida appeals court will reduce it to manslaughter. If Zimmerman was smart,then he should have kept himself in jail; this would have counted as time served if he received any sentence.
correction: I am sure Trayvon’s mind raced, it always seems to do in such a moment. But from the moment GZ ended his call, Trayvon had only 3 minutes 15 seconds left to find out, since after that he was dead. And as the interviews by Serino and Singleton shows us GZ didn’t not seem to feel forced to let him no.
There are several other typos, I guess.
Hi Tony C, pleased to see you are still around.
That’s it in a nutshell for me. Law always are the rights and duties of both parties involved.. If GZ was allowed to stand his ground or legally defend himself, so was Trayvon Martin.
There is one core issue that I may be slightly more sensitive to than the average American, and that is the bias involved, or mistaking one’s perception as truth. I often wonder to what extend supporter or believers in GZ’s narrative ultimately want to keep up this right to biased perception concerning whoever.
There is also, it seems for defence and their mental or financial supporters that defence studied carefully by the way, only one way forward, and that is exactly what the school suspension, marijuana and fights are about. All these things supposedly help to explain why someone with that marks on his CV can easily turn into a killer machine for–according to George Zimmerman–no reason at all. And was the thug or “the suspect” that as Malisha never tires to point out wrote several times in his narrative the same night. Trayvon never had the chance to become anything else. Just as some overly active officer on the scene tried to verify by keeping TM’s body on the scene for hours while trying to lay hands on a finger printer, and pulling some wrong cases in the process. Which ones exactly? Some that GZ himself somehow suggested, earlier cases in RTL?
The biased person in such a scenario is always at a strategic advantage, he knew what was going on in his head, the other side obviously must be at a complete loss. I am sure Trayvon’s mind raced, But from the moment GZ ended his call he had only 3 minutes 15 seconds left to find out, since after that he was dead. And as the interviews by Serino and Singleton show us GZ didn’t not seem to feel forced to let him no. He had no troubles, he Serino and Singleton he answered, when Trayvon asked him, in George’s own words: Do you have a problem, homie?
I word I am told that is hardly used any more by teenagers today.
Any chance the second photo tells you anything? Trayvon’s cousin. Is this related to some type of combat sport? What is the necklace about? I only did Karate for several years, from that experience I doubt his interest in fighting in November and thus only three month before the event would have made him a fighter or helped him much. What about GZ’s job as some type of security guard, don’t you need training for such a job? In Karate, that I can tell, you need at least one to two years of regular training before you stand a chance to use it as defence, and you aren’t allowed to use it as defence. And you are dealt with as if using a weapon if you use it to attack. I have seen quite few drop outs in my training after they realized it wasn’t as easy they thought it would be. Too much trouble, they thought and left again.
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
“Nelson did not appear particularly concerned by the failure of the prosecution to turn over critical pieces of evidence to the defense — a common complaint over alleged prosecutorial misconduct.”
Well, SHOULD she have?
I think not.
Why? I shall quote my favorite professor emeritus here:
“(…) the evidence is not admissible at trial or exculpatory, and the prosecution disclosed it to the defense in timely fashion back in January. O’Mara claims that the disclosure was not timely because he was provided with raw data that he could not interpret. However, he specifically asked for raw data, which is a proper request, and he should have retained an expert and/or the software program that is used to interpret it. His failure to do that cannot be blamed on BDLR (…)’. – Frederick Leatherman.
My questions to you, Sir, are the following:
1. What exactly do you refer to as “evidence”?
2. Evidence of what is that “evidence”?
3. What makes that “evidence” “critical”?
Without answering these questions, you may not, Sir, accuse other attorneys of miscondut or suggest that such may have occurred.
Your thoughts on this I will appreciate.
“I understand the order on some of the evidence, but I am less convinced on other pieces of evidence. For example, Nelson declined for now to rule admissible toxicology tests showing Martin had enough THC — the key active ingredient in marijuana — to indicate he may have smoked the drug a couple of hours before the shooting. It seems to me that contemporaneous drug use within hours of the incident in the case would be relevant to Zimmerman’s defense.”
I am not less convinced.
Contemporaneous drug use within hours of the incident in the case would be relevant to Zimmerman’s defense if:
a. Zimmerman takes the stand and testifies and
b. The level of THC in Trayvon’s blood is enough to effect behavior (experts will have to testify to that. Section 90.402, 90.403 of the Florida Statute will bar the admission of the toxicology report – absence of such expert testimony).
Judge Nelson’s Order was therefore sound.
See
1. TULIO ARIAS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (No. 3D08-331; October 21, 2009);
2. RUBEN DIAZ versus STATE OF (No. 10-15202; D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-01153-HLA-JRK).
(N/B. Malisha dragged me to this site).
Malisha,
There are different kinds of Manslaughter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)
“Voluntary manslaughter [edit]Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.”
“Infanticide [edit]Infanticide is a separate offense from manslaughter. This offense was created by statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of post-natal depression. It is a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of sentences as a manslaughter conviction. While infanticide is a separate offense from murder, and not a reductive defense to murder (such as the defenses listed below), in practice it works in much the same way as a reductive defense.”
“Involuntary manslaughter [edit]Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.”
“Constructive manslaughter [edit]Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.”
“For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[3]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused’s responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless drinking or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.”
“Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether “excessive force” was used or other factors.”
“It is also possible to be held civilly liable for a death (and pay damages) without being criminally liable (and going to prison), e.g. O.J. Simpson.”
“Criminally negligent manslaughter [edit]Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.”
“It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.”
“Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient’s oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).”
“Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter [edit]In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, there exists the specific crime of Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter.”
“Assisted suicide [edit]In some places assisted suicide is punishable as manslaughter.”
Like Mike S stated, I want to see this Loser (Zimmerman) spend at least 10-15 yearts behind bars (love to see how his friends in prison would treat him: a wanna be cop gone rogue). However, I don’t think it is going to happen.
My prediction: 10 year sentence, parole eligibility in 4-6 years (this may be reduced on appeal).
Tony C, thanks, rational and clear.
They do not even need (and probably will not use unless Zimmerman takes the stand to try to sell his idiotic story about being attacked) any information about Zimmerman’s tendencies toward violence; he has already admitted shooting Trayvon Martin to death. That WAS violent.
You can get all the information you need in this case from the call Zimmerman placed to the non-emergency police number. He considered Trayvon Martin “real suspicious” and did not want him to “get away” like the other “a55holes” who had previously gotten away. He admitted he was following Martin. Jeez, do we need a simultaneous translator?
Oh and that “I went to look for an address” story? I want him to get on the stand, swear his oath with that oaf-like look he adopts for “sincerity,” and say he got out of the car to look for an address while Trayvon Martin was “skipping” away. OH HO HO HO HO HO HA HA HA OUCH OUCH!!
Manslaughter? It would have been manslaughter if he had slipped on some dog poop, the gun went off accidentally, and just happened to enter Trayvon Martin’s chest at NO ANGLE at intermediate range while leaving powder burns on the cloth of his hoodie while it was stretched out.
Oops, he didn’t even think of that one. 😳
Where to begin? My sister has a picture of me flipping the bird at her, which she is quite fond of. She made a funny joke at my expense, people laughed, and I made the only response that preserved my dignity.
I have been in fights at school, too, not picked by me but fought.
I have also held a handgun, even as a teen. Uh oh, is that evidence of my criminal mind? Is a picture on my phone nobody can prove is even ME evidence of anything?
Does taking a picture of an illegal pot plant being grown in somebody’s bedroom or garage or whatever make me a criminal? Are pictures of pot now illegal too, does being close enough to take a picture make me a drug user? Is Bill Maher a presumptive violent assailant because he proclaims his frequent usage of pot?
As for “gangsta,” for a teenager I think it is equivalent to claiming to be a ninja; it is fantasy role playing.
I think the judge ruled correctly; Zimmerman’s background is relevant because it goes to the motive Zimmerman had for following Martin through the neighborhood in his car, then getting out of his car with a gun to search for Martin on foot. We do not need a motive for Martin to be there, we believe he went for a walk to the store, most plausibly to have some privacy while calling a girl, and was wandering back while on the phone.
We also do not need an excuse for Trayvon Martin to respond with violence if confronted by an armed stranger, at night, in a neighborhood strange to him. Any projective nonsense about how he “should have acted” is ludicrous, people react differently when confronted with imminent harm and there is no “right” answer guaranteed to save your life, so a violent attempt to escape imminent harm is entirely acceptable behavior, especially for a teen.
I think the case is about why Zimmerman was stalking Martin and escalating to confrontation. A history that informs that question is relevant.
Why Martin got alarmed, ran, and eventually fought does not have to be informed, it is obvious: A strange man was following him, late at night, in a strange neighborhood.
Dog, go ahead and define your own attitudes as pure and right, but remember your prediction that at the SYG hearing the judge was going to exonerate your cute little puppy and send him wag-tail home? YOu say so confidently, ” I think that Z is credible. I think that a jury will believe him and it will be a short period of time for deliberation.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA WOOF WOOF, are your fleas all jiggling? What did they put in your dog food — or have you been out there eating poop again and got some from Z mixed in with the good stuff? See, your credible Z guy can’t risk testifying. Because only dogs like you think he’s credible and that did not include Singleton, Serino, Lester, his first two bozo lawyers, or his own family until this case made them circle the wagons against an outsider “savage.” And that’s all you’re doing too.
Now as to people thinking it’s manslaughter, they should just read the statute. Serino went for it after Wolfinger corruptly refused to draw charges for murder, but the fix was in so there was no charge yet. When the facts are taken into account and the likelihood of Zimmerman risking opening his mouth in court is factored in (I can see it now: he will testify that “Some old dog on the Turley blog thinks I’m credible so my lawyer says I should not have to be cross-examined”), you’ll have a disappointment on that count, but dream on, dogs do dream.
By the way, proving Trayvon had a “love for guns” is quite irrelevant since he was not carrying that night. Perhaps they should prove that where Zimmerman “fell when he hit me the first time” there was some real credible dog poop.
Mr Turley got it right, as he usually does.
This topic is a prime example of the mindset of most Americans today. Unable to be objective or unbiased.
This is a large part of why I feel Mr Turley would make an excellent SCOTUS appointment. However since he does not kiss the ass of either party, that is unlikely as sad as it is.
Then again, if we ever see a major overnight change within our political system, who knows, perhaps he will be appointed then.