Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[el diablo]

That's manslaughter, not murder.

If you only count the action of the killing. Which is why we have the perceived depraved mind vs. the perceived fear of death or great bodily harm.

[Pappy13]

If you only count the action of the killing. Which is why we have the perceived depraved mind vs. the perceived fear of death or great bodily harm.

I was referring to Spider's comment that the verifiable evidence we have is that Martin is dead and that Zimmerman killed him. You're absolutely correct that to prove murder or even manslaughter for that matter, there has to be some additional evidence and if there isn't enough evidence or that the evidence proves the defendant acted in self defense, then the verdict should be not guilty.

[bsmooth]

That's manslaughter, not murder.

I agree, which is what he should have been charged with.

[Spider-Dan]

That's manslaughter, not murder.

It's neither if the jury finds that it was in self-defense (i.e. they believe Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin).

If they don't find that it's self-defense, not sure how it can be manslaughter and not murder.

[bsmooth]

It's neither if the jury finds that it was in self-defense (i.e. they believe Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin).

If they don't find that it's self-defense, not sure how it can be manslaughter and not murder.

Without the evidence to prove he had the frame of mind and intention to kill Martin, it is not murder. Just because you kill someone, does not mean you are guilty of murder.

[Phishfan]

Again, if the prosecution would have went for manslaughter, I would have leaned toward guilty.

The lesser charge is included. The jury can come back and decide guilty of manslaughter.

[Phishfan]

The problem is that many of the verifiable claims he makes turn out to be false.  Then we are left with his unverifiable claims.
The point I was making (which I emphasized underneath the part that you quoted) is that even if Zimmerman actually did start the fight, Martin is dead and no one else was around to see, which essentially means that he can just say that he didn't and there's no one to contradict that.

That doesn't mean I automatically presume that he started it.  But I think it's a dangerous precedent to set, and when you add in all the inconsistencies in his statements, this reads to me like a blueprint of how you COULD start a fight, kill the other person if you're losing, and get away with it.

And this is different than how it has ever been. If a tree falls in a forest does anyone hear it? Seriously Spider, in order to convict someone of murder you need evidence. Without evidence, many a murder has gone unsolved. I'm not sure what your big draw is on this one.

[Phishfan]

It's neither if the jury finds that it was in self-defense (i.e. they believe Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin).

If they don't find that it's self-defense, not sure how it can be manslaughter and not murder.

They don't even have to believe self defense. They just need to have reasonable doubt of murder. You seem to keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies in a courtroom.

[el diablo]

They don't even have to believe self defense. They just need to have reasonable doubt of murder. You seem to keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies in a courtroom.

If they don't believe it was self defense, then how could it not be murder? How could it be a justifiable homicide? It wasn't an accident. He meant to discharge his weapon. So if you don't believe it was self defense, then what reason did he have?



Edit by Dave: Fixing quote formatting

[Phishfan]

If they don't believe it was self defense, then how could it not be murder? How could it be a justifiable homicide? It wasn't an accident. He meant to discharge his weapon. So if you don't believe it was self defense, then what reason did he have?

I was not addressing justifiable homicide. For that it does have to be self defense. We were discussing how it could possibly be manslaughter. Personally, I think that is the most likely conviction if there is one.

[Spider-Dan]

I was not addressing justifiable homicide. For that it does have to be self defense.

What case are you talking about?  Zimmerman admitted to intentionally shooting Martin (i.e. homicide), and is claiming self-defense as justification.  So how can it not be murder if it is not self-defense?

[Phishfan]

What case are you talking about?  Zimmerman admitted to intentionally shooting Martin (i.e. homicide), and is claiming self-defense as justification.  So how can it not be murder if it is not self-defense?

You must not be paying attention to the technical information in this case. Murder in the second degree is defined by very specific language (just as murder of the first degree is). If that language cannot be proven, then manslaughter is more likely. Every homicide does not meet the criteria of murder. That is regardless of the state where it happens. I thought that was common knowledge.

[Spider-Dan]

In this specific case, if the jury believes (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense, that necessarily means that there are certain aspects of his account that they reject (e.g. who started it).  In the rejection of those claims, I don't see how it would be possible for them to not arrive at murder 2.

[pondwater]

The problem the prosecution is going to have is that armed following or "hey what you doing" is not sufficient for legal provocation to make you responsible for someone using violence against you. Regardless of what the jury decides, there is no way the prosecutions can prove murder 2.

[masterfins]

  So how can it not be murder if it is not self-defense?

Happens all the time.  Members of a jury debate with each other over what they think happened, and negotiate to a middle ground (such as manslaughter).  Technically not correct, but that's our system.