Trying to make sense of the Zimmerman trial and the laws involved

[Quixote1818]

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

My best guess is proving murder is an extreme long shot but I most certainly think Zimmerman is guilty of bad decision making leading to death. Tell me if I am wrong but this does seem to be at least involuntary manslaughter. Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.

To make an involuntary manslaughter car accident analogy where someone gets killed lets look at the situation.

Zimmerman breaking the home owners association rules by carrying a gun and him disobeying the 911 dispatcher by following Martin. He is knowingly breaking rules he knows are rules. Right away he is putting Martin in danger if Martin feels his life is in danger and reacts to protect himself. So here is one car accident analogy based on what I just pointed out: A driver is going the wrong way down a one way street and knowing they are doing it. While doing so an accident occurs and someone in the other car that was coming the other way and was breaking no laws is killed.

So is this a good analogy or am I missing something? I fear Zimmerman is going to get off because the laws are poorly written to protect someone from idiot Barney Fife types who walk into a lawful situation WITH a DEADLY weapon.

Just to be clear, I know we can't prove Zimmerman broke any state laws only the home owner's association rules but you don't have to break laws to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter you just have to make poor decisions that lead to someone's death and Zimmerman made a series of bad decisions and had a responsibility to stay away from the situation knowing he had a deadly weapon. The definition of Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied.

If anyone can come up with a better analogy feel free to post it.

[JI7]

1. i think if Trayvon was white Zimmerman would easily be convicted of murder

and the media and cnn and other whores wouldn't be debating whether he is really guilty.

[Quixote1818]

2. Agree 100%. In this society it's perfectly okay to be scared of a black kid

and think a black kid could kill you but a white kid coming back from the store with candy who starts to win a fight is absolutely NOT okay to shoot and kill. Huge double standard.

[NutmegYankee]

3. And if Zimmerman had been black, and Trayvon white-

Florida would be wiring up old sparky right now.

[Quixote1818]

5. If the prosecutor is smart he will ask the jury to imagine how they would view Zimmerman's state of

mind if the child was white. Take them through the whole scene but with the kid in the hoody a white kid getting candy. Then if the ONLY reason they believe Zimmerman thought his life was in danger was because the kid was black then they should convict him on his prejudices alone. Otherwise it's simply okay to kill black kids because they SEEM more life threatening than white kids.

Someone needs to make a movie using both scenarios to get audiences to think about their own prejudices.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. That was actually the very powerful closing argument

by Matthew McConaughey's character in A Time to Kill, a story about an attack on a little black girl in rural Mississippi by some neo-nazis.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117913/

He went through a step by step of an attack on a black child and closed his remarks with "now imagine she was white".

[dtom67]

4. I am afraidd we will see...

Yet another example of martial law in an American city, if people take to the streets. Stand your ground is a bad law.hopefully this case will bring about the end of it.

[badtoworse]

6. Bad analogy

If the state can't disprove Z's claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't believe that how he got there will matter. The "rules" you cited do not have the force of law, and even if they did, that would not affect Z's right to defend himself. Driving the wrong way down a one way street is both illegal and negligent. If someone dies in an accident that results, you can establish a direct causality. That is not true with what Z did prior to the altercation.

As I understand it, what will decide this case is what was going on during the altercation. From what I have seen, that can't be proven one way or another. Give that, I believe Z will be acquitted.

[Quixote1818]

15. You don't have to break laws to get involuntary manslaughter

Zimmerman made a series of bad decisions fueled by his fear of blacks and put Martin at risk. It's that simple just like someone texting and driving in a state where it is legal to text and drive and then swerving and causing an accident where someone gets killed. For that matter just not seeing a car and changing lanes and killing someone is involuntary manslaughter.

Going into a situation with a gun is very similar to going into a situation with a car. You have something that is very powerful and could lead to death if you make bad decisions. You must act responsibly with the deadly thing in your possession be it a car or a gun. He had a responsibility to AVOID a confrontation at all costs simply because he had a gun and there was a good chance a confrontation would lead to the gun being used. Zimmerman made reckless decisions made 100% on a prejudice, slanted view that simply because the kid was black he was "up to no good". Had the kid been white there is no way he would have followed him. Had he made better decisions the death would not have occurred, period. A kid texting and killing someone is basically the same thing. A bad decision leading to death and that is involuntary manslaughter.

You site Zimmerman's right to defend himself. In Martin's eyes he could be a rapist or murderer so Martin has the right to defend himself even more so. And I think it's pretty clear from what the girlfriend said that Zimmerman did a very poor job identifying himself when he came face to face with Martin. Because he had had a gun he had a very big responsibility to defuse the situation as quickly as possible by saying something as simple as "Excuse me, I am with the neighborhood watch and I don't remember seeing you around here before. Do you live here?" Every bad decision Zimmerman made was putting both of them at risk and he made one shit load of bad decisions. Even the cops wanted manslaughter.

[badtoworse]

18. I don't disagree with what you say, but I see a problem with it.

Without being able to substantiate all of the events that led up to Martin's death, how can you say with certainty which decisions Zimmerman made were bad or even relevant? Sure, going after Martin when the 911 dispatcher said not to was a bad decision, but depending on what happened after that, it might be irrelevant. You would need to know how the fight started in order to make that call and to my knowledge, Z is the only one who can speak to that.

[Travis_0004]

7. There is a difference between not following laws, and not following rules

If the law says I can not drive more than 55, I can get a ticket if I'm going 65.

If I am breaking a rule from a private company, there really is no legal penalty. If the HOA says you can not carry a gun, from a legal perspective in this case, I think that rule is irrelevant, because the law says you are allowed to carry a gun. If the HOA wants to kick you out for not following their rules, they probably can, but it has no impact on the law

[Quixote1818]

9. True but even if we take away the part about going the wrong way

on a one way street knowingly. If you swerve into the wrong lane because you were texting and driving in a state where it's legal to do so and someone gets killed, it's still involuntary manslaughter.

[davidn3600]

8. Voluntary vs Involuntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter - A typical example of this is the "heat of passion." A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. He becomes so filled with anger he grabs a knife and kills them both before fully realizing what he's done. Basically this is a crime where there is no premeditation, but a deliberate killing due to heat of passion, temporary anger, or some type of provocation. In other words, voluntary manslaughter is a deliberate killing, without a depraved mind, without premeditation, but was not an accident.

Involuntary manslaughter - The key word in the law here is "culpable negligence." This is basically an accidental killing that is the result of gross negligence. A person created a dangerous environment that resulted in a death.

Second degree murder is when "the defendant acted according to a 'depraved mind' without regard for human life." This is a deliberate killing without premeditation, and without self-defense.

First degree murder is deliberate killing WITH premeditation. Zimmerman would have had to want to kill Trayvon, plan it, and execute it. There is no way that can be proven here. And this charge is not even on the table for a jury to consider.

Now the depraved mind is what's a big, big problem for the prosecution here as far as the murder charge. They do have a shot with the manslaughters I think. The jury could be deadlocked on the murder charge and settle with the manslaughter. That's a possibility if the jury believes that Zimmerman in some way acted recklessly and created a dangerous situation.

It's not really a simple case to tell you the truth. The jury has a difficult job.

[exboyfil]

10. Unless you can show that Martin was the one screaming for help

that is probably the best you can do (which is unfortunate). The Dooley case is a great parallel and he ended up with a manslaughter conviction for him. The prosecution argued that showing the gun was a provocative act that allowed the much larger James to attack Dooley and grab him by the throat. If James has the right to defend himself, then surely Martin does as well.

Dooley (69) 5 ft 7 in and 160 pounds
James (41) 6 ft 1 in and 240 pounds

Zimmerman (28) 5 ft 8 in and 185 pounds
Martin (17) 6 ft and 160 pounds

[magical thyme]

13. Martin was 5'11" nt

[customerserviceguy]

11. I'm not familiar with the claim

that GZ carrying a weapon was somehow against HOA rules, perhaps you can cite something to that effect? In many states, carrying a firearm is considered a right, not a privilege that your neighbors grant to you (like here in NY).

Some places have the law written in a way that two individuals who get into a fight get to settle it any way they can. Remember, we had a history of dueling in this country, some vestiges of that policy have left faint echoes in the law.

I figure that O'Mara has destroyed the state's second degree murder charge at this point, from now on, he'll target the manslaughter charge for the rest of his defense.

[Lurks Often]

14. You are mistaken on several things

1. HOA rules govern the gated community, they are not Florida law and can not override Florida law.
2. The dispatcher testified during the trial that legally he does NOT have the authority to tell people what to do, so legally Zimmerman did nothing wrong by not following the dispatcher's suggestion.
3. Under the law, both of them had every right to be where they were and to speak to each other and there is no Florida law against following a person.
4. Under the law, neither could restrain the other or initiate a physical confrontation

The case is going to be decided on who struck who first and if the jury feels that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm when he was on the ground being struck by Martin (according to witness testimony)

[Quixote1818]

16. You don't have to break laws for it to be involuntary manslaughter

You just have to make stupid decisions and Zimmerman made several.

1. He did not enter the situation responsibly knowing he had a deadly weapon.

2. According to the girlfriend listening to what occurred Zimmerman did not try to defuse the situation when they came face to face and her account is believable. Had she been lying I think she would have made up something far fetched.

3. Zimmerman used racial profiling.

One stupid blunder after another. Just as bad as someone texting and driving and much worse than someone changing lanes and causing an accident who could have even looked but missed their blind spot. Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. To me this sounds like involuntary manslaughter but I believe the laws when it comes to cars leading to deaths are better understood than guns leading to death. Bottom line here is I hope people have learned something from this. When you have a gun you hold a HUGE responsibility and should avoid at all costs putting yourself in a position to confuse someone that may lead to their death.

[Lurks Often]

17. Addressing your points

Point 1: The burden is on the State to prove he was reckless or negligent when Zimmerman entered the situation. I think they have failed to prove it.

Point 2: Subjective and depends on how credible she is to the jurors.

Point 3: Again the burden is on the State to prove he racially profiled Martin. Per the dispatcher testimony, Zimmerman never mentioned race until asked by the dispatcher. Additionally it was dark and raining, if the hood was up, how could Zimmerman tell Martin was black easily?