Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Second-degree murder, wow. More than what the original homicide investigator had been pressing for.
 
Trayvon Martin's [I]accused[/I] murderer George Zimmerman is no longer a free man

I thought Prosecutor Corey did a very good job, she took a lot of questions.
She was unflappable.


The charges seem right to me.
Zimmerman brought this upon himself.
 
Ok, I could have began with, A lot of people are saying,

I think arguments should stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Since when is conversing in the style you do considered appropriate? Do you walk around in real life doing the same thing? It's antisocial and borderline sociopathic.
 
Most lawyers I know were betting on manslaughter charges, based on the picture the fragmentary evidence leaked to the press appeared to paint of the incident. Of course, Corey had access to all kinds of info they didn't; she interviewed all the eyewitnesses, the girlfriend, had forensic audio analysis of the 911 calls, she would've seen the coroner's report as well as any documentation of Zimmerman's injuries at the time, etc.

Zimmerman's new lawyer has said he'll claim 'Stand Your Ground,' so that will entitle him to an evidentiary hearing, at which the judge could still opt to dismiss the charges rather than letting the case proceed to trial.




The way the coverage of this case has brought the rats out of the woodwork has really been something...I'm accustomed to semi-literate boneheads (from all parts of the spectrum), laughably inept concern trolls, and so forth popping up in comments sections of even relatively 'highbrow' publications, but I'm not used to seeing Stormfront-type, unabashedly crude racists there in the way they have been the last couple weeks.
 
I thought it would be manslaughter. There better be plenty of evidence that is not public knowledge yet, or this is overcharged and they'll never get a conviction.
 
I'm not really understanding the "stand your ground" defense. I thought that applied more towards your own home/property? For example, being in Michigan, if my home is invaded I am technically allowed to use more force than is used on me (ie, I don't have to wait for the invader to attack me before using a weapon or sending my dog). But Zimmerman was out following Martin around and was not at his home/property, no? I've tried to stay out of this one and avoid all the speculation. Maybe I understand the "castle law" wrong...?
 
I'm not really understanding the "stand your ground" defense. I thought that applied more towards your own home/property? For example, being in Michigan, if my home is invaded I am technically allowed to use more force than is used on me (ie, I don't have to wait for the invader to attack me before using a weapon or sending my dog). But Zimmerman was out following Martin around and was not at his home/property, no? I've tried to stay out of this one and avoid all the speculation. Maybe I understand the "castle law" wrong...?

Stand your ground is no duty to retreat in any location, can be a public place. Castle is just the home. I looked it up myself because I was confused about it too.
 
"Stand your ground" takes 'Castle Law' one step further and applies it to basically anywhere. It's an extremely controversial law and I think this story(no matter what the actual details) shows how this law can be abused.
 
Weird. Wouldn't it be applied in reverse in this case? At least from what I gather, Z was the one creeping up on M, so wouldn't M be able to "stand his ground" against Z, following him around with a weapon?
 
I don't understand how manslaughter would be applicable here. If you pull out a gun and shoot someone, is it not implied that you were trying to kill them?
 
I thought it would be manslaughter. There better be plenty of evidence that is not public knowledge yet, or this is overcharged and they'll never get a conviction.
In FL, manslaughter is automatically a lesser included offense to a second-degree murder charge. So even if a jury didn't agree it was murder, they could still convict Zimmerman of manslaughter instead. (Alternatively, he might also be able to get a plea deal reducing the charge to manslaughter.)
Weird. Wouldn't it be applied in reverse in this case? At least from what I gather, Z was the one creeping up on M, so wouldn't M be able to "stand his ground" against Z, following him around with a weapon?
FL's self-defense laws do state that the 'Stand Your Ground' defense is not available to anyone who provokes violence against himself, however, A) the statute nowhere defines "provokes," so prosecutors have to make that case, and furthermore B) there's a qualifier that even a provoker may still claim SYG if he reasonably considered the retaliatory violence to threaten death or grave bodily harm (g.b.h. = loss of limb or the like, NOT bruises etc.) and had no other way to avoid that fate.

But yeah, this problem seems to me to be present in so many of the SYG cases I've read about now--I'll read the summary of what happened and think, Well, okay, sounds to me like the victim was just doing what any reasonable person might've done in response to what this idiot defendant did first, so doesn't this really just boil down to 'whoever shoots first walks?'
I don't understand how manslaughter would be applicable here. If you pull out a gun and shoot someone, is it not implied that you were trying to kill them?
That's not how manslaughter works in the US. While different states' definitions do vary, I don't think there are any where the mere fact that you knowingly pulled your gun and shot would make manslaughter inapplicable. Very often manslaughter cases are "crimes of passion," for example, you'd just then discovered that your victim had been sleeping with your wife, which could cause a reasonable person such loss of control as to mitigate culpability somewhat. Or, more generally, lethal acts that resulted from an extremely "reckless" or "wanton" mindset, rather than the "depraved" mindset FL law explicitly associates with second-degree murder. (Not being a FL lawyer, I don't know exactly how they customarily interpret "depraved," but the gist of it seems to be that even though you didn't plan to kill in advance, you still showed, in the moment, a cold and callous disregard for the life of your victim, as opposed to being solely driven by blind rage, blind panic, or whatever else might render it manslaughter.) Manslaughter is still a very serious offense, for example under FL law Zimmerman could serve up to 30 years if convicted of it, especially since his victim was under 18.
 
That's not how manslaughter works in the US. While different states' definitions do vary, I don't think there are any where the mere fact that you knowingly pulled your gun and shot would make manslaughter inapplicable. Very often manslaughter cases are "crimes of passion," for example, you'd just then discovered that your victim had been sleeping with your wife, which could cause a reasonable person such loss of control as to mitigate culpability somewhat. Or, more generally, lethal acts that resulted from an extremely "reckless" or "wanton" mindset, rather than the "depraved" mindset FL law explicitly associates with second-degree murder. (Not being a FL lawyer, I don't know exactly how they customarily interpret "depraved," but the gist of it seems to be that even though you didn't plan to kill in advance, you still showed, in the moment, a cold and callous disregard for the life of your victim, as opposed to being solely driven by blind rage, blind panic, or whatever else might render it manslaughter.) Manslaughter is still a very serious offense, for example under FL law Zimmerman could serve up to 30 years if convicted of it, especially since his victim was under 18.

Oh, ok. thanks :)
I was always under the (very simplified) impression that 1st degree was premeditated murder, 2nd degree was intent to kill, but in the heat of the moment or a crime of passion, and manslaughter was unintended
 
Hmmm, I don't think so deep. Here's what FindLaw has to say:

Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

Second-Degree Murder
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Many states (not FL, though) do make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, with involuntary basically meaning what JT was describing: you didn't mean to, but you should've known better.

Unfortunately, state laws themselves seldom refer directly to concepts like "crime of passion," so it's kinda one of those things you just have to know. But FWIW, here are the full FL definitions for murder and manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
ok, the links you posted say something different, inline with your previous statements.


I went straight to the FL statues and my memory of the Prosecutors press conference that I watched yesterday.

Is FindLaw a reliable final word? or are they like Wiki?


I don't recall attorneys citing FindLaw as a source in court.


And yes, the link I posted also has links to the FL laws,
after reading both, manslaughter and murder definitions, I believe Zimmerman does not fit the manslaughter charge at all, and a case can be made for Second degree murder, and as you have previously posted his side may deiced to plea towards manslaughter, with would not be a travesty. imo.
 
Well, no, it's not at all like Wikipedia; random know-it-alls like us can't just register and commence doing their own edits and entries. But of course you won't see lawyers citing it in court! You don't want your doctor telling you he diagnosed you by keyword searching your symptoms on Medscape, do you? It's still a good general information source for the layperson. (I wouldn't recommend seeking a lawyer through it though; they do also serve as a marketing space, and for that, they've come under justified criticism before.)

What did they say at yesterday's conference that gave you a different impression? I didn't watch it, and haven't seen a complete transcript.
 
Maybe there is a youtube of it somewhere, she was very good.

I also saw a bit of Zimmerman's new attorney, he seemed good, much, much better than those last two, they were just terrible.

Both sides seem to agree that this is where it belongs, in the courts, where the goal is a proper trial with justice as the outcome.
Also, Trayvon's family, parents, have displayed a lot of dignity throughout this whole process.

I do have some sympathy for Zimmerman and his family, but again, I believe this whole sad affair falls on Zimmerman
his chosen actions.

I can't see any fault with Trayvon's actions at all, only a victim.

Whatever arguments, defense Zimmerman's side wants to put up, of course I will listen to it, and evaluate it.
But a kid should not die because he chose to go to the store and walk back home.
He was being stalked, and perused by a stranger for no justifiable reason, according to everything Zimmerman has said, also the stalker and pursuer, had a loaded gun.

I can't see a justification for manslaughter here at all.
I think everyone needs to know that kids can go to the store and walk back home without being killed by someone stalking, perusing, and confronting them.
 
I wonder what will happen if it goes to court and Zimmerman is found not guilty. I realize the scenarios are a lot different and since there isn't the same element of systemic racism in this case, it might not be the same powder keg, but what do you figure the chances are we get something like we had after the Rodney King verdict? Or is that a thing of the past?
 
I live in the L A area
and that was 20 years ago, I remember being on Sunset Blvd in a Hotel and looking at fires throughout the L A area, also driving on the Hollywood Freeway lined with palm trees on fire, it was a magical time.

well, this ain't that, those were dozens of L A Police that beat Rodney King.
 
Yeah, yolland's descriptions were more along the lines of what I always thought of when I heard the term "second degree murder".

But who knows, really-as said, it can vary sometimes, and after watching a lot of true crime shows, I've realized that these seemingly simple definitions can get convoluted really quickly. It's kind of insane how complicated we make things sometimes.

Weird. Wouldn't it be applied in reverse in this case? At least from what I gather, Z was the one creeping up on M, so wouldn't M be able to "stand his ground" against Z, following him around with a weapon?

That's the thing that I always find so funny about this story. Zimmerman has the gun, and he follows and shoots the kid, he's merely protecting himself and possibly others.

But Trayvon attacks him, or if he were armed, he's a "thug".

Zimmerman's new lawyer has said he'll claim 'Stand Your Ground,' so that will entitle him to an evidentiary hearing, at which the judge could still opt to dismiss the charges rather than letting the case proceed to trial.

I would bet that's what they're seriously hoping for, because when watching TV tonight they were talking about how hard it's going to be to find an impartial jury for this if it does go to trial. And I'd been thinking about that, too. The biggest problem with high-profile cases, right there. I'd hate to be on that jury, or to be the person trying to find such a jury.

The way the coverage of this case has brought the rats out of the woodwork has really been something...I'm accustomed to semi-literate boneheads (from all parts of the spectrum), laughably inept concern trolls, and so forth popping up in comments sections of even relatively 'highbrow' publications, but I'm not used to seeing Stormfront-type, unabashedly crude racists there in the way they have been the last couple weeks.

Honestly, sadly, it's not all that surprising to me anymore. Especially not after reading an article in the latest Newsweek at work, about a young guy who attacked and killed a black man in Mississippi (in the rural area near Jackson)...last year or the year before, I think it was? They talked about how the racial tension is still very noticeable and warped down there, but apparently the white kids down there call black people the "n" word but still don't consider themselves racist. Nor do some of their friends, and some black kids even come to their defense on the issue.

It was a very strange, unsettling, weird article to read. And to think I was reading it in 2012 made it all the more troubling.

Today before I went to work, though, I was sitting in the coffee shop next door, and two guys started chatting about the Trayvon case. They both agreed Zimmerman was in the wrong and should be punished, and pretty much had the same sentiments I'd been expressing of late as to why.
 
Anybody else notice that the Fox News picture of Zimmerman is different from the mug shots the rest of the "lamestream" media are using?
 
^ Which Fox News picture? The one on their mainpage right now is just the new booking pic that everyone else seems to be using...


Yeah, the standout part of that was...
Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.
...which clearly assumes Zimmerman's version of events is false.

ETA -- Also, though they don't mention the audio analysis, they do cite Martin's mother's assertion that the voice screaming on tape was her son's. If they're planning to argue that was indeed Trayvon screaming, then I'd imagine(?) that could be one factor tipping it towards Murder 2--as Diemen pointed out earlier, it's not very credible at all that Zimmerman feared for his life if his purported assailant was screaming in terror for the better part of a minute leading up to the gunshot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom