Ok, I could have began with, A lot of people are saying,
I think arguments should stand (or fall) on their own merits.
Second-degree murder, wow. More than what the original homicide investigator had been pressing for.
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...?
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.)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.
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.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 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.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.
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 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.
well, this ain't that, those were dozens of L A Police that beat Rodney King.
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?
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.
Yeah, the standout part of that was...
...which clearly assumes Zimmerman's version of events is false.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.