Zimmerman expected to be charged.

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geo ... 45232.html


I expect the only good thing to come out of this is that a court of law will finally get to the truth and I reserve opinion until a jury of his peers has reached a verdict.

Or a judge. Zimmerman could decline a jury.

ruveyn

It should quiet down the crowds somewhat. It'll be interesting to see if the trial is bungled any.

Update: Zimmerman has been charged with Murder 2.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/zim ... 01336.html

I'm not sure if Treyvon Martin is a victim of murder or unfortunate circumstances, however, either way, George Zimmerman is a victim of an irresponsible media, and an angry populace. I believe it will be very difficult for this man to get a fair trial, and I fail to believe a not guilty verdict won't start a riot.

Additionally, in light of the evidence that I'm aware of, provided my information is accurate, I don't see what ground prosecutors would have for a charge beyond manslaughter, but I suppose that will be revealed during proceedings.

X2

Perfectly encapsulated everything I was going to say.

The only conclusive evidence in this case is a bullet from Zimmerman's weapon in the body of a dead, unarmed teenager.

Well, he's been charged with second degree murder.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hi CrazyCatLord,

Taking the "facts" strictly, with a word-for-word strict reading of some of the laws involved, the alleged 911 tapes are examples of self-verifications, with such as frequent Devil's Advocate citations of satisfaction of "aggravated stalking": http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/stalking/florida/

Next most hypothecated is the legal section of the "Stand Your Ground Law" newly weighted with modifications resulting in the common label of "King's x" for first aggressors:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

With 776.041(2)(b) being wholly "King's x" in Florida's Homicide Law Land. So if the killer calls "King's x" before killing, all of the soon to be dead victim's defenses must cease, or the killer is then "Stand Your Ground" protected in continuing to immediately actualize the killing (which is a very absurd law in with the "Stand Your Ground" slogan).
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=3

Besides "King's X" in Webster's American Dictionary, and common American phraseologies, there's the American Religions' Versions:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +Satan+%22

Tadzio

The problem is, Florida should have done this within days of Martin's murder. Florida has brought the nation to the brink of racial rioting with it's stupidity in this matter. But, what can you expect from a state that brought the world the Casey Anthony fiasco?

I certainly think that Zimmerman has been subjected to trial by media--but that was largely due to the police decision to prejudge the issue of self-defence. Police must, of course, exercise professional judgement--but that judgement should not infringe upon the discretion of the prosecutor. When a prosecutor says, "I don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction," I am much less disturbed than when the police foreclose the possibility of prosecution. Zimmerman would still be the subject of scrutiny had the police acted other than as they did. But the anger, I suggest, would have been less.

As for the charge, however, I disagree with you. Manslaughter is not a substitute charge for murder to indicate sympathy for the accused (although a jury is free to treat it so). Legally, manslaughter is homicide in which the mens rea for murder is not present. There seems little question that Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger and intended to cause harm in so doing. If proved, that is enough to form the mens rea for second degree murder. This is not a circumstance (so far as I am aware) in which his mental capacity was diminished and I have heard nothing to suggest that he could not form the intent required. If the defence can aver evidence of diminished capacity, though, it is open to the judge to direct an acquittal on murder and leave only the question of manslaughter to the jury.

Self-defence does not reduce murder to manslaughter--self defence is a complete defence to either charge, if it is proved.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a text your opinion to see how many people think Zimmerman should be shot on site or not.

The court of law did it's job in that case and I expect no less of them in this case.

The court of law is not infallible. Maybe the judge has thought Zimmerman was guilty from day 1 and decides to rule as such no matter the evidence (or the jury as the case may be), maybe the prosecutor will purposefully leave out evidence to try and secure a not guilty...

Who knows.

As far as i'm concerned, the court of law is the final authority no matter what is decided.

That's a very dangerous thing. When you put so much trust in to a fallible system you're bound to be screwed by it in the end.