Posted on 04/14/2012 4:15:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When a man shot and killed a boy on a rainy night on the streets of Sanford Florida, because he looked suspicious and the man took it upon himself to investigate this person wearing a hoodie, the State District Attorney filed second degree murder charges against the adult, but may have inadvertently have all the charges of murder dismissed or find him not guilty.
The State of Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey has charged George Zimmerman for second degree murder against Trayvon Martin, which according to Florida’s law may get Zimmerman life in prison. But there seems to be a catch. According to Florida’s law, to prove second degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.The victim is dead; 2.The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant; 3.There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. 01) Travon Martin is dead. Zimmerman claimed he killed him in self defense.
02) When the 911 operator said to not get involved, Zimmerman disobeyed the operator and confronted Martin. By not obeying the order, this can be grounds for obstruction of justice, an arrestable offense, therefore, satisfying two of three within the laws of second degree murder.
03) There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life may be the issue here.
According to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, the word depraved says: marked by corruption or evil; especially : perverted. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s mind was corrupt or evil or even perverted. Also what is reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt: Prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that the defendant is guilty.
So is there any doubt that Zimmerman’s mind was corrupt, evil or perverted? The defense may say that he was concerned about the safety and well being of the community and that his intentions were to protect property and Zimmerman who gave chase, was a victim of Martin, who pounced on him, started to smash his head against the concrete and Zimmerman had no choice but to shoot Zimmerman to defend himself. If Zimmerman sticks with that story, the jury would have no choice but to say not guilty. On the other hand, the D.A. can still file manslaughter charges.
According to Florida law: Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary. Essentially, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that manslaughter was the result of an accident, heat of passion, or some other act in which the person does not have the mental state to commit a murder.
Involuntary manslaughter: To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with “culpable negligence.” Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant’s recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly. Example: If the defendant handles a loaded gun without any knowledge of whether the gun is loaded, and he later discharges the gun into a group of people, the defendant’s actions likely meet the recklessness requirement for a charge of involuntary manslaughter.
Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person. The prosecution and defense can look at the facts and circumstances of the killing to determine whether the defendant reasonably believed that self-defense was necessary; if not necessary, the state might proceed with an involuntary manslaughter charge.
If the D.A. cannot prove that the Zimmerman was depraved, then legally, Zimmerman is a free man and under the double jeopardy rules, he cannot be tried again for the same crime…but then there is federal court.
Even if Zimmerman DID initiate contact, as long as he did so in a non-lethal manner, then he retained the right to self defense, provided he had reached a point where lethal force was required to save himself from death or severe injury.
The only change is that he would be required to show running away wasn’t an option.
This is an absurd misconstruction of the concept of "obstruction of justice."
I heard someone on the radio try this line on his audience this morning. I laughed myself silly, had the dog wondering what had come over me.
“When the 911 operator said to not get involved, Zimmerman disobeyed the operator and confronted Martin.”
Z had just complained about how uncomfortable/inconvenient following M would be (cold, dark, etc). What the operator said amounted to “don’t bother doing what you don’t want to do, we don’t need you to do it”.
I’ve wondered if during this time he called his wife to let her know he was running late.
His father or brother said on FOX that there was something between when he hung the phone up (after loosing TM and heading back to the truck )and when he was decked by TM. Have you seen anything regarding these minutes?
Deprave:
To defame; vilify; exhibit contempt for. In England, it is a criminal offense to “deprave” the Lord’s supper or the Book of Common Prayer.
Blacks Law, 2nd edition.
Depraved:
1) Made bad or worse; vitiated; tainted; corrupted.
2) Corrupt; wicked; destitute of holiness or good principles.
An American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828 Edition
not a chance
This woman is not credible ... she witnessed little, but is long on varying opinions. Her eye contact suggests she’s lying, IMO.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-interviews-witnesses-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/
http://subzinfo.wordpress.com/trayvon-martin-witness-says-sanford-police-ignored-her-video/
Then you better hope prosecutors across the Nation retire because this is an EASY call.
Just a general response as I have zero intention of responding to all the posts and the emails ... people are taking a political view, and position, on a non-political issue. Probable Cause is just barely above suspicion. I can’t emphasize how little it takes. And for those saying, “I don’t know the facts” ... NONE of us know the facts. I was consistently amazed, in cases I had, on what the press would report that was so significantly different from the truth.
My goodness, even defense attys (including Zimmerman’s) aren’t arguing that there is no probable cause.
U.S.Attys appointed by Republican’s are parading across the news and agree that there is easily probable cause in this case. Probable cause is NOT guilt. Most of you are taking a “guilt” argument with me.
But ... I no more expect people who aren’t attorney’s to understand the law any more than I would like to think that my mechanic expects me how to understand how to repair my car. It is just something that you can only understand generally unless you have studied it. Hell. I’d have been fired if I didn’t prosecute Zimmerman.
In any event ... Zimmerman now has a very good attorney. Let us hope he receives his day in Court.
Think I’ll go look for a nice pro-Santorum thread. =)
If shots rang out outside my window, I’d hit the deck not run to the window. On the tape that was the best source for hearing all: the screams for help, the scream that was unintelligble and then the gun shot, the caller kept yelling for Jeremy to get down. She TOLD the operator she’d gone upstairs to hide.
I had great respect for the Mother when she said it was an accident until she was “educated” to say cold blood......how come these African Americans fail to see how they are used
You never answer a simple question. Let’s assume that Zimmerman used poor judgment in following Martin. Let’s assume the confrontation started with mutual argument (no evidence of this). Once Zimmerman was on the ground, with Martin pounding the snot out of him (much evidence of this) what was Zimmerman supposed to do? Was he supposed to wait until he was comatose or paralyzed as a proper punishment for his mistake. If Zimmerman is correct that he was walking back to his car when Martin sucker punched him, does that not represent self defense and end this discussion?
There is one account, relayed by Martin’s father, which he reported was told to him by one of the detectives.
In this account, sometime after Zimmerman hung up the phone, Martin approached Zimmerman’s car and asked him why he was watching him. Zimmerman rolled down his window to answer, and then Martin walked away. After this, Zimmerman got out of his car again to look for him, and that’s when the fight happened.
I don’t know whether the father was relaying it correctly, or whether the detective was relaying Zimmerman’s own account, but that’s the only version I’ve heard of the “lost two minutes.”
I have wondered also whether Zimmerman ever called his wife. This would certainly be known to the police, but I haven’t read it anyplace.
,,,, if Martin had gotten Zimmerman’s gun away from him and killed him no one in the media would have even known or cared about the details and it would be considered just another run of the mill homocide where a black kills someone . It happens everyday ,,,, the difference is 0bama’s minions need a distraction from the dismal economy and an excuse to riot .
--
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
§ 782.04(2), Fla.Stat.
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
--
The jury will also be instructed as to manslaughter and justifiable and excusable homicide, the standard instructions for which are:
--
7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof. 2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
--
On this statement of the law and my understanding of the facts, Zimmerman is not guilty of anything because the homicide was justifiable or excusable.
I surmise that the special prosecutor's argument is going to be that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation and shot Martin as a vigilante angry about break ins in the neighborhood and determined to deal with a young Black male of the sort who commonly responsible for such crimes. I do not see this argument as sufficient for a valid conviction.
Can't argue with you here. I have said the charging documents aren't going to be thrown out anyway so it's all kind of a moot discussion.
But technically, the documents don't cover probable cause on all elements of the offense.
They could have gone with an even more bare-bones charging document that at least hangs together and technically covers the bases. But they didn't.
Once they adopted the theory of the case that the shooting was in connection with a struggle, then they needed to cover the point that they had probable cause that the shooting was unlawful under those circumstances. They never covered that point as a technical matter.
So you say you are a prosecuting attorney who doesn't know the pluralization rules of the English language? Interesting. How do I go about obtaining a law license?
___________________________________________________________
Garbage. Among the things you listed as 'facts' in this post were that 'police told him not to follow but he did' and 'no evident significant injury to Zimmerman despite claim he was so injured'
You've been challenged to back up those claims but AFAIK, have not done so. IMO, you are not giving an honest argument.
We certainly do know some facts and from this post it's clear that you don't know or have chosen to ignore them. It sure makes one wonder how many people you railroaded into prison in your 25 years as a prosecutor.
fta: 02) When the 911 operator said to not get involved, Zimmerman disobeyed the operator and confronted Martin. By not obeying the order, this can be grounds for obstruction of justice, an arrestable offense, therefore, satisfying two of three within the laws of second degree murder.
****************************
I haven’t read any comments here yet. The author’s second premise is blatantly incorrect. That premise doesn’t satisfy any prerequisite for second degree murder, because it’s false.
Zim did NOT disobey any lawful order. The 911 phone operator only said “we don’t need you to do that”, after Zim said he was going to follow Martin to see what he was up to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.