As a former Prosecutor of 25 years I am stunned Zimmerman wasn’t charged with Manslaughter. There is way more than enough probable cause to do so. I certainly expect he will be by the Special Prosecutor. I think 2nd Degree Murder is going to far, but this is somewhere between Involuntary and Voluntary.
An easy call.
based on what?
Which leads me to believe there are more exonerating facts that we haven’t heard yet.
I’m wondering what the EMTs’ reports say? Also, what if any evidence was collected at the scene? Any photos of blood spatter from Zimmerman getting his head bashed?
We don’t have all the facts yet...
lol
If Trayvon attacked George and George has the wounds described, it could be hard to charge George with manslaughter if the state has a self defense law in place.
That said, I think George will be charged with manslaughter and the charge will be a political charge more than a fact based charge.
I hope he has a good defense attorney that can make sure the make up of a potential jury isn’t slanted for conviction.
Based on what we have heard, the worst he could get would be involuntary manslaughter. But that won’t be enough for the race baiters, they want death.
Former prosecuter? Where did you used to prosecute, somewhere around Duke University? Might be an easy call but hardly an easy conviction.
Would you be charging manslaughter under
- Virginia law?
- California law?
- or Florida law?
Did you ever practice law in Florida....didn’t think so.
Manslaughter? To get a conviction, you would have to show no reasonable belief that Zimmerman was in danger...
“A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.”
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
“However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
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. “
http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm
On what basis. This is what we know:
1)Zimmerman spotted someone in the complex he didn't recognize who was acting suspicious, like he was on drugs, or something. (his words from the police call), and he started to follow him. (not illegal)
2)Trayvon noticed that Zimmerman was following him and complained to his girlfriend on the phone about it.
3)Zimmerman may or may not have started back to his truck after he lost sight of Trayvon.
4)At some point, they got close enough to each other (whether Zimmerman had found Trayvon and continued to follow him, or Trayvon jumped Zimmeman) to have a verbal confrontation (according to the girlfriend on the phone).
5)At some point the verbal confrontation turned into a physical confrontation, and there are no witnesses who saw how it became physical.
6)A witness did state that he saw Zimmerman on his back being beaten by Trayvon. Zimmerman shot Trayvon (or perhaps the gun went off as they struggled for control of it).
Now it would appear to me that if Zimmerman's story was the same as the witnesses for the parts of his story that the police can prove, it would tend to give credence to the parts of Zimmerman's story where there were no witnesses. Remember, when Zimmerman was telling his story to the police, he had no way of knowing what any witnesses may have seen. On the other hand, if the police found that Zimmerman's story didn't jive with the forensic evidence and the witness statements, that is a good clue that he may have been lying during the time there were no witnesses.
I can see this story from both sides. Zimmerman got his adrenalin up when he saw Trayvon, and Trayvon got his adrenalin up when he saw Zimmerman. They faced off and the testosterone took over. It matters a great deal who threw the first punch (to me at least), something we will never know for sure; but to convict Zimmerman, it seems to me that they would have to prove that it was Zimmerman who threw that first punch.
I’m not certain which state you practise law, but I practised in VA and there is evidence that in VA he would not be prosecuted.
If the facts show that Zimmerman’s head was being slammed into concrete and Zimmerman did not initiate the first physical contact, then he can use deadly force to defend himself in VA.
Quite frankly, prosecutors like you are the exact reason that "stand your ground" laws were written and passed in the first place.
Legislators got sick and tired of people like you dragging law-abiding citizens through the meat-grinder of a trial, forced to defend themselves against YOU after defending themselves against a more forthright kind of criminal assault.
In the UK?
Self defense is voluntary or voluntary manslaughter?
Mr Zimmerman should have just lay there like a wet noodle. Too bad for him that a thug did what only a thug can do. Get violent.
I’m glad you’re a former prosecutor.
As a former juror, Mr. Prosecutor, good luck getting a conviction. My fellow jurors and I stuffed the prosecutor on a ginned up PC case like this right after the city bought us lunch. Didn't even get to eat my french fries.
“An easy call.”
You’re must have been a lousy prosecutor. In no way is Martin’s physical attack not self-defense. Nothing Zimmerman did so far points to physical contact warranted by Martin.
Is Zimmerman indefensible? What if, after sustaining the smae injuries, he fought back with his hands, and Martin died as a result, would that also be manslaughter?
You were a waste of taxpayer money.