Posted on 07/11/2013 7:12:21 AM PDT by Perdogg
DRUDGE Headline: BREAKING: JUDGE ALLOWS LESSER CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER...
Holder and the DOJ been running this from about a week after the shooting
If I were the DEFENSE that is what I would say in my closing statement
“Members of the jury, I don’t know why the state wasted your time- as you can planly see, they have no case -even their own witnesses backed up the defense’s claims.”
Just make sure you find him guilty of something!
Not surprising, and on the live threads this has been discussed at some length.
There is so much reversible error on the part of “Judge Nelson” in this case that an appeal is certain in the unlikely event of a conviction on either charge. The state hasn’t met the burden of proof for either Murder 2 or manslaughter.
Yep, I think she just wants to punt.
That’s what I’m hoping, that at least one juror will say “not guilty” no matter how the persecutor and kangaroo judge try to push them into a conviction.
Hate to say it or even think it....but u have the Post of the day on this thread!....really really sad..
In Florida (as in most states) manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, and so the jury will also be read the manslaughter charge as a matter of course. 782.02. Manslaughter.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/
Exactly, he was just implementing Obama’s Green Initiative...
I doubt seriously if the jury would go for 30 years. But if they don't know that they are voting for a 30 year sentence then all bets are off. So the question that arises is:
WILL THE JURY BE TOLD WHAT THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES ARE FOR A MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE?
I assume so but with this judge I wonder.
As predicted. Based on the following, it seems we’d be talking the last item, criminally negligent manslaughter. The argument will be that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watcher who had a duty to be responsible toward Martin but blindly barged ahead despite the high probability of a confrontation. (Which is ridiculous, since reporting someone’s movements is what neighborhood watchers are supposed to do, and even then aren’t supposed to get the heads beat in, but are allowed to defend themselves.)
Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Constructive manslaughter
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.
For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[3]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused’s responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless drinking or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether “excessive force” was used or other factors.
It is also possible to be held civilly liable for a death (and pay damages) without being criminally liable (and going to prison), e.g. O.J. Simpson.
Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient’s oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).
Even if manslaughter why isn’t there reasonable doubt? If convicted I would think this is grounds for a mistrial. This is absolute crap. No way this should be allowed but will defer to others on florida law as I am reacting as a layman.
This trial is completely off of the tracks and this judge is blatently and bitterly biased against the defense. What a sad state of affairs the Just Us department has evoled into since the election of Zero!
I’m surprised they’re not adding Jaywalking.
In yesterday’s presser, MOM stated that the jury can be told but it’s up to the judge’s discretion. He didn’t sound too confident that this one would instruct the jury about that.
Do you know how long a prison term an involuntary manslaughter charge would be?
Or discharging a firearm in city limits.
From the beginning, the prosecution held all the good cards: the endorsement of the President of the United States, nearly all media, nearly all young people, all liberals, and nearly all blacks. The prosecution has had unlimited funds and legal resources. The judge was handpicked to avoid bad publicity for the State of Florida.
The defense, on the other hand, appears to have two overworked attorneys and the truth. The attorneys are worn to a frazzle, and the truth is being overruled.
Hope I’m wrong, but this looks bad for Mr. Zimmerman.
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.