Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

[seekerz]

I agree their has been “extraordinary venom” from posters on this topic. I’ve seen it from both sides. The uncharitable assumptions about the police, the accused and the victim have been pretty shameful. Your posts included.

Let’s all hope that justice prevails.

You find venom somewhere in here?:

My own impression?

It’s shocking to many adults that anyone can shoot a young stranger
who is armed with skittles and an iced tea - and then just walk
away from it without charges.

It’s shocking to me after working with young people for 40+ yrs
and especially shocking to hear folks (Catholic posters) demean
the dead individual for his choice of clothing.

Who is safe when such thinking runs riot?

The extraordinary interest?
Due perhaps to the extraordinary facts?
Due also perhaps to the extraordinary venom expressed in some posts?

Vulgar attire? yep - annoying.
Hoodies? Cheap, practical, washable, comfortable, yep

Hoodies as a sign of DANGER???
Never heard of it until these threads.

 

[gilliam]

Here is Florida’s definition of second-degree murder, and what will have to be proven by the prosecutor:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

[pnewton]

Right. He doesn’t have to prove self defense. He just has to present a compelling case to provide reasonable doubt. That’s what will make it difficult for the prosecution to get a 2nd degree murder conviction IMO.

I do not see how this can be anything but manslaughter, unless we have either testimony, physical evidence or a confession to show the Zimmerman completely disengaged from Martin and then shot him in the heat of the moment. That is unlikely.

 

[Godfollower]

Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does involve a premeditated plan to kill.
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-11-18-27-48

So the case will probably hinge on whether it was self defense or fighting over the gun or Zimmerman shot Trayvon in anger.

I note a hate crime was not alleged at this time.

From what little I know of the case, and the witness(s) have said, the prosecution is going to be hard press to overcome a self defense / fighting over the gun defense.

From the Florida statutes:

782.04 Murder.—
. . . .
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
. . . .

So, apparently, no premeditation is necessary for guilt to apply. They simply have to prove a depraved mind regardless of human life.

BUT . . .

In Florida, as elsewhere, manslaughter is a “lesser included” offense to murder (meaning that he can be convicted of manslaughter in place of murder if the jury is so instructed). In Florida, there are more than one kind of manslaughter:

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
. . . .

Florida Statutes sec. 782.07(1).

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Florida Statutes sec. 782.11.

Depending on what facts are out there that we still don’t know about, either of these statutes might apply.

 

[gilliam]

The prosecutor isn’t going for manslaughter

Maybe she is hoping he will plea deal.

It is obvious to me that Zimmerman is very, very scared and has been cooperating with the police from the time he phoned them prior to the incident.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The prosecutor will have to show that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman that it was self-defense, though that does not have as high a standard of proof.

Zimmerman has already admitted killing Martin. How can he possibly prove it was self-defense?

I live here in Seminole County. A couple of years ago a man shot his girlfried as she came home late one night. No charges were filed. He was dead wrong and she was just dead. I understand it was his home so don’t jump on me for that. However, the two are similar in that possibly innocent people were killed.

I’m not saying the two were the same but in the end the victim dies because of assumptions of the shooters.

 

[seekerz]

Forget the case. This incident is being used by professional, well-paid agitators to foment race violence. Many people are only too happy to comply. This is proven in the fake kiddie picture of the boy in question and a deliberate manipulation on the part of the media. This is what should be focused on and the cause of outrage.

Naturally, this is lost on most people.

You forget if you want to. Mothers like me, with children like Trayvon will NOT.

This is not just about one incident - this is about protecting our children from vigilantism. The right to defend property can NEVER justify killing random stranger’s kids - no material possession is worth a life, even if you are honestly convinced that someone is ‘up to no good’. That is just outside the teachings of the Christ I know.

 

[gilliam]

Zimmerman has already admitted killing Martin. How can he possibly prove it was self-defense?

He doesn’t have to prove self-defense. The State has to prove murder.

 

[rlg94086]

I do not see how this can be anything but manslaughter, unless we have either testimony, physical evidence or a confession to show the Zimmerman completely disengaged from Martin and then shot him in the heat of the moment. That is unlikely.

I also doubt physical evidence helping out much, but I wouldn’t be surprised at the possibility of a “heat of the moment” confession. That is one of the possible scenarios, in addition to self defense, that would help Zimmerman reduce his charges.

 

[seekerz]

Zimmerman has already admitted killing Martin. How can he possibly prove it was self-defense?

That would have been a good question for him to consider before getting out of his car. Unfortunately, to my understanding, the law does require him to advance a plausible account of why he feared for his life.

 

[Lujack]

Right. He doesn’t have to prove self defense. He just has to present a compelling case to provide reasonable doubt. That’s what will make it difficult for the prosecution to get a 2nd degree murder conviction IMO.

I don’t think we’re agreeing, though.

The prosecution has the duty to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin with the intention of killing him or at least causing grave bodily harm. They have the evidence to do that.

Zimmerman will likely claim self-defense, conceding the prosecution’s claim that he shot Martin with intent to kill or cause grave bodily harm, and argue that this is okay because he acted in self-defense. That is a claim for which Zimmerman has to advance evidence. No no one needs to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, they need to get 51%; if the jury thinks that the prosecution’s account that it was not self-defense is more likely than Zimmerman’s account that it was, he’ll be found guilty. If the jury thinks that Zimmerman’s account is more likely than the prosecution’s, then he’ll walk.

That’s how an affirmative defense works; now some earlier in the other thread have argued that the Stand Your Ground law changes that in self-defense cases, but I don’t see anything in the law that does.

 

[Lujack]

He doesn’t have to prove self-defense. The State has to prove murder.

He does have to prove self-defense. He’s making an affirmative defense and that requires the defendant to present evidence. Only if it was a home defense case would he not have to present evidence.

 

[seekerz]

I do not see how this can be anything but manslaughter, unless we have either testimony, physical evidence or a confession to show the Zimmerman completely disengaged from Martin and then shot him in the heat of the moment. That is unlikely.

That depends; if it was Martin’s voice on the tape, that calls in to question Zimmerman’s account of a life-threatening attack.

 

[gilliam]

I don’t think we’re agreeing, though.

The prosecution has the duty to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin with the intention of killing him or at least causing grave bodily harm. They have the evidence to do that.

Zimmerman will likely claim self-defense, conceding the prosecution’s claim that he shot Martin with intent to kill or cause grave bodily harm, and argue that this is okay because he acted in self-defense. That is a claim for which Zimmerman has to advance evidence. No no one needs to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, they need to get 51%; if the jury thinks that the prosecution’s account that it was not self-defense is more likely than Zimmerman’s account that it was, he’ll be found guilty. If the jury thinks that Zimmerman’s account is more likely than the prosecution’s, then he’ll walk.

That’s how an affirmative defense works; now some earlier in the other thread have argued that the Stand Your Ground law changes that in self-defense cases, but I don’t see anything in the law that does.

Juries have to be unanimous to convict.

The State has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (the jury will be instructed of that by the judge)

 

[7_Sorrows]

Um no.

I’m a Catholic GOPer too and you have just been added to my ignore list for your complete lack of charity in posting and name calling of other posters.

and i would like to point out that just because the username is Catholic GOPer, might not be who the poster really is.

 

[iamrefreshed]

That would have been a good question for him to consider before getting out of his car. Unfortunately, to my understanding, the law does require him to advance a plausible account of why he feared for his life.

As quickly as you are to protect yours I’m sure Zimmerman was to protect his. After multiple burglaries he performed an unpaid service to stop further ones. You can beat on him for poor judgement all you want but to play Monday morning quarterback is unfair.

 

[vz71]

That’s the thing, who said they messed up the investigation?

The people that disagreed with the findings.

 

[rlg94086]

The prosecution has the duty to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin with the intention of killing him or at least causing grave bodily harm. They have the evidence to do that.

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think you are correct.

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-definition.html
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.

I think you are talking about voluntary manslaughter:

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-manslaughter-definition.html
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.

 

[Lujack]

Juries have to be unanimous to convict.

The State has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (the jury will be instructed of that by the judge)

Please don’t take this as rude, but are you reading at all what I’m saying? If George Zimmerman makes the affirmative defense of claiming self-defense, he is conceding that he shot Trayvon Martin with the intent of killing or seriously harming him. That is what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In claiming self-defense, Zimmerman is conceding that portion of the case and introducing self-defense. Since self-defense is an affirmative defense, he has to present evidence for that. His burden of proof is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but it exists-he requires a preponderance of the evidence. That’s the 51% (I know juries have to be unanimous to convict).

If you disagree with that, disagree with it by all means. Others have argued that the stand your ground law changes the burden of proof for self-defense cases. However, please read and understand what I’m saying.

 

[Ceil-1]

You forget if you want to. Mothers like me, with children like Trayvon will NOT.

This is not just about one incident - this is about protecting our children from vigilantism. The right to defend property can NEVER justify killing random stranger’s kids - no material possession is worth a life, even if you are honestly convinced that someone is ‘up to no good’. That is just outside the teachings of the Christ I know.

---

You are just drinking the koolaid. No thinking. Just drinking. You know practically **nothing whatsoever **about this case.