Zimmerman trial

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I'm glad we haven't had any meltdowns here at FA regarding the Zimmerman trial. Such things can spin up quite quickly and cause far more heat than light. At the end, it seems where most people stand depends most upon where they sit. Meaning, one's opinion seems more related to one's position on such matters in general rather than on the specific facts.

However, I ran across an interesting tidbit on the interwebs. The jury instructions. They can be found at: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

The only question I ask is, do you think them "fair"?

 

[Sloop John D]

I did see one issue that could have been significant.

Under the section for excusable homicide, number 2 describes a "passion killing," which is generally treated by most states as being a lesser form of murder and is sometimes referred to as 3rd degree murder. It normally results in a lighter sentence, but does not mean the accused is not guilty of murder.

I'm not sure if the criminal laws of Florida are unique in this regard or if this was a mistake, but I could definitely see the jury finding this was a passion killing and, based on the jury instruction, finding Zimmerman not guilty for having committed an excusable murder.

 

[tranquility]

I did see one issue that could have been significant.

Under the section for excusable homicide, number 2 describes a "passion killing," which is generally treated by most states as being a lesser form of murder and is sometimes referred to as 3rd degree murder. It normally results in a lighter sentence, but does not mean the accused is not guilty of murder.

I'm not sure if the criminal laws of Florida are unique in this regard or if this was a mistake, but I could definitely see the jury finding this was a passion killing and, based on the jury instruction, finding Zimmerman not guilty for having committed an excusable murder.

Part of the problem I had with the instructions is I though they were rather technical. Live and learn. But, if you re-read the portion you speak of, it would not include the intentional act of shooting someone on purpose--even if passion overruled. In my murder outline (Where you discuss the facts through common law where a person ended up dead on some test.), manslaughter would be the crime if a person intentionally killed another where passion overcame the malice aforethought portion of murder elements. I am sure some states called such a thing third degree murder.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I'm glad we haven't had any meltdowns here at FA regarding the Zimmerman trial. Such things can spin up quite quickly and cause far more heat than light. At the end, it seems where most people stand depends most upon where they sit. Meaning, one's opinion seems more related to one's position on such matters in general rather than on the specific facts.

However, I ran across an interesting tidbit on the interwebs. The jury instructions. They can be found at: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

The only question I ask is, do you think them "fair"?

If those were valid jury instructions for FL, then I am really glad that I have no loved ones living in FL.

That boy did not have to die.

 

[RedemptionMan]

George Zimmerman
had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not
merely
negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death


This is a fine line, the only thing unclear and could have led to a conviction of manslaughter would be the intent portion of the above statement. The only reason he could have been charged with a crime of any kind is due to the fact he brought a gun to a fist fight which is worse than bringing a gun to a knife fight. His defense argued successfully that the concrete was a deadly weapon. I personally, as a firearm enthusiast and CCW holder find Zimmerman's actions suspect. I believe he had some intent to cause bodily damage and harm before he approached the suspect knowing he was armed and the suspect was not. While Zimmerman was justified in his actions, he has given everyone who carries a firearm a bad name. Like we're all out for blood or to cause harm when we should just use it in deadly situations. I find his lack of judgement indefensible and his actions warranting civil proceedings. Whether or not the instructions were clear, this guy killed an unarmed teenager who IMO could not have killed him other than given him a good whooping.

Zimmerman will live with this the rest of his life and will always be looking over his shoulder, if I was him, I would find another country not just state to live in.

 

[tranquility]

If those were valid jury instructions for FL, then I am really glad that I have no loved ones living in FL.

That boy did not have to die.

So, you're saying they seemed unfair?

 

[tranquility]

George Zimmerman
had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not
merely
negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death


This is a fine line, the only thing unclear and could have led to a conviction of manslaughter would be the intent portion of the above statement. The only reason he could have been charged with a crime of any kind is due to the fact he brought a gun to a fist fight which is worse than bringing a gun to a knife fight. His defense argued successfully that the concrete was a deadly weapon. I personally, as a firearm enthusiast and CCW holder find Zimmerman's actions suspect. I believe he had some intent to cause bodily damage and harm before he approached the suspect knowing he was armed and the suspect was not. While Zimmerman was justified in his actions, he has given everyone who carries a firearm a bad name. Like were all out for blood or to cause harm when we should just use it in deadly situations. I find his lack of judgement undefended and his actions warranting civil proceedings. Whether or not the instructions were clear, this guy killed an unarmed teenager who IMO could not have killed him other than given him a good whooping.

Zimmerman will live with this the rest of his life and will always be looking over his shoulder, if I was him, I think I would find another country not just state to live in.

But, were they fair or unfair?

 

[RedemptionMan]

But, were they fair or unfair?

How can I say they are fair or unfair? I do not like the way they are written and laid out so in that regard I would say that they are unfair slanted toward defense. It definitely helped the defense but those prosecutors were not the smartest cookies in the shed hence why they work a salaried state job and the defense team are high paid professionals. This case got way out of hand, simple assault in Florida which T. Marten did is a Misdemeanor and not a felony so at the point he was shot. He was an unarmed teenager committing a misdemeanor and was killed for it. I am sorry but if I was a prosecutor involved in this case, I would have done things totally different. The defense proof would have to been on them proving that he was a violent criminal committing a violent act which could have resulted in death or serious (Felony) level bodily injury.

I think Zimmer man spent 100s and 100s of thousands of dollars on a defense and got his monies worth. Fair or unfair he won his case. I just am glad I am not him.....

 

[LdiJ]

George Zimmerman
had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not
merely
negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death


This is a fine line, the only thing unclear and could have led to a conviction of manslaughter would be the intent portion of the above statement. The only reason he could have been charged with a crime of any kind is due to the fact he brought a gun to a fist fight which is worse than bringing a gun to a knife fight. His defense argued successfully that the concrete was a deadly weapon. I personally, as a firearm enthusiast and CCW holder find Zimmerman's actions suspect. I believe he had some intent to cause bodily damage and harm before he approached the suspect knowing he was armed and the suspect was not. While Zimmerman was justified in his actions, he has given everyone who carries a firearm a bad name. Like were all out for blood or to cause harm when we should just use it in deadly situations. I find his lack of judgement undefended and his actions warranting civil proceedings. Whether or not the instructions were clear, this guy killed an unarmed teenager who IMO could not have killed him other than given him a good whooping.

Zimmerman will live with this the rest of his life and will always be looking over his shoulder, if I was him, I think I would find another country not just state to live in.

Personally, I don't think he was justified under common law. Under FL law, that's different, but under common law I see no justification. When he called the police they told him to back off and let them handle it. He chose not to do so. As a result, an unarmed young man is dead. An unarmed, young man who if HE had killed George Zimmerman, should have equally been acquitted under FL law, and even more so under common law, as he was the one being pursued, without justification, by an armed man who was not an officer of the law.

I actually feel very sorry for George Zimmerman. I don't think that he is a bad person. I think that he got caught up in his neighborhood watch role and didn't back off when he should have. I believe that when the whole thing dies down and he has to live with himself, that its going to eat away at him for the rest of his life. However, I do believe that in just about any other state (with a few exceptions) that he would at least have been convicted of some form of manslaughter...and might have been better off in the long run if he had.

 

[tranquility]

Personally, I don't think he was justified under common law. Under FL law, that's different, but under common law I see no justification. When he called the police they told him to back off and let them handle it. He chose not to do so. As a result, an unarmed young man is dead. An unarmed, young man who if HE had killed George Zimmerman, should have equally been acquitted under FL law, and even more so under common law, as he was the one being pursued, without justification, by an armed man who was not an officer of the law.

I actually feel very sorry for George Zimmerman. I don't think that he is a bad person. I think that he got caught up in his neighborhood watch role and didn't back off when he should have. I believe that when the whole thing dies down and he has to live with himself, that its going to eat away at him for the rest of his life. However, I do believe that in just about any other state (with a few exceptions) that he would at least have been convicted of some form of manslaughter...and might have been better off in the long run if he had.

The only thing I see in the instructions that isn't really close to common law is in the "justifiable use of deadly force" section:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.

The bolded section is the "stand your ground" section that a minority (albeit a large minority) of states have similarly.

The defense claimed self-defense and the stand your ground portion was not brought up at trial as far as I'm aware.

 

[swalsh411]

When he called the police they told him to back off and let them handle it.

He wasn't talking to the police. He was talking to a 911 operator.

The defense claimed self-defense and the stand your ground portion was not brought up at trial as far as I'm aware.

You are correct. It was not used as a defense. I'm not even sure why it was in the jury instructions. Z's team could have used the same defense in any other State. (even NJ, IL, and NY!)


My opinion of the case may be offensive to some, but so be it.

Other than the usual crowd who will believe anything a black person on TV tells them as an excuse to riot, I can see how there are reasonable people, with a fairly decent knowledge of the law, who have issues with this verdict.

However, the key piece of evidence the prosecution was missing was something to show Z aggressively confronted M. If there was a witness who testified that Z jumped out of his car and yelled "Hey kid (or even better, n word) what the hell are you doing here?" and then ran towards M like he was going to assault him, I think it would have been a guilty verdict. However the medical facts and one of the defense's key witnesses supported Z's claim that he was being attacked. The prosecutor simply had no evidence to dispute that, and so Z was rightly acquitted.

edit: Sometimes it's important to remember that, in our system, a legally sound verdict is more important than an emotionally (or even morally) satisfying one.

 

[tranquility]

He wasn't talking to the police. He was talking to a 911 operator.



You are correct. It was not used as a defense. I'm not even sure why it was in the jury instructions. Z's team could have used the same defense in any other State. (even NJ, IL, and NY!)


My opinion of the case may be offensive to some, but so be it.

Other than the usual crowd who will believe anything a black person on TV tells them as an excuse to riot, I can see how there are reasonable people, with a fairly decent knowledge of the law, who have issues with this verdict.

However, the key piece of evidence the prosecution was missing was something to show Z aggressively confronted M. If there was a witness who testified that Z jumped out of his car and yelled "Hey kid (or even better, n word) what the hell are you doing here?" and then ran towards M like he was going to assault him, I think it would have been a guilty verdict. However the medical facts and one of the defense's key witnesses supported Z's claim that he was being attacked. The prosecutor simply had no evidence to dispute that, and so Z was rightly acquitted.

edit: Sometimes it's important to remember that, in our system, a legally sound verdict is more important than an emotionally (or even morally) satisfying one.

Well, I tried to keep this on point to the jury instructions. There, the stand your ground law would not be the law in the majority of states. (Unless we are talking about being inside one's home.)

The facts, while debatable are not what my question is about. It is about how fair the instructions were. Fair either in a description as to what the law is in FL, or what the law should be.

If we frolic and detour too much, this thread will be closed. Either by me or the moderator.

As I said, where most people stand depends most upon where they sit. That was not my goal. (Although recognizing my goal is the the rule of forum law.)

 

[LdiJ]

The only thing I see in the instructions that isn't really close to common law is in the "justifiable use of deadly force" section:

The bolded section is the "stand your ground" section that a minority (albeit a large minority) of states have similarly.

The defense claimed self-defense and the stand your ground portion was not brought up at trial as far as I'm aware.

I understand Tranq...but:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.

George Zimmerman didn't have to be there. In fact, law enforcement instructed him not to be there. "Stand your ground" would not have been an issue if he had obeyed the instructions of law enforcement. He wasn't "there" first and therefore stood his ground. He was "there" only because he disregarded law enforcement instruction and put himself there.

I find this frightening...and the instructions to the jury frightening. Not because I believe that George Zimmerman is evil, its because I fear what the future might hold as a result of this.

The jury instructions contained a lot of information about "standing your ground", but none of the instructions to the jury contained any language that indicated that the jury had to consider whether or not he actually was someplace where he could/should have been validly standing his ground. In my opinion he was not. In my opinion someone died because he chose to be somewhere that he did not need to be, well after the fact.

 

[TigerD]

George Zimmerman didn't have to be there. In fact, law enforcement instructed him not to be there.

No law enforcement officer ever told George Zimmerman to leave where he was at.

"Stand your ground" would not have been an issue if he had obeyed the instructions of law enforcement. He wasn't "there" first and therefore stood his ground. He was "there" only because he disregarded law enforcement instruction and put himself there.

Nonsense and completely unsupported by the facts.

I find this frightening...and the instructions to the jury frightening. Not because I believe that George Zimmerman is evil, its because I fear what the future might hold as a result of this.

I agree for different reasons. It is shocking that in 2012-13 so many people could be whipped into a racial feeding frenzy on such a crap story and still believe the lies after the truth has come out.

The jury instructions contained a lot of information about "standing your ground", but none of the instructions to the jury contained any language that indicated that the jury had to consider whether or not he actually was someplace where he could/should have been validly standing his ground. In my opinion he was not. In my opinion someone died because he chose to be somewhere that he did not need to be, well after the fact.

The kid died because he was a drug addled thug who savagely attacked someone. Fortunately that someone was armed.

DC

 

[swalsh411]

In fact, law enforcement instructed him not to be there. "Stand your ground" would not have been an issue if he had obeyed the instructions of law enforcement.

A 911 operator is not "law enforcement". You can say "the 911 operator told him not to follow" but to say "law enforcement told him not to follow" is factually incorrect.