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.
The dispatcher did that TWICE. And if "we don't need you to do that" is an "order", then "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." is a Commandment.
Now this case, if I were prosecuting, I would argue the following for each charge:
********************
Since you were a prosecutor, I understand why you would put forth your three arguments; because prosecutors lose their jobs if they can’t lie or significantly stretch the truth to get convictions. ........Before you get upset with me, I understand that you were probably just saying those three arguments are indicative of what a prosecutor might put forth before the court. All three should fail in this case if any on the jury can think rationally.
1. Zim didn’t talk to police and they did not order him to do or not do anything. He was only talking to a 911 operator who suggested “we don’t need you to do that” when Zim said he was going to follow the guy. He did not “chase down” the guy and, infact, told the operator that the guy ran away and he lost him.
2. Zim’s voice on the audio tapes seemed to be very calm and just was telling what was happening. He was not “angry to the point of passion”, as you would argue.
3. Zim did not ignore any “police instructions” because he had not received any. After saying he had lost the guy who seemed to be running toward the other entrance, he was walking back to his vehicle.
Also, the Stand Your Ground law isn’t in play here. Zim’s former attys. stated a couple of weeks ago that it didn’t apply because this was a simple matter of self-defense.
OK, I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m missing something. Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him bashing his head against the ground. That would indicate that retreat was not possible, making “Stand Your Ground” irrelevant. If that is true and the jury thinks a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position would feel his life was in danger, then it’s self defense and GZ should be acquitted on all counts.
If the jury thinks a reasonable person would NOT think Zimmerman was at risk of death or serious injury, then it’s not self defense and murder 2 seems reasonable.
If Zimmerman is lying about Martin being on top of him, then the jury isn’t going to believe anything he says and he’s toast.
Does anything else really matter from a legal standpoint?
Looks like your involuntary is your strongest argument, yet still weak on known facts, Zimmerman’s lack of “police training”, for instance, O’Mara could let a first year associate handle the light lifting.
I don’t doubt your possible attack plans, it’s just the known evidence is on Zimmerman’s side.
Our Esteemed Prosecutor has a different view of the evidence. He maintains that police told Zimmerman 'not to follow but he did' and that there was 'no evident significant injury to Zimmerman'. See link in post #79 above.
I could be way off, it looks like he’s giving us his version of a little peek at the prosecution’s way of thinking.
The thing is, the prosecution is not interested in the facts of the case at all, because it appears the facts favor the defense. They are only interested in how few they can get away with being introduced.
Remember ... probable cause is a pretty low threshold. Also,I am going off facts I see and read which is absolutely NO substitute for Prosecutorial investigation. In no particular order...
He refuses to explain himself despite multiple challenges, so he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, IMO.
Yelp....Makes me wonder if Corey even listened to the tape.
Good synopsis of the case as it now stands. There is a poll at the site. Currently 59% do NOT believe Zimmerman should have been charged with 2nd degree.
You could very well be correct when it comes to a conviction. If I were the Defense Atty I would really hammer away at the fact that Zimmerman had broken off the pursuit and was jumped from behind. Indeed, that is the only defense he has ... but it could be a good defense if I could find the facts to support that theory.
Again .... probable cause is light years different from “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
He called the regular number, not 911. I read that's what Neighborhood Watch volunteers are instructed to do, at least in cases where there's merely a suspicious person, not an actual emergency.
It's apparently the same group of operators, however. The guy who took the call lists his occupation as "911 operator" on his Myspace page.
The recording certainly indicates that. Wind noise from George's mouthpiece stops almost immediately after this exchange, DISPATCHER: "we don't need you to do that", GZ:"OK".
I believe any attempt made by the prosecution to make hay with the whole "pursuit" angle, is easily dispatched with an earlier portion of the tape. DISPATCHER:"Just let me know if this guy does anything else." GZ:"OK". More importantly it shows that George followed instruction. First to 'keep an eye on' then to stop pursuit when the 'suggestion' was made.
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.