Zimmerman Jury Asks Judge for Clarification Regarding Instructions for Manslaughter

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters / NBC News

@Reuters: RT @LesterHoltNBC: Zimmerman jury asks judge for clarification regarding instructions for manslaughter. Full details shortly on @nbcnightl.

JURORS IN ZIMMERMAN TRIAL HAVE QUESTION

By TAMARA LUSH
— Jul. 13 6:03 PM EDT

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Jurors in the George Zimmerman trial have a question about the charge of manslaughter.

The jurors sent the judge a note asking for clarification on the charge after deliberating for about eight hours Saturday.

The six female jurors began deliberating Friday afternoon on whether Zimmerman committed a crime when he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder. He claims he shot the 17-year-old Martin in self-defense.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-groups-gather-await-zimmerman-verdict

[BainsBane]

1. You forgot the link

[Hissyspit]

2. No I didn't.

There is none yet.

[BainsBane]

5. I thought "link to source"

meant you would link to the source?

[Hissyspit]

8. LBN rules say you can post without link and update later.

And now there is a link there.

Believe it or not, I actually know what I'm doing.

[BainsBane]

12. I'm not criticizing

I know you don't have to have a link. I just thought you were saying you would provide one and had forgotten.

[Hissyspit]

15. O.k.

Sorry for sounding cross.

I like your avatar.

[Tx4obama]

28. The part that said "Read more: Link to source" is put in there automatically by the DU software

... when someone posts a LBN OP without putting a link in the link text box on the LBN post form.

Just thought I'd let everyone know for future reference

[BainsBane]

30. Ohhhh

I gotcha. I didn't know that. Now it makes sense. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
I've done LBN posts like twice and they've been locked, so I've given up. I just post stuff in GD so I don't know the routine in LBN very well.

[FarPoint]

6. Just turn on MSNBC

They are discussing the sidebar/jury request now.

[BainsBane]

7. Thanks

[FarPoint]

3. Tying together loose ends,

crossing T's and dotting I's so to speak... getting the details of both types of murder charges I believe. Guilty is ultimate decision. Decision will be tonight....in my humble opinion.

[PoliticAverse]

4. AP: Jurors in the George Zimmerman trial have a question about the charge of manslaughter.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-groups-gather-await-zimmerman-verdict

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Jurors in the George Zimmerman trial have a question about the charge of manslaughter.

The jurors sent the judge a note asking for clarification on the charge after deliberating for about eight hours Saturday.

[7962]

9. Adding manslaughter gave the jury a way out of aquittal

Murder was not proven in the trial. They may NOT know that manslaughter could put him away for almost the same amount of time as murder.
IMO, they either find him not guilty or give him the lesser of the two.

[davidpdx]

18. Yep it did

I think without that there may have been a higher chance the jury would have taken his side. I'm pretty optimistic that they'll convict him on the manslaughter charge. It may not be the best outcome for those of us who want him put away, but it is better than nothing.

[HockeyMom]

20. Manslaughter is still a Felony

He will serve time, and just as important, he will not be able to own a gun in Florida being a convicted Felon.

[DeschutesRiver]

21. Couldnt he get up to 30 years if guilty of manslaughter in FL?

this question seems to rule out not guilty as one of the options they are considering.

It shouldn't be much longer now before we know which charge he gets.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Florida - Manslaughter with a firearm:

A judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can
impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

Up to 30 years in prison.
Up to 30 years of probation.
Up to $10,000 in fines.

[DeschutesRiver]

45. Thanks for that info. nt

[davidpdx]

40. Yeah, that's what I was saying, that it will put him away

But I think had manslaughter not been possible, he might be more likely to walk. It wouldn't be as long as the 2nd degree murder conviction though.

[dragonlady]

41. He won't be able to vote either

In Florida, for this type of crime, a felon's right to vote can be restored only by executive clemency after seven years following release from prison and no new felony convictions.

[Kablooie]

49. Yeah. The "depraved mind" standard of Florida 2nd degree murder is pretty hard to achieve.

I personally would say he fit that standard but it it's definition is vague enough for someone to disagree

[onehandle]

10. Murdering gun fuck. nt

[Deep13]

11. evaluating the self defense claim is my guess.

they are trying to decide if the defense story amounts to s.d. and if so is it complete or does it merely reduce murder to m.s. They may be dithering between murder and manslaughter or between manslaughter and acquittal. If they are not sure Z demonstrated any s.d. at all, it is the former. If they believe it was s.d., but they don't know if force was excessive, then it is the latter.

[onenote]

14. I didn't see any jury instruction about self defense allowing reduction of the charge

[Deep13]

16. No?

That's strange. It's like law school 101 stuff. So if the state proved intent to kill, it's murder. If not, it's manslaughter.

[PoliticAverse]

17. Here is the entire jury instruction...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

(Direct link to a .pdf version: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf )

Note from the instructions:

In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death

[onenote]

19. The instructions specifically state that self defense is a defense as to both

second degree murder and manslaughter.

[Deep13]

22. huh. nt

[jessie04]

23. Do you have better link ?

nt

[PoliticAverse]

24. Here's a direct link to a .pdf version of the instructions...

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf

[jessie04]

25. Thank you.

[maindawg]

37. exactly

Z is an idiot. He shot the kid fully understanding the liability involved. He is guilty of murder by manslaughter. Being an idiot does not excuse you.

[alp227]

13. WDBO-FM News 96.5 has had live coverage this hour

News965.com is the website, or search News 96.5 WDBO in the TuneIn or iHeartRadio apps. (ETA) WDBO is simulcasting much of sister TV station WFTV - http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

[Ratty]

27. Legal question about manslaughter

If I was the jury I'd be confused too. So do you have to intend to kill somebody in order for it to be manslaughter? Seems to me you don't, for example drunk driving, leaving a child in a hot car - weren't there even cases of parents being convicted of manslaughter for not seeking medical for their children on religious grounds? So manslaughter might be if Zimmerman wasn't looking to kill anybody but his actions of carrying a gun, following and confronting Trayvon in spite of police telling him not to, etc., led to the death.

[RBInMaine]

29. It is the negligent and/or reckless killing of another.

It varies slightly from state to state, but that is generally what it is. Negligence/Recklessness is generally the disregard of the risks involved in a situation that you should have known, under the circumstances, were there. For example, as you say, driving drunk and running over someone thereby killing them. That could be so called "vehicular manslaughter" because the killing wasn't premeditated or the result of completely willful intent, but you know better than to drink and drive, know that you could kill someone if you do, and you do it anyway. There is criminal liability there. Another example could be that you are mad, acting recklessly with a gun in your apartment, you fire a whole bunch of shots, and one of them somehow hits someone and kills them. That could be manslaughter.

In the Zimmerman case, I think there is a good case for it. He profiled Trayvon and assumed he was up to no good. He pursued him against all good judgement, training as a crime watch captain, and the advice of the dispatcher. His actions led to a mutual physical confrontation with Trayvon who had as much right to defend HIMself as Zimmerman did to defend himself. Without full justification, and after a string of negligent and reckless actions, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon to end a confrontation HIS actions initiated against all better judgement. You don't get to initiate an incident then shoot the other person dead when that person defends HIMself. He willingly and knowingly failed to appreciate his actions which he knew could have led to Trayvon getting killed given that he had a loaded gun. And Zimmerman's statements after the incident shows he lied repeatedly to justify what he had done. I think he knew he acted hastily, negligently/recklessly, and with very poor judgement, even to a criminal level, and that he had to do all he could to justify it. That is why he obviously lied, and lied, and lied again.

[Ratty]

33. Thanks

The PDF of the jury instructions that PoliticAvers put up were interesting but some of it seemed inconsistent and therefore confusing. I was reading this 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

So I was thinking he had a right to be there. Whether he was engaged in something unlawful is perhaps debatable, but he probably wasn't. Whether he believed he was facing harm is also up for debate. I can see this paragraph being used to acquit him. But other places in the instructions seem to say different.

So I agree Zimmerman was negligent and reckless, and certainly he knew his loaded gun could lead to Martin's death as a result of those reckless actions. Other parts of the instructions seem to say negligence isn't a high enough standard for manslaughter. But knowing he had a loaded gun that could kill somebody, seems to me that's the added factor that could push it over to manslaughter at the very least. I obviously don't know law and I'm not even going to try to wrap my head around the finer points of a second degree conviction. Personally, I think this guy needs to go to prison for something.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Zimmerman's case is not based on Stand Your Ground. It's a basic self defense case.

The murdering fuck knew that he couldn't win on a SYG argument.

[24601]

52. Actually, the difference is that a SYG hearing would be a judge only, not put before a jury.

No duty to retreat language was in existing law before the 2005 SYG statute.

[RBInMaine]

35. But, was HE attacked, or did HE attack Trayvon? Was he in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

These are questions that can be very sketchy under this body of facts. If you read the post from this morning with the analysis of the lawyer who wrote the Op Ed in the Miami Herald, he makes a good case for manslaughter here. Search on it. I think it is entitled, "From this morning's Miami Herald."

[Ratty]

39. Found it. Thanks for the link

At the same time I stumbled across this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023246782#post7

aside from the demeaning message it sends to African American, an acquittal will basically say: If you want to start some shit with someone, just carry a gun. If you start losing the fight you started, just shoot your victim and its all good.

Wow, that says it all right there. But I like to try to put these feelings in the legal context of a trial and that's really tough for me.

[ColesCountyDem]

36. "Recklessness, negligence or 'wanton disdregard for human life' " is the standard in Illinois. n/t

[Ratty]

46. Negligence

From the jury instructions:

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that 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

The instructions make it very clear that this wasn't either justifiable or excusable homicide. The only part defining negligence is this:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that
duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence

It looks like it should come down to whether the homicide was merely "negligent."

[ColesCountyDem]

51. I agree. n/t

[onlyadream]

50. So perfectly said

I hope the prosecution was able to get what u said across.

[Kennah]

31. Manslaughter can cover a lot

Different states use different language, but it's usually an unlawful killing that involved gross negligence or recklessness, not malice. If something inherently dangerous was involved, like a gun or bomb, then simple negligence could be the standard for manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is said to constitute one of two stereotypical scenarios: love triangle killing or mutual combat killing.

If the jury believes Trayvon Martin turned the tables and attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman could be warranted in using force to defend himself. However, if they don't believe he was facing a grave threat, then hitting back could be justified, but shooting Trayvon Martin would be manslaughter.

Hoping they are weighing murder or manslaughter--not manslaughter or acquittal.

[RBInMaine]

32. What about the argument that Trayvon ALSO had the right to defend HIMself from

Zimmerman? If I was on that jury, my common sense would be nagging at my mind like hell over this point. Zimmerman initiates the contact, Trayvon is scared, they have a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman having decided he was an "asshole fucking punk up to no good", then during the course of the fight that Zimmerman's numb actions caused in the first place, he finds himself now having to fight back and so gets to use a gun?

THAT would be burning me up. From all I've seen on this case, and it is a fair amount, I would say that this guy acted recklessly, lied like hell afterward to justify his actions, and that his use of deadly force was not justified. I would go with manslaughter on this. Why not murder-2? Close, but just not ENOUGH "hate or ill will" to cause him to want to kill the kid from the get go. But a string of very, very stupid, rash, hasty, nasty, reckless, and negligent decisions which led to that kid's death, YES. And just not enough of a threat from Trayvon to justify shooting him. MINOR injuries, Trayvon had the right to defend HIMself too, and there had to be some distance from between Trayvon and Zimmerman for Zimmerman to get that gun out and shoot Trayvon. Strong case for manslaughter here.


What say you?

[customerserviceguy]

38. If there had been no weapon

and TM had beaten GZ to death, indeed he would have been able to use self defense as his reason. If, ironically, GZ had brought a gun and been unwilling or unable to use it before he was beaten to death, then it would have been used absolutely as a self defense excuse.

Self defense laws are construed very narrowly in some states, where the person claiming it has to have absolutely clean hands in the situation, with no other possibility of avoiding the use of deadly force. In other places (and to me, it looks like Florida is one such place) it could be argued by either party prevailing in a fight that ended in the death of the other one, no matter how the fight started.

[Kennah]

48. FS 776.041 covers Use of force by aggressor

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

While an aggressor is not precluded from using deadly force, it is a very narrow avenue.

Indeed Trayvon Martin did have the right to defend himself. The evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor appears strong. The evidence that Trayvon Martion was the aggressor appears either weak or non-existent.

My own opinion is that it's a slam dunk for manslaughter against Zimmerman. Evidence might not be as strong for murder two, but it's there.

[customerserviceguy]

42. It doesn't take a "grave threat"

Serious bodily injury is all that the statute mentions. One does not need to be a diagnostician in the middle of a fight to decide to use deadly force under Florida law, unlike the standard in many Northeastern states.

[Kennah]

47. Actually it says "imminent death or great bodily harm"

Great and grave are used many places, and crippling injuries is the plain language term that often applied.

[maindawg]

43. they are going to scream from the rooftops

manslaughter was added after the trial. They will appeal that . They did not defend, manslaughter. so, it wont stick, and we get to do this again next winter.merry fucking x mas.

[maindawg]

44. or should I say, 'Z - mas....