• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Manslaughter Likely for Zimmerman?

I think the defense animation should be allowed and the prosecution should then be allowed to produce their own animation showing their version of the events. Then Zimmy will go to jail or walk based on how impressed the jury is with the production value of the courtroom cartoons.(sarc)
Absurd.:roll:
 
(1)
"He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way"
Florida Statute 790.06
(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
1. Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05;
2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
6. Any polling place;
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
11. Any career center;
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

I do not see where it states "out of the car while knowing police were on their way"

(2)
"He followed someone on a dark and rainy night"
Searched for a while and couldn't find a statute disallowing this. Even under stalking.

(3)
"He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin"
And M muttered "Creepy Ass Cracker". Does this mean he loses his right to self defense?

(4)
"He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another"
Florida statutes 856.021 & 901.151 are the closest we get to addressing this and they only apply to sworn Law Enforcement.

In the State of Florida, a person can not be convicted of Manslaughter unless they break the law. If people could go to prison for making bad decisions then we would have to revert Australia back to a prison nation.
 
Okay, stream of consciousness here.....

I've heard of those tragic events where a parent thinks they hear a burglar at night so they get up with their gun and shoot at who they think is an intruder. It turns out that it's his daughter or son. If he had just stayed in bed, this wouldn't have happened. Should that man be convicted of manslaughter because he got out of bed?
Getting out of bed to investigate a strange noise in your own home is reasonable behavior. It's not reasonable to continue tailing a suspicious person you think is a criminal and high on drugs into the darkness between those buildings.
 
Manslaughter is still iffy, since following a suspicious person is not illegal.

It wasn't a GOOD idea, but it wasn't illegal.

But you never know for sure with a jury...
It is illegal if it's negligent.
 
Not really. Which of those actions, or even the sum total of all of those actions, would a juror consider as grounds to justify them deserving a severe beating from another person over? Remember that even being a total jerk is not grounds for a "justified" assault/battery. The shooting was in response to the assault/battery, what was the assault/battery justification? Surely not simple negligence justifies a "good ass whooping"?
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.
 
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.

Okay, so let's say that TM felt threatened and that's why he jumped GZ. At what point (if any) does GZ have the right to defend himself?
 
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.

So we are free to consider anyone (creepy?) "following" us a threat, not report that threat to anyone (except maybe our girlfreind) and then beat them senseless for making that "following" threat? If they manage to successfully defend themselves then they will face criminal charges?
 
So we are free to consider anyone (creepy?) "following" us a threat, not report that threat to anyone (except maybe our girlfreind) and then beat them senseless for making that "following" threat? If they manage to successfully defend themselves then they will face criminal charges?

Why would Trayvon be a threat to GZ.. He wasn't profiling, hunting for black burglars, calling the police, following...
 
Being a jerk does not warrant being struck -- acting in a threatening manner does. Following someone from one end of a neighborhood to another for no apparent reason, in the rain and in the dark, first by car then by foot when there's no more street ... is threatening.
When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.
I believe that Zimm wanted to solicit a violent physical encounter so he could practice his "stand your ground " option with the loaded gun he knew was on his hip .
 
Is manslaughter likely for Zimmerman? | HLNtv.com

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:



  1. He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
  2. He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
  3. He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
  4. He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.



If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.




Zimmerman has more of a chance at being convicted of manslaughter than Murder 2. Whether or not he will be? Don't know.

I would say however that if I was on the Jury I would not convict him of such. Z had just as much right to find out where M went as M had a right to walk along where he did that night.
 
Why would Trayvon be a threat to GZ.. He wasn't profiling, hunting for black burglars, calling the police, following...

TM was not a threat to GZ until he dicided to teach that "creepy ass cracker" what following a law abiding teenager should feel like. At that point TM was more than a mere threat, he was in the act of committing a forcible felony - game on, for deadly force in self defense.
 
Last edited:
When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.
I believe that Zimm wanted to solicit a violent physical encounter so he could practice his "stand your ground " option with the loaded gun he knew was on his hip .

Out of curiosity, since there are 40+ seconds of someone screaming for help doesn't it make sense at some point during that time the person doing the beating could have stopped?
 
When Zimmy was confronted VERBALLY by Trayvon with the question "Why are you following me for" Zim was given a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a neighborhood Watchman calming the frightened teenager's fears of being stalked by a stranger with unknown intentions. By his own account Zimm chose not to identify himself and remained confrontational with his answer. Then reached into his pocket for what could only be construed by the circumstances as a potential weapon.
I believe that Zimm wanted to solicit a violent physical encounter so he could practice his "stand your ground " option with the loaded gun he knew was on his hip .
Where has it been submitted by evidence or testimony that TM asked GZ why he was following him?
 
TM was not a threat to GZ until he dicided to teach that "creepy ass cracker" what following a law abiding teenager should feel like. At that point TM was more than a mere threat, he was in the act of committig a forcible felony - game on.

I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"

It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.
 
yes, but what crime was TM committing when GZ claimed he "went for my phone to call 911"?

I'm sure he interpreted Martin's actions as agressive and feared the worse. Wouldn't you if someone was hiding in the dark and then suddenly sprang out at you the way Martin did?

Never mind... It's takes an objective person to answer that question.
 
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"

It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.

Again, When did he ask this? the only Testimony of words between TM & GZ that I've heard where TM asking GZ "What the F*** is your problem?" and GZ's response of "I don't have a problem." or "Nothing". He didn't quite remember his response.
 
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"

It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.

I'm sure he asked it just as sweet and innocently as you imagine he did sharon.
 
Where has it been submitted by evidence or testimony that TM asked GZ why he was following him?
Rachel's testimony used those words. Zimmerman's version was "you got a problem?"
In either case Zimmerman had a perfect opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and explain just what his problem with Trayvon's behavior was.
He chose not to, instead reaching into his pocket, soliciting the violent response I believe he was looking for.
 
Okay, so let's say that TM felt threatened and that's why he jumped GZ. At what point (if any) does GZ have the right to defend himself?
Legally, I don't know that he does. I don't believe self defense laws exist so that one can provoke another and then kill them.
 
I seriously doubt that.. TM faced George and asked , "Why are you following me?"

It was an adult question.. and should have been answered.

I agree that assertion was made, but GZ did then allegedly reply with his own "adult" question; except that the same witness changed the words of the GZ reply in her sworn statements, one made in front of TM's mother (strange witness interviewing procedure?) and the other in open court - yet you seem to accept this assertion/allegation as a "fact". GZ's statement did not agree with that assertion, his version had a completly different "dialog" as I recall. Many pieces of this puzzle are far from clear, and will forever remain so. You have reasonable doubt about GZ's version, I have reasonable doubt as to the state's witness version - only the jury can make the legal call.
 
So we are free to consider anyone (creepy?) "following" us a threat, not report that threat to anyone (except maybe our girlfreind) and then beat them senseless for making that "following" threat? If they manage to successfully defend themselves then they will face criminal charges?
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:
 
Legally, I don't know that he does. I don't believe self defense laws exist so that one can provoke another and then kill them.

So if a person felt threatened (but really weren't in any danger at all), jumped the guy and started punching him in the face and causing lacerations on his head from the concrete, that person (who really wasn't a threat at all) should just lay there and take it for however long the guy wants to beat him up?
 
I agree that assertion was made, but GZ did then allegedly reply with his own "adult" question; except that the same witness changed the words of the GZ reply in her sworn statements, one made in front of TM's mother (strange witness interviewing procedure?) and the other in open court - yet you seem to accept this assertion/allegation as a "fact". GZ's statement did not agree with that assertion, his version had a completly different "dialog" as I recall. Many pieces of this puzzle are far from clear, and will forever remain so. You have reasonable doubt about GZ's version, I have reasonable doubt as to the state's witness version - only the jury can make the legal call.
The exact words are not relevant to the fact that all agree that Zimmerman had an opportunity to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman and why he was following Trayvon.
he CHOSE not to...
Why would he do that?
 
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:

But would you attack that "threat"? You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to gunfight twice.
 
I would think most prudent people in Trayvon's sneakers would call the police. That said, I can't say I would have called police when under those circumstances when I was 17. :shrug:

He was into fighting. He thought he could take soft ole Zimmerman.
 
Back
Top Bottom